I agree with Kirill, from the WMF point of view, as long as the chapter is informed and endorsed the creation of a user group within its covered territory, the WMF did its due diligence. After that, it is the responsibility of the chapter to do its homework about the local legal framework before endorsing the creation of the user group.
That being said, I would also be interested in hearing from Wikimedia UK's perspective on this new user group and the reasoning behind it.
Jean-Philippe Béland Vice President, Wikimedia Canada Coordinator, Wikimedians of North American Indigenous Languages User Group
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:37 AM Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 March 2018 at 15:03, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Descriptions of user group activities on Meta shouldn't be interpreted
as
legal documents under UK law (or any other legal code, for that
matter).
Hi Kirill,
In the spirit of an open and transparent process, could you please provide a link to the scope of the new approved User Group is published, as the one on Meta is not the one that AffCom reviewed with the UG application?
The Affiliations Committee publishes all of our application review and approval resolutions on Meta; the one for the group in question can be found at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Recogniti... .
Any questions regarding potential legal implications for Wikimedia UK should, of course, be directed to the chapter itself.
This brush-off is surprising, with the clear implication that AffCom has not approached WMUK with any question. I was mistaken in believing that AffCom had a responsibility to consider obvious legal implications, before approving a User Group that is granted the right to use official logos and the name "Wikipedia" and its language variants when advertising their events. It is disappointing to see that AffCom does not see their official process as needing to address these areas, which may well be a barrier to direct funding, legal recognition or represent a risk to other named pre-existing Affiliates within the scope of the proposed new UG.
Your implication is entirely incorrect; AffCom consulted with -- and received an endorsement from -- Wikimedia UK prior to approving the user group. However, we are neither experts in UK charity law nor empowered to speak on behalf of Wikimedia UK; consequently, any questions regarding the chapter's legal position should be posed to the chapter, not to us.
Regards, Kirill Lokshin Chair, Affiliations Committee _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe