I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion mistakes.
Brazil have 8,514,877 km² of extesion and more of 190,000,000 inhabitants, in 26 states[2]. Build a local chapter in Brazil is very complicated. Since 2006, that is the dream of some users, but they never have a significant number of wikimedians living in a same geografic region.
In the beging of 2008, ist created a meta-wiki page to centralize the ideias for a local chapter[3]. follow the example of the wikimedians in Portugal[4]. After that, people that never edited in anyone project of wikimedia appears to participate. That people are welcome and beging to work whit the brazilians wikimedians. The time are past, the people interested but whitout free time are gone (exactly like ist happened in every others times that the brazilian local chapter have been discuss by the comunity). The people that never participated before of the wikimedians projects ended up taking the front of several efforts and achieved progress, include the aproval of Wikimedia[5].
The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia project before. Mediators of the debate either.
A common concern in various wikipedians and wikimedians is on the future of this local chapter. If they continue the current way, he will not be composed of people from the Wikimedia projects, will only a support organization with no one wikimedian. There is even the fear of Wikimedia's name be used in an NGO ([[w:NGO]]) if it no more of an organizational issue that receives money from the Brazilian government to carry out certain activities, but in order not to hold agreed on how (such as those investigated by Brazilian senators[7], do not know how it is in other countries, but in Brazil the NGOs receive money from the government in exchange for doing something that the government should do but can not).
My opinion on the subject: I am very against the local chapter of the Brazilian continue current form. I would rather wait a few more years and see it being done by wikimedians to see it being done for people who do not participate in Wikimedia. If the desire of that people in help Wikimedia Foundation is legitimate, I imagine that should open some other kind of institution, but without using the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Should the Wikimedia Brazil continue the current form or should be aborted for a little longer?
(other peoples have speak in similar terms of mine on the mailing list[1]. I invited them to the foundation-l for addition views to this discussion, then to this message, in wikimediabr-l disclose the existence of my questioning here on foundation-l.)
[[:m:User:555]]
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/ [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil [3] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&am... [4] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&... [5] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil [6] - http://wikibr.org/ [7] - http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
(thanks to [[:m:User:Beria]] for the translation!)
----
Message in Portuguese:
Vou tentar com meu limitado inglês relatar um problema que está sendo discutido na lista de discussão sobre o local chapter brasileiro[1]. Anexo ao final do texto em inglês o meu rascunho inicial em português, para tentar reduzir ao máximo as possibilidades de falha de comunicação.
O Brasil possui 8,514,877 km² de extensão e mais de 190,000,000 de habitantes, divididos em 26 estados[2]. Constituir um local chapter nele é algo bastante trabalhoso: desde 2006 isso é almejado por alguns usuários, mas jamais foi possível reunir uma quantia razoável de wikimedianos experientes morando na mesma região geográfica.
No começo deste ano, foi criada uma página no Meta-Wiki para centralizar esforços relativos à criação de um local chapter no Brasil[3], seguindo-se o exemplo tomado pelos desejosos de um em Portugal[4]. Com a criação de tal página sobre o brasileiro, apareceram pessoas que jamais editaram antes em algum projeto Wikimedia interessadas em participar. Tais pessoas foram inicialmente bem-acolhidas e começaram a trabalhar juntamente aos wikimedianos brasileiros. O tempo foi passando, as pessoas entusiasmadas mas sem disponibilidade de ajudar começaram a se afastar (tal como ocorrido em todas as tentativas anteriores de discutir sobre o tema). As pessoas que jamais participaram anteriormente de projetos Wikimedia acabaram tomando a frente dos esforços e conseguido diversos progressos, inclusive o de ser aprovarem os seus esforços perante a Wikimedia[5].
O mesmo grupo de não-Wikimedianos conseguiu organizar um evento que contou com a participação do Jimmy Wales[6]. Imagino que o próprio Jimmy tenha pensado que se tratavam de wikimedianos, por isso, antes de prosseguir, quero deixar bem claro: as pessoas que organizaram tal evento jamais participaram de algum projeto Wikimedia antes. Os mediadores do debate idem.
Uma preocupação comum em diversos wikipedistas e wikimedianos é sobre o futuro de tal local chapter. Se ele continuar prosseguindo da forma atual, ele não será composto por pessoas vindas dos projetos Wikimedia, será apenas uma organização de apoio, sem ninguém das wikis. Há até mesmo o receio do nome da Wikimedia ser utilizado em uma ONG ([[:w:NGO]]) que não passe de mais uma organização problemática que recebe dinheiro do governo brasileiro para executar determinadas atividades, mas que no fim não as realiza da forma como acordada (tais como as investigadas pelos senadores brasileiros [7]; não sei como é em outros países, mas no Brasil as NGOs recebem dinheiro do governo em troca de fazer alguma coisa que o governo deveria fazer mas não consegue).
Minha opinião sobre o tema: sou extremamente contra que o local chapter brasileiro prossiga da forma atual. Preferia aguardar mais alguns anos e ver ele sendo feito pelos wikimedianos do que por pessoas que não participam da Wikimedia. Caso a vontade delas de ajudar a Wikimedia Foundation seja legítima, imagino que deveriam abrir algum outro tipo de instituição, mas sem usar a marca registrada da Wikimedia Foundation.
Deve a Wikimedia Brasil prosseguir da forma atual ou deve ser abortada por mais algum tempo?
(Outras pessoas tem opinado de forma parecida à mim na lista de discussão[1]. Convidei algumas delas para a foundation-l para opinarem nesta discussão além de, em seguida à esta mensagem, divulgar na wikimediabr-l a existência deste meu questionamento aqui na foundation-l.)
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/ [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil [3] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&am... [4] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&... [5] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil [6] - http://wikibr.org/ [7] - http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
This is a tricky situation. I personally don't see a problem with non wikimedians helping out as long as they are working in accordance with the mission statement and are willing to work with Wikimedians.
