I concur with Teles that a conflict resolution body would be very helpful to assist in the situations the AffCom has to deal. Though in the case of Wikimedia Portugal the conflict was limited to a unique individual harassing, stalking and sending legal and personal threats to several members of the chapter, such a body would probably have made the difference in helping the AffCom understand and properly deal with that situation.
I would also like to suggest allocating enough resources to the AffCom, so that they would be able to understand the law of the country where the affiliate is located. Something, I understand, is essential to the AFfCom's objective.
After WMPT sent the AffCom all the applicable legislation and jurisprudence, to explain and fundament why a number of AffCom demands where absurd, or outright illegal under the Portuguese law, the AffCom replied that "*the AffCom does not have the resources to search through all the Portuguese legislation to find a permissive court decision*."
I can even be sympathetic with the AffCom as a resourseless body of volunteers struggling to do their mission, but it also seems evident that such a body is very much unprepared to deal properly with any serious situation that may arise with the affiliates, and therefore unable to fulfill the mission they were created for.
Paulo
Lucas Teles teleswiki@gmail.com escreveu no dia quinta, 20/09/2018 à(s) 19:12:
The way AffCom deals with certain situations is clearly not transparent enough for the Wikimedia environment.
We have a situation in Brazil that remains unsolved and Affcom wouldn’t even follow their own ways of dealing with it.
Here is a clearer example:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Step...
AffCom has created a page on Meta to discuss the issues, but it has been ignored by them. And it’s like they have no need to answer. Regardless of the many moments my group tried to solve the issues, even when being ignored about important complaints, we were punished with de-recognition with no warning. *No warning.*
Is it really the proper way a group should be de-recognized? Despite being one of the most active groups in the World, we were trying to solve the problems. However, AffCom dealt with it in the easiest way, as if both involved groups had done the same and should be punished the same way, which is not correct.
It is a matter of volunteer time? Being a volunteer body is not a reason for being absent. If the body is unable to solve an issue, it should declare itself unable and community can think of better ways of doing it. I see that the only actions on AffCom are cutting relations and transfering responsibilities to others when it comes to conflict resolution. Some should solve the problems, otherwise they will be punished.
I have been asking a lot elsewhere. What is the best way to discuss this with community. Me and others trie to discuss with AffCom itself, but were ignored. So, I wonder if there are others interested in discussing it, because AffCom is not or don’t have the time, which is not that bad, but then we should be addressed to anyone that would act properly. Should we create a conflict resolution body to help AffCom? That may be the a good start in my opinion, but let’s not keep it the way it is, for the best of our community.
Teles
Em qui, 20 de set de 2018 às 08:55, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> escreveu:
Anyway, getting back to the more abstract case.
I do not agree with total transparency to the "outside world" on communications between AffCom and the affiliate. As Lodewijk mentioned,
and
we felt on our skins over here, sometimes (most of the time?) it does
more
harm than good, at least in an initial phase of the process.
I also do not believe that raising the spectre of "de-recognition"
before a
vast audience, especially one directly connected to the chapter - especially before any communication has been attempted to the people in charge of the chapter - is helpful at all. If anything, it is highly counterproductive, sowing confusion and scaring partners and stakeholders away, creating a whole new problem the affiliate has to deal with, and actively contributing to the situation deterioration. I believe it should only be done as a last resource, when the chapter has been irresponsive
and
the situation has been deteriorating significantly.
In a first moment, and if it is working, silent backchannels and
backstage
acting should be the way to go. However, I don't believe the AffCom has
any
legitimacy to impose a vote of silence on an affiliate about his own situation, especially when misinformation and rumours about it are circulating around wildly.
I absolutely agree this is not a simple issue, and we cannot expect the AffCom, who are a group of volunteers as many of us are, to know the answers to all of them, and to act perfectly. That's why a more public
and
broader discussion among the Movement is needed about this.
Paulo
Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com escreveu no dia quinta, 20/09/2018 à(s) 00:56:
I completely agree with Lodewijk here: Publishing such warnings could
very
well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make the warning moot.
