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