Sincerely; Geoffrey Plourde
Desculpem a má tradução, eu não falam Português. Esta é uma situação delicada. Eu pessoalmente não vejo um problema com wikimedians não ajudar, desde que estejam trabalhando em conformidade com a declaração de missão e estão dispostos a trabalhar com Wikimedians.
Atenciosamente;
Geoffrey Plourde
________________________________ From: Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:14:22 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion mistakes.
Brazil have 8,514,877 km² of extesion and more of 190,000,000 inhabitants, in 26 states[2]. Build a local chapter in Brazil is very complicated. Since 2006, that is the dream of some users, but they never have a significant number of wikimedians living in a same geografic region.
In the beging of 2008, ist created a meta-wiki page to centralize the ideias for a local chapter[3]. follow the example of the wikimedians in Portugal[4]. After that, people that never edited in anyone project of wikimedia appears to participate. That people are welcome and beging to work whit the brazilians wikimedians. The time are past, the people interested but whitout free time are gone (exactly like ist happened in every others times that the brazilian local chapter have been discuss by the comunity). The people that never participated before of the wikimedians projects ended up taking the front of several efforts and achieved progress, include the aproval of Wikimedia[5].
The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia project before. Mediators of the debate either.
A common concern in various wikipedians and wikimedians is on the future of this local chapter. If they continue the current way, he will not be composed of people from the Wikimedia projects, will only a support organization with no one wikimedian. There is even the fear of Wikimedia's name be used in an NGO ([[w:NGO]]) if it no more of an organizational issue that receives money from the Brazilian government to carry out certain activities, but in order not to hold agreed on how (such as those investigated by Brazilian senators[7], do not know how it is in other countries, but in Brazil the NGOs receive money from the government in exchange for doing something that the government should do but can not).
My opinion on the subject: I am very against the local chapter of the Brazilian continue current form. I would rather wait a few more years and see it being done by wikimedians to see it being done for people who do not participate in Wikimedia. If the desire of that people in help Wikimedia Foundation is legitimate, I imagine that should open some other kind of institution, but without using the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Should the Wikimedia Brazil continue the current form or should be aborted for a little longer?
(other peoples have speak in similar terms of mine on the mailing list[1]. I invited them to the foundation-l for addition views to this discussion, then to this message, in wikimediabr-l disclose the existence of my questioning here on foundation-l.)
[[:m:User:555]]
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/ [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil [3] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&am... [4] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&... [5] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil [6] - http://wikibr.org/ [7] - http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
(thanks to [[:m:User:Beria]] for the translation!)
----
Message in Portuguese:
Vou tentar com meu limitado inglês relatar um problema que está sendo discutido na lista de discussão sobre o local chapter brasileiro[1]. Anexo ao final do texto em inglês o meu rascunho inicial em português, para tentar reduzir ao máximo as possibilidades de falha de comunicação.
O Brasil possui 8,514,877 km² de extensão e mais de 190,000,000 de habitantes, divididos em 26 estados[2]. Constituir um local chapter nele é algo bastante trabalhoso: desde 2006 isso é almejado por alguns usuários, mas jamais foi possível reunir uma quantia razoável de wikimedianos experientes morando na mesma região geográfica.
No começo deste ano, foi criada uma página no Meta-Wiki para centralizar esforços relativos à criação de um local chapter no Brasil[3], seguindo-se o exemplo tomado pelos desejosos de um em Portugal[4]. Com a criação de tal página sobre o brasileiro, apareceram pessoas que jamais editaram antes em algum projeto Wikimedia interessadas em participar. Tais pessoas foram inicialmente bem-acolhidas e começaram a trabalhar juntamente aos wikimedianos brasileiros. O tempo foi passando, as pessoas entusiasmadas mas sem disponibilidade de ajudar começaram a se afastar (tal como ocorrido em todas as tentativas anteriores de discutir sobre o tema). As pessoas que jamais participaram anteriormente de projetos Wikimedia acabaram tomando a frente dos esforços e conseguido diversos progressos, inclusive o de ser aprovarem os seus esforços perante a Wikimedia[5].
O mesmo grupo de não-Wikimedianos conseguiu organizar um evento que contou com a participação do Jimmy Wales[6]. Imagino que o próprio Jimmy tenha pensado que se tratavam de wikimedianos, por isso, antes de prosseguir, quero deixar bem claro: as pessoas que organizaram tal evento jamais participaram de algum projeto Wikimedia antes. Os mediadores do debate idem.
Uma preocupação comum em diversos wikipedistas e wikimedianos é sobre o futuro de tal local chapter. Se ele continuar prosseguindo da forma atual, ele não será composto por pessoas vindas dos projetos Wikimedia, será apenas uma organização de apoio, sem ninguém das wikis. Há até mesmo o receio do nome da Wikimedia ser utilizado em uma ONG ([[:w:NGO]]) que não passe de mais uma organização problemática que recebe dinheiro do governo brasileiro para executar determinadas atividades, mas que no fim não as realiza da forma como acordada (tais como as investigadas pelos senadores brasileiros [7]; não sei como é em outros países, mas no Brasil as NGOs recebem dinheiro do governo em troca de fazer alguma coisa que o governo deveria fazer mas não consegue).
Minha opinião sobre o tema: sou extremamente contra que o local chapter brasileiro prossiga da forma atual. Preferia aguardar mais alguns anos e ver ele sendo feito pelos wikimedianos do que por pessoas que não participam da Wikimedia. Caso a vontade delas de ajudar a Wikimedia Foundation seja legítima, imagino que deveriam abrir algum outro tipo de instituição, mas sem usar a marca registrada da Wikimedia Foundation.
Deve a Wikimedia Brasil prosseguir da forma atual ou deve ser abortada por mais algum tempo?