This was, however, very much what the AffCom has done to Wikimedia Portugal. In 18 May the AffCom has sent a message to the WMPT general mailing list, which is for general information and includes our
partners
and people which are just interested in WMPT, not only associates.
In that message the AffCom requested* "all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve
differences.*"
The so called "conflict" was nothing but a single individual sending
legal
and personal threats against members of the chapter. this is the information we had back then, this is what we had reported to teh
AffCom
it still is the same information we have today, it has not changed. So
the
AffCom told those on the receiving end to "cease from taking part in
this
conflict and to work to resolve differences".
Then continued: "Y*ou may also officially request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more than happy to help with.*" - no conversation with any of the three members of the elected board took place before this message. So much
for
"hearing all parts".
And continued: "*In the case of no interest in resolving your
differences
and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of
WMPT*"
- Apparently we in the chapter should refrain from receiving menaces
and
threats from the single individual that was harassing us, or else the chapter would be derecognized. How this would make any sense, I don't
know.
"*having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based
on
the the reports submitted.*" - this bit is fair. Wikimedia Portugal was kind of comatose for many years - basically since the individual who is
now
harassing us - a non Wikimedian - became president. What is not fair is that all this pressure comes precisely after we finished taking all the necessary steps to fix that mess that had been forming since 2014 at
least.
We had just fixed our stuff, and the missing report was about to be
sent
and the AffCom knew it perfectly, I personally told them that in
Berlin -
when this message was sent.
It then demanded what what seems to be a vote of silence about this matter, reducing discussions about it to the AffCom list, which was now apparently lifted by Kirill: "*In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list (affcom@lists.wikimedia.org affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal
communications
channels.*"
And they finally ended with a demand which was plainly illegal under
the
Portuguese law: "*Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is
resolved.*"
Wikimedia Portugal by then was - as it is now - a registered
Association
of
full right in Portugal, with an elected board validated according to
the
law, and that board cannot "refrain to present itself as such" on the course of it's obligations to the state and the law (tax records, registration updates, etc.)
I recall, this was sent by the AffCom to the general list of Wikimedia Portugal, without any previous warning or contact that would hint about such a thing, generating surprise, questions and apprehension among the people in that list.
I don't believe this is OK. I don't believe the AffCom was correct in doing this this way.
Paulo
(This is only my personal opinion, I'm not writing in the name of WMPT, but merely as a member of the chapter who has passed through all that)
effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 19/09/2018 à(s) 22:28:
As always, it is complicated. While there are benefits to extreme transparency, there are also very real downsides. Depending on the
culture
in the country, being overly public in the 'warning phase' can have
the
result that partners will pull out of agreements, donations will be
held
back and volunteers good name get damaged (and withdraw from the organization). Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill
off
the affiliate, and make the warning moot. Another side effect of going public with such warnings is that people get real defensive. This is already sensitive when you involve all members, but this gets even
worse
when you involve the whole world.
Efforts of AffCom should not focus (imho) on sanctions or punishing,
but
rather on adjusting the processes and practices of the organization to align with movement values and directions. Diplomacy often requires
some
silence - and as long as AffCom still sees hope that the organization
can
adjust and repair - I'm all for it that they use silent backchannels. Admitting to the problem is required to start fixing it - and such admission is usually easier achieved in private.
A community that tried to get maximum effective affiliates needs to
find
a healthy balance between transparency and diplomacy. Where exactly that balance is to be found, it a complicated question though.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:15 AM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com
wrote:
Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they
did
or
didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been
heading
in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar - often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and handled consistently, there need not be shame in it.
On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote:
I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my
main
feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the
public
interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or
an
investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply
because
it is
bad news or embarrassing news.
There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such
as
preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying
information
that has not been made public. The potential for negative
publicity
if
information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate,
isn't
sufficient justification for keeping information private.
Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept
private.
One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be
public
is
that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in
this
case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against
favoritism,
negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in
general.
I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions
of
affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom
to
set
an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good
or
bad.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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>
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>
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
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
-- Steward for Wikimedia projects. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity.
+55 (71) 99707 6409 _______________________________________________ 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