(Outras pessoas tem opinado de forma parecida à mim na lista de discussão[1]. Convidei algumas delas para a foundation-l para opinarem nesta discussão além de, em seguida à esta mensagem, divulgar na wikimediabr-l a existência deste meu questionamento aqui na foundation-l.)
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/ [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil [3] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&am... [4] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&... [5] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil [6] - http://wikibr.org/ [7] - http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The problem Geoffrey, is that the non wikimedians are the "owers" of the brazilian chapter. The opinion and ideias od the wikimedians are ignorate and the wikimedians are hostilized[1].
I one of the people that the Luiz said when tell that the wikimedians help the non wikimedians to be welcome. But i don't realize that my action will became in that situacion.
I agree whit Luiz. Or the both (wikimedians and non wikimedians) works together, or is better to wait for do that right.
-- Béria Lima [[meta:User:Beria]] [[pt:Usuário:Beria]]
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000377.html
=================================== In portuguese:
O problema Geoffrey, é que os não wikimedianos se tornaram "donos" do chapter brasileiro. As ideias e opiniões dos wikimedistas são ignoradas e estes são hostilizados[1].
Eu fui uma das pessoas que o Luiz citou quando disse que os wikimedistas ajudaram os não wikimedistas a serem bem-vindos. Mas eu não imaginei que a minha ação ia acabar nesta situação.
Eu concordo com o Luiz. Ou os dois (wikimedistas e não wikimedistas) trabalham juntos, ou é melhor esperar para fazer isto direito.
-- Béria Lima [[meta:User:Beria]] [[pt:Usuário:Beria]]
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000377.html
2008/11/23 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
This is a tricky situation. I personally don't see a problem with non wikimedians helping out as long as they are working in accordance with the mission statement and are willing to work with Wikimedians.
Sincerely; Geoffrey Plourde
Desculpem a má tradução, eu não falam Português. Esta é uma situação delicada. Eu pessoalmente não vejo um problema com wikimedians não ajudar, desde que estejam trabalhando em conformidade com a declaração de missão e estão dispostos a trabalhar com Wikimedians.
Atenciosamente;
Geoffrey Plourde
From: Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:14:22 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion mistakes.
Brazil have 8,514,877 km² of extesion and more of 190,000,000 inhabitants, in 26 states[2]. Build a local chapter in Brazil is very complicated. Since 2006, that is the dream of some users, but they never have a significant number of wikimedians living in a same geografic region.
In the beging of 2008, ist created a meta-wiki page to centralize the ideias for a local chapter[3]. follow the example of the wikimedians in Portugal[4]. After that, people that never edited in anyone project of wikimedia appears to participate. That people are welcome and beging to work whit the brazilians wikimedians. The time are past, the people interested but whitout free time are gone (exactly like ist happened in every others times that the brazilian local chapter have been discuss by the comunity). The people that never participated before of the wikimedians projects ended up taking the front of several efforts and achieved progress, include the aproval of Wikimedia[5].
The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia project before. Mediators of the debate either.
A common concern in various wikipedians and wikimedians is on the future of this local chapter. If they continue the current way, he will not be composed of people from the Wikimedia projects, will only a support organization with no one wikimedian. There is even the fear of Wikimedia's name be used in an NGO ([[w:NGO]]) if it no more of an organizational issue that receives money from the Brazilian government to carry out certain activities, but in order not to hold agreed on how (such as those investigated by Brazilian senators[7], do not know how it is in other countries, but in Brazil the NGOs receive money from the government in exchange for doing something that the government should do but can not).
My opinion on the subject: I am very against the local chapter of the Brazilian continue current form. I would rather wait a few more years and see it being done by wikimedians to see it being done for people who do not participate in Wikimedia. If the desire of that people in help Wikimedia Foundation is legitimate, I imagine that should open some other kind of institution, but without using the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Should the Wikimedia Brazil continue the current form or should be aborted for a little longer?
(other peoples have speak in similar terms of mine on the mailing list[1]. I invited them to the foundation-l for addition views to this discussion, then to this message, in wikimediabr-l disclose the existence of my questioning here on foundation-l.)
[[:m:User:555]]
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/ [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil [3] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&am... [4] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&... [5] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil [6] - http://wikibr.org/ [7] - http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
(thanks to [[:m:User:Beria]] for the translation!)
Message in Portuguese:
Vou tentar com meu limitado inglês relatar um problema que está sendo discutido na lista de discussão sobre o local chapter brasileiro[1]. Anexo ao final do texto em inglês o meu rascunho inicial em português, para tentar reduzir ao máximo as possibilidades de falha de comunicação.
O Brasil possui 8,514,877 km² de extensão e mais de 190,000,000 de habitantes, divididos em 26 estados[2]. Constituir um local chapter nele é algo bastante trabalhoso: desde 2006 isso é almejado por alguns usuários, mas jamais foi possível reunir uma quantia razoável de wikimedianos experientes morando na mesma região geográfica.
No começo deste ano, foi criada uma página no Meta-Wiki para centralizar esforços relativos à criação de um local chapter no Brasil[3], seguindo-se o exemplo tomado pelos desejosos de um em Portugal[4]. Com a criação de tal página sobre o brasileiro, apareceram pessoas que jamais editaram antes em algum projeto Wikimedia interessadas em participar. Tais pessoas foram inicialmente bem-acolhidas e começaram a trabalhar juntamente aos wikimedianos brasileiros. O tempo foi passando, as pessoas entusiasmadas mas sem disponibilidade de ajudar começaram a se afastar (tal como ocorrido em todas as tentativas anteriores de discutir sobre o tema). As pessoas que jamais participaram anteriormente de projetos Wikimedia acabaram tomando a frente dos esforços e conseguido diversos progressos, inclusive o de ser aprovarem os seus esforços perante a Wikimedia[5].
O mesmo grupo de não-Wikimedianos conseguiu organizar um evento que contou com a participação do Jimmy Wales[6]. Imagino que o próprio Jimmy tenha pensado que se tratavam de wikimedianos, por isso, antes de prosseguir, quero deixar bem claro: as pessoas que organizaram tal evento jamais participaram de algum projeto Wikimedia antes. Os mediadores do debate idem.
Uma preocupação comum em diversos wikipedistas e wikimedianos é sobre o futuro de tal local chapter. Se ele continuar prosseguindo da forma atual, ele não será composto por pessoas vindas dos projetos Wikimedia, será apenas uma organização de apoio, sem ninguém das wikis. Há até mesmo o receio do nome da Wikimedia ser utilizado em uma ONG ([[:w:NGO]]) que não passe de mais uma organização problemática que recebe dinheiro do governo brasileiro para executar determinadas atividades, mas que no fim não as realiza da forma como acordada (tais como as investigadas pelos senadores brasileiros [7]; não sei como é em outros países, mas no Brasil as NGOs recebem dinheiro do governo em troca de fazer alguma coisa que o governo deveria fazer mas não consegue).
Minha opinião sobre o tema: sou extremamente contra que o local chapter brasileiro prossiga da forma atual. Preferia aguardar mais alguns anos e ver ele sendo feito pelos wikimedianos do que por pessoas que não participam da Wikimedia. Caso a vontade delas de ajudar a Wikimedia Foundation seja legítima, imagino que deveriam abrir algum outro tipo de instituição, mas sem usar a marca registrada da Wikimedia Foundation.
Deve a Wikimedia Brasil prosseguir da forma atual ou deve ser abortada por mais algum tempo?
(Outras pessoas tem opinado de forma parecida à mim na lista de discussão[1]. Convidei algumas delas para a foundation-l para opinarem nesta discussão além de, em seguida à esta mensagem, divulgar na wikimediabr-l a existência deste meu questionamento aqui na foundation-l.)
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/ [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil [3] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&am... [4] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&... [5] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil [6] - http://wikibr.org/ [7] - http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I personally believe that no one should be marginalized in making this chapter a reality. If non Wikimedians are dedicated enough to assist then they should be welcomed as brothers and sisters. The reports of marginalization do disturb me although I am not qualified to render an opinion in this area due to lack of experience. I would strongly recommend that these concerns be forwarded to the Chapters Committee for use in chapter approval and as something to keep an eye on. If worse comes to worse, I think a section of the bylaws prohibiting marginalization would do the trick. Also, due to the concerns about NGOs, a auditing provision might be necessary, although I trust that many of these non Wikimedians are sincere in their desire.
Sincerely;
Geoffrey Plourde
Pessoalmente, acredito que ninguém deve ser marginalizado em fazer neste capítulo uma realidade. Se não Wikimedians são dedicadas a ajudar o suficiente, então elas devem ser acolhidos como irmãos e irmãs. Os relatórios de marginalização fazer-me embora perturbem não estou qualificado para prestar um parecer nesta área devido à falta de experiência. Gostaria de recomendar vivamente que essas preocupações sejam transmitidos ao Comité para utilização nos capítulos capítulo aprovação e como algo a manter um olho em. Se vem para pior pior, acho que uma seção do Estatuto proíbe marginalização faria o truque. Também, devido a preocupações com a ONG, uma provisão de auditoria possam ser necessários, embora eu confio que muitas delas não estão Wikimedians sincero no seu desejo.
Atenciosamente;
Geoffrey Plourde
________________________________ From: Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:45:26 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
The problem Geoffrey, is that the non wikimedians are the "owers" of the brazilian chapter. The opinion and ideias od the wikimedians are ignorate and the wikimedians are hostilized[1].
I one of the people that the Luiz said when tell that the wikimedians help the non wikimedians to be welcome. But i don't realize that my action will became in that situacion.
I agree whit Luiz. Or the both (wikimedians and non wikimedians) works together, or is better to wait for do that right.
-- Béria Lima [[meta:User:Beria]] [[pt:Usuário:Beria]]
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000377.html
=================================== In portuguese:
O problema Geoffrey, é que os não wikimedianos se tornaram "donos" do chapter brasileiro. As ideias e opiniões dos wikimedistas são ignoradas e estes são hostilizados[1].
Eu fui uma das pessoas que o Luiz citou quando disse que os wikimedistas ajudaram os não wikimedistas a serem bem-vindos. Mas eu não imaginei que a minha ação ia acabar nesta situação.
Eu concordo com o Luiz. Ou os dois (wikimedistas e não wikimedistas) trabalham juntos, ou é melhor esperar para fazer isto direito.
-- Béria Lima [[meta:User:Beria]] [[pt:Usuário:Beria]]
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000377.html
2008/11/23 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
This is a tricky situation. I personally don't see a problem with non wikimedians helping out as long as they are working in accordance with the mission statement and are willing to work with Wikimedians.
Sincerely; Geoffrey Plourde
Desculpem a má tradução, eu não falam Português. Esta é uma situação delicada. Eu pessoalmente não vejo um problema com wikimedians não ajudar, desde que estejam trabalhando em conformidade com a declaração de missão e estão dispostos a trabalhar com Wikimedians.
Atenciosamente;
Geoffrey Plourde
From: Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:14:22 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion mistakes.
Brazil have 8,514,877 km² of extesion and more of 190,000,000 inhabitants, in 26 states[2]. Build a local chapter in Brazil is very complicated. Since 2006, that is the dream of some users, but they never have a significant number of wikimedians living in a same geografic region.
In the beging of 2008, ist created a meta-wiki page to centralize the ideias for a local chapter[3]. follow the example of the wikimedians in Portugal[4]. After that, people that never edited in anyone project of wikimedia appears to participate. That people are welcome and beging to work whit the brazilians wikimedians. The time are past, the people interested but whitout free time are gone (exactly like ist happened in every others times that the brazilian local chapter have been discuss by the comunity). The people that never participated before of the wikimedians projects ended up taking the front of several efforts and achieved progress, include the aproval of Wikimedia[5].
The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia project before. Mediators of the debate either.
A common concern in various wikipedians and wikimedians is on the future of this local chapter. If they continue the current way, he will not be composed of people from the Wikimedia projects, will only a support organization with no one wikimedian. There is even the fear of Wikimedia's name be used in an NGO ([[w:NGO]]) if it no more of an organizational issue that receives money from the Brazilian government to carry out certain activities, but in order not to hold agreed on how (such as those investigated by Brazilian senators[7], do not know how it is in other countries, but in Brazil the NGOs receive money from the government in exchange for doing something that the government should do but can not).
My opinion on the subject: I am very against the local chapter of the Brazilian continue current form. I would rather wait a few more years and see it being done by wikimedians to see it being done for people who do not participate in Wikimedia. If the desire of that people in help Wikimedia Foundation is legitimate, I imagine that should open some other kind of institution, but without using the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Should the Wikimedia Brazil continue the current form or should be aborted for a little longer?
(other peoples have speak in similar terms of mine on the mailing list[1]. I invited them to the foundation-l for addition views to this discussion, then to this message, in wikimediabr-l disclose the existence of my questioning here on foundation-l.)
[[:m:User:555]]
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/ [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil [3] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&am... [4] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&... [5] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil [6] - http://wikibr.org/ [7] - http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
(thanks to [[:m:User:Beria]] for the translation!)
Message in Portuguese:
Vou tentar com meu limitado inglês relatar um problema que está sendo discutido na lista de discussão sobre o local chapter brasileiro[1]. Anexo ao final do texto em inglês o meu rascunho inicial em português, para tentar reduzir ao máximo as possibilidades de falha de comunicação.
O Brasil possui 8,514,877 km² de extensão e mais de 190,000,000 de habitantes, divididos em 26 estados[2]. Constituir um local chapter nele é algo bastante trabalhoso: desde 2006 isso é almejado por alguns usuários, mas jamais foi possível reunir uma quantia razoável de wikimedianos experientes morando na mesma região geográfica.
No começo deste ano, foi criada uma página no Meta-Wiki para centralizar esforços relativos à criação de um local chapter no Brasil[3], seguindo-se o exemplo tomado pelos desejosos de um em Portugal[4]. Com a criação de tal página sobre o brasileiro, apareceram pessoas que jamais editaram antes em algum projeto Wikimedia interessadas em participar. Tais pessoas foram inicialmente bem-acolhidas e começaram a trabalhar juntamente aos wikimedianos brasileiros. O tempo foi passando, as pessoas entusiasmadas mas sem disponibilidade de ajudar começaram a se afastar (tal como ocorrido em todas as tentativas anteriores de discutir sobre o tema). As pessoas que jamais participaram anteriormente de projetos Wikimedia acabaram tomando a frente dos esforços e conseguido diversos progressos, inclusive o de ser aprovarem os seus esforços perante a Wikimedia[5].
O mesmo grupo de não-Wikimedianos conseguiu organizar um evento que contou com a participação do Jimmy Wales[6]. Imagino que o próprio Jimmy tenha pensado que se tratavam de wikimedianos, por isso, antes de prosseguir, quero deixar bem claro: as pessoas que organizaram tal evento jamais participaram de algum projeto Wikimedia antes. Os mediadores do debate idem.
Uma preocupação comum em diversos wikipedistas e wikimedianos é sobre o futuro de tal local chapter. Se ele continuar prosseguindo da forma atual, ele não será composto por pessoas vindas dos projetos Wikimedia, será apenas uma organização de apoio, sem ninguém das wikis. Há até mesmo o receio do nome da Wikimedia ser utilizado em uma ONG ([[:w:NGO]]) que não passe de mais uma organização problemática que recebe dinheiro do governo brasileiro para executar determinadas atividades, mas que no fim não as realiza da forma como acordada (tais como as investigadas pelos senadores brasileiros [7]; não sei como é em outros países, mas no Brasil as NGOs recebem dinheiro do governo em troca de fazer alguma coisa que o governo deveria fazer mas não consegue).
Minha opinião sobre o tema: sou extremamente contra que o local chapter brasileiro prossiga da forma atual. Preferia aguardar mais alguns anos e ver ele sendo feito pelos wikimedianos do que por pessoas que não participam da Wikimedia. Caso a vontade delas de ajudar a Wikimedia Foundation seja legítima, imagino que deveriam abrir algum outro tipo de instituição, mas sem usar a marca registrada da Wikimedia Foundation.
Deve a Wikimedia Brasil prosseguir da forma atual ou deve ser abortada por mais algum tempo?
(Outras pessoas tem opinado de forma parecida à mim na lista de discussão[1]. Convidei algumas delas para a foundation-l para opinarem nesta discussão além de, em seguida à esta mensagem, divulgar na wikimediabr-l a existência deste meu questionamento aqui na foundation-l.)
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/ [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil [3] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&am... [4] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&... [5] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil [6] - http://wikibr.org/ [7] - http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/11/24 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com:
I personally believe that no one should be marginalized in making this chapter a reality. If non Wikimedians are dedicated enough to >assist then they should be welcomed as brothers and sisters. The reports of marginalization do disturb me although I am not qualified >to render an opinion in this area due to lack of experience. I would strongly recommend that these concerns be forwarded to the >Chapters Committee for use in chapter approval and as something to keep an eye on.
ChapCom has now been made aware of this and we'll certainly discuss it.
Michael
I believe that my English is worse than I imagined... because nobody understands what I said. I'll try to explain...
Your problem (mine and of the boys) is NOT that have non wikimedians in brazilian chapter. Is because that non wikimedians hostilize every wikimedian and don't permite anyone discussion... every is taboo.
Someone said for we change the bylaws to protect Wikimedia Brasil. We try that, but every time when we tried... We have been silenced with the argument: "The Wikimedia approved the bylaws of the way that is"
Another problem is that the wikipedists do not recognize the wikimedia Brazil as a representative theirs. Only in the city of São Paulo there are more than 50 wikipedists... and none of them is working in Wikimedia Brasil (except me and others 3 boys) and how we call other... if we are harassed, who ensures to the other wikipedists won't be?
-- Béria Lima [[meta:User:Beria]] [[pt:Usuário:Beria]]
==== In Portuguese ====
Acredito que meu inglês é pior do que eu imaginava... ninguém entendeu o que eu quis dizer.
Nosso problema (meu e dos meninos) NÃO é que hajam não wikimedistas na Wikimedia Brasil. E sim por que os não wikimedistas hostilizam os wikimedistas e não permitem nenhum debate... tudo é tabu.
Alguém disse para mudarmos o estatuto para proteger a Wikimedia Brasil. Tentamos fazer isto, mas cada vez que tentámos... temos sido silenciado com o argumento: "A Wikimedia aprovou o estatuto da forma que está".
Outro problema é que o wikipedistas não reconhecem a Wikimedia Brasil como a representante deles. Só na cidade de São Paulo há mais de 50 wikipedistas... e nenhum deles está trabalhando na Wikimedia Brasil (exceto eu e outros 3 meninos) e como chamaremos outros... se nós somos perseguidos, que garante aos outros wikipedistas que eles não o serão?
-- Béria Lima [[meta:User:Beria]] [[pt:Usuário:Beria]]
2008/11/24 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
2008/11/24 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com:
I personally believe that no one should be marginalized in making this
chapter a reality. If non Wikimedians are dedicated enough to >assist then they should be welcomed as brothers and sisters. The reports of marginalization do disturb me although I am not qualified >to render an opinion in this area due to lack of experience. I would strongly recommend that these concerns be forwarded to the >Chapters Committee for use in chapter approval and as something to keep an eye on.
ChapCom has now been made aware of this and we'll certainly discuss it.
Michael
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Someone said for we change the bylaws to protect Wikimedia Brasil. We try that, but every time when we tried... We have been silenced with the argument: "The Wikimedia approved the bylaws of the way that is"
Let me just make this clear: Wikimedia Brasil is absolutely free to change its bylaws as much and as often as it wants. However, it would be good practice to submit the proposed changes (before the vote!) to ChapCom and we will give notice if we intend to "veto" them (I mean, obviously we can't veto them in a legal sense but we can put the chapter on notice that if the chapter *does* make the changes, we might have to review their chapter status). Mind you, ChapCom is unlikely to veto procedural rearrangements like "The budget needs to be approved by 2/3 vote" instead of simple majority vote, but if a chapter changes its main aim to "support the independence of province X", we will presumably want to interfere. This does NOT mean that chapters cannot change their bylaws.
But good point actually, I think we're not actively soliciting notices of bylaws changes at the moment. I'll bring this up...
Michael
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Someone said for we change the bylaws to protect Wikimedia Brasil. We try that, but every time when we tried... We have been silenced with the argument: "The Wikimedia approved the bylaws of the way that is"
Let me just make this clear: Wikimedia Brasil is absolutely free to change its bylaws as much and as often as it wants. However, it would be good practice to submit the proposed changes (before the vote!) to ChapCom and we will give notice if we intend to "veto" them (I mean, obviously we can't veto them in a legal sense but we can put the chapter on notice that if the chapter *does* make the changes, we might have to review their chapter status). Mind you, ChapCom is unlikely to veto procedural rearrangements like "The budget needs to be approved by 2/3 vote" instead of simple majority vote, but if a chapter changes its main aim to "support the independence of province X", we will presumably want to interfere. This does NOT mean that chapters cannot change their bylaws.
But good point actually, I think we're not actively soliciting notices of bylaws changes at the moment. I'll bring this up...
I believe under the Chapters Agreement the WMF and the chapters have to notify each other if there are substantial changes planned in their bylaws, but not of all changes [in my interpretation].
"7.2. The Chapter shall be required to advise the Foundation of any planned or actual change in the bylaws or status of the Chapter which might affect the Foundation or the continued existence or effectiveness of this contract.
7.3. The Foundation shall be required to advise the Chapter of any planned or actual change in the bylaws or status of the Foundation which might affect the Chapter or the continued existence or effectiveness of this agreement."
In the period between the Board approval (or even ChapCom approval) and the signing of the Chapters Agreement there is currently no explicit mention of such notifications to be necessary; although they should constitute good practice.
(In my view the to-be chapters might be afraid to mention any changes to the ChapCom after they have approved them and the Board have not yet, not to extend the approval process with some more months until the next scheduled Board meeting takes place. I know, speed should not be an issue, but seeing as all members of the ChapCom need to vote on the bylaws any re-vote would significantly extend the approval time, and [following the proposed procedure] postpone the registration of the chapter with the authorities, and this in time would have a detrimental effect on the community [who have to wait a loger time before they can actually start working on chapter business]) I would not object if it was explicitly stated on the ChapCom's page on meta that the ChapCom should be notified of changes to the bylaws even after they have approved a version of it, on the other hand it should be clearly stated as well what authorisation the ChapCom would have to revoke their approval (before and after the Board's resolution of actual approval) after such a notification, if they do not like it.
Best regards, Bence Damokos
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
I believe under the Chapters Agreement the WMF and the chapters have to notify each other if there are substantial changes planned in their bylaws, but not of all changes [in my interpretation].
"7.2. The Chapter shall be required to advise the Foundation of any planned or actual change in the bylaws or status of the Chapter which might affect the Foundation or the continued existence or effectiveness of this contract.
7.3. The Foundation shall be required to advise the Chapter of any planned or actual change in the bylaws or status of the Foundation which might affect the Chapter or the continued existence or effectiveness of this agreement."
Indeed, but this is really worded quite narrowly and, to my knowledge, ChapCom never received such an advisory yet (neither did individual chapters from the Foundation). What I suggest is that generally, all chapters-to-be (between chapcom approval and board approval) as well as chapters-existing submit their changes for notice. more on that below.
I know, speed should not be an issue, but seeing as all members of the ChapCom need to vote on the bylaws any re-vote would significantly extend the approval time, and [following the proposed procedure] postpone the registration of the chapter with the authorities, and this in time would have a detrimental effect on the community [who have to wait a loger time before they can actually start working on chapter business])
That's not quite true: ChapCom doesn't need to take a new vote. What we always vote on is a "recommendation to the board that they approve as local chapter". We never "approve the bylaws" or "recommend approval of the bylaws", but obviously, bylaws are one of the main factors here. So, when we receive notice of a bylaws change, we can ask on the chapcom list whether anyone has objections to the changes. If no one speaks up, nothing happens, no vote - no resolution, no time list. If someone speaks up, we'll have to have a vote on whether we *recommend to the board that the chapter status be removed* (or, if our original recommendation is still pending, whether we revoke our recommendation).
But in all the cases we agree to, we do NOT need a new vote, which will very much decrease the time we need on it ...
I would not object if it was explicitly stated on the ChapCom's page on meta that the ChapCom should be notified of changes to the bylaws even after they have approved a version of it, on the other hand it should be clearly stated as well what authorisation the ChapCom would have to revoke their approval (before and after the Board's resolution of actual approval) after such a notification, if they do not like it.
ChapCom only makes recommendations. Both in the approval of chapters and in the "de-"approval of chapters.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
I believe under the Chapters Agreement the WMF and the chapters have to notify each other if there are substantial changes planned in their bylaws, but not of all changes [in my interpretation].
"7.2. The Chapter shall be required to advise the Foundation of any planned or actual change in the bylaws or status of the Chapter which might affect the Foundation or the continued existence or effectiveness of this contract.
7.3. The Foundation shall be required to advise the Chapter of any planned or actual change in the bylaws or status of the Foundation which might affect the Chapter or the continued existence or effectiveness of this agreement."
But 7.2 only requires that the chapter notify the Foundation about changes that affect the Foundation, or the chapters contract. Most changes to bylaws wouldn't fall under this category at all, and the rest are subject to interpretation. A chapter could assume that most changes which might affect the relationship of the chapter to the Foundation do not affect it "substantially", or do not change the "effectiveness" of the contract. You could argue that limiting membership to exclude active wikimedians would make the chapter more effective in pursuing it's aims (because their members wouldn't be spending so much time editing, and spending more time doing outreach).
--Andrew Whitworth
The last few posts are discussing the operation of ChapCom, and the relationship generally between chapters and the WMF. Valuable discussions (although, in a sense, separate) but seemingly not what the initial e-mails were requesting.
The question is, if the characterization of the Wikimedia Brasil is accurate (i.e. comprised mainly of non-editors, hostile to editors, authoritarian to the extent of banning discussion of chapter composition and goals, etc.) what can be done? The answer may be nothing at all, and its possible (in light if Jimmy's email) that there is a misunderstanding at the source of this problem.
Whether something can be done from afar or not... Beria, Luiz and Porantim are entitled to have the discussion focus at least initially on the specific problem they point out. I suspect that there is very little that can be done - the Foundation, and ChapCom, have almost no control over the operations of any chapter. Even withdrawing permission to use the Wikimedia-related intellectual property (without prejudging the need for that in this case, of course) would need to be backed up in court in Brasil if a chapter refused to comply.
Luiz, have there been any responses from members of WM-Brasil indicating their desire to engage on this list (or on any list, I suppose) on this dispute? If they join the discussion on Foundation-l, perhaps the mediation of Florence or Jimmy (or Michael or Andrew) could help you come to an understanding.
Nathan
2008/11/24 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Whether something can be done from afar or not... Beria, Luiz and Porantim are entitled to have the discussion focus at least initially on the specific problem they point out. I suspect that there is very little that can be done
- the Foundation, and ChapCom, have almost no control over the operations of
any chapter. Even withdrawing permission to use the Wikimedia-related intellectual property (without prejudging the need for that in this case, of course) would need to be backed up in court in Brasil if a chapter refused to comply.
I understand that chapter agreements (certainly the WMUKv1 one) usually include provision where either side can withdraw from the trademark agreement with a few months' notice. Though of course if an organisation wasn't happy with that provision being invoked they may well be able to argue the point in court.
- d.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/24 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Whether something can be done from afar or not... Beria, Luiz and Porantim are entitled to have the discussion focus at least initially on the specific problem they point out. I suspect that there is very little that can be done
- the Foundation, and ChapCom, have almost no control over the operations of
any chapter. Even withdrawing permission to use the Wikimedia-related intellectual property (without prejudging the need for that in this case, of course) would need to be backed up in court in Brasil if a chapter refused to comply.
I understand that chapter agreements (certainly the WMUKv1 one) usually include provision where either side can withdraw from the trademark agreement with a few months' notice. Though of course if an organisation wasn't happy with that provision being invoked they may well be able to argue the point in court.
Yeah and, what Nathan probably meant: If a chapter ignores a termination message and keeps using the trademark, we would need to obtain an injunction in *their* country. Now, I think the Wikipedia trademark is not even registered internationally yet (it isn't in Switzerland, so I suppose it isn't in that many other countries either), so we'd run into problems. As a matter of fact, the chapter could just register the trademark in the country and unless the foundation was willing to really put up a court fight to get the trademark back, they could just ignore the termination notice.
Contracts are nice, but you also need be able to enforce them.
Michael
Having just visited there, I can say with some confidence that discussion of people refusing to cease using the trademarks is wildly off base. The people at WMF-Brasil are not bad guys. I just spent 3 days there. If there is a problem, I see no obstacles to working it out.
I will be seeing thomas (the main organizer of my trip) the day after thanksgiving in florida.
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:46, Michael Bimmler wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/24 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
Whether something can be done from afar or not... Beria, Luiz and Porantim are entitled to have the discussion focus at least initially on the specific problem they point out. I suspect that there is very little that can be done
- the Foundation, and ChapCom, have almost no control over the
operations of any chapter. Even withdrawing permission to use the Wikimedia-related intellectual property (without prejudging the need for that in this case, of course) would need to be backed up in court in Brasil if a chapter refused to comply.
I understand that chapter agreements (certainly the WMUKv1 one) usually include provision where either side can withdraw from the trademark agreement with a few months' notice. Though of course if an organisation wasn't happy with that provision being invoked they may well be able to argue the point in court.
Yeah and, what Nathan probably meant: If a chapter ignores a termination message and keeps using the trademark, we would need to obtain an injunction in *their* country. Now, I think the Wikipedia trademark is not even registered internationally yet (it isn't in Switzerland, so I suppose it isn't in that many other countries either), so we'd run into problems. As a matter of fact, the chapter could just register the trademark in the country and unless the foundation was willing to really put up a court fight to get the trademark back, they could just ignore the termination notice.
Contracts are nice, but you also need be able to enforce them.
Michael
-- Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
Having just visited there, I can say with some confidence that discussion of people refusing to cease using the trademarks is wildly off base. The people at WMF-Brasil are not bad guys. I just spent 3 days there. If there is a problem, I see no obstacles to working it out.
I'm sorry, I was not referring to Brazil at all (and I made the same observations re Thomas when I was discussing with him during the ChapCom process). This has become a more general discussion on "what happens if a chapter goes wild".
I would like to offer my apologies if it seemed like I was considering the situation in Brazil here, I by no means believe that we must consider what to do in Brazil!
Michael Bimmler wrote:
I would like to offer my apologies if it seemed like I was considering the situation in Brazil here, I by no means believe that we must consider what to do in Brazil!
:-)
I am confident things can be worked out in Brazil without much difficulty.
Right, I should have been more explicit that I have no reason to expect that the situation in Brasil as anywhere close to that point, I was more making the general point of the limited direct influence the Wikimedia Foundation has over chapters in conflict. I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
To Ting's point that Foundation-l is not the right forum - I'm not sure I agree. I imagine the problem would not have been brought here unless there was a breakdown of communication on the other forms of exchange open to the participants. Obviously the list itself can't take any action, but it is a useful forum to solicit ideas and information from the wider community. I would hope that folks from all the various Wikimedia groups would see Foundation-l as a resource for assistance and wider views, as opposed to "escalation" that is to be avoided.
Lastly - thank you Thomas (Buckup) for providing some more background.
Nathan
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
Having just visited there, I can say with some confidence that discussion of people refusing to cease using the trademarks is wildly off base. The people at WMF-Brasil are not bad guys. I just spent 3 days there. If there is a problem, I see no obstacles to working it out.
I will be seeing thomas (the main organizer of my trip) the day after thanksgiving in florida.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The question is, if the characterization of the Wikimedia Brasil is accurate (i.e. comprised mainly of non-editors, hostile to editors, authoritarian to the extent of banning discussion of chapter composition and goals, etc.) what can be done? The answer may be nothing at all, and its possible (in light if Jimmy's email) that there is a misunderstanding at the source of this problem.
Sorry for going off-topic. Nathan's characterization might almost be too optimistic about the situation. First off, we don't have enough information about anything: We don't know whether one member is being disenfranchised, or if a whole class of users is being disenfranchised. If people are truly being harassed, we don't know what the actual motivations of that harassment are. We don't know if low levels of Wikimedian involvement is indicative of a negative attitude towards them, or a membership apathy on their part. Whenever there are two sides to a story, neither of them are usually the complete truth. In short, we can't make any kind of a decision here because we don't have enough information.
Beyond that, there is no requirement that a chapter must contain a certain percentage of wikimedians, or that they not be authoritarian in nature, or that they treat their wikimedian members in any particular way. These are judgement calls that can be made when they are warranted, but not strict requirements in any sense. If non-wikimedians are more numerous and more active then wikimedians are in the chapter, they will be able to exercise more influence over the chapter's operations, possibly acting contra to the way the wikimedians would like things to go. Is this situation necessarily a "bad" thing for a chapter?
If it is bad, at least in this case, there isn't much that can be done. The disenfranchised Wikimedians could organize their own chapter group and petition the Chapcom/Foundation to remove chapters status from the old group and give it to the new, but that is going to be very difficult and time-consuming, and I don't recommend that as a primary course of action in any case. Chapcom isn't going to recommend a group loses it's chapter status to the Foundation just because some of it's members cannot get along. If the chapter truly doesn't represent the interests of the foundation, we could remove their status as a chapter but that won't have much of an effect, especially if most of their members are already not wikimedians and if they choose to fight the issue legally.
--Andrew Whitworth
I doubt that foundation-l is the right place for a community to carry out their conflict. We have here no possibility and no legitimation to make any decision in favor for or against one of the conflicting party.
The best way a community should resolve such problems is to talk with each other, to meet with each other as already proposed. If the community is really not able to settle the conflict, it could consider to call for one or more mediators that are considered by all parties as neutral to try to resolve the problem. But I don't think that foundation-l can be such a place for mediation.
Ting
Nathan wrote:
The last few posts are discussing the operation of ChapCom, and the relationship generally between chapters and the WMF. Valuable discussions (although, in a sense, separate) but seemingly not what the initial e-mails were requesting.
The question is, if the characterization of the Wikimedia Brasil is accurate (i.e. comprised mainly of non-editors, hostile to editors, authoritarian to the extent of banning discussion of chapter composition and goals, etc.) what can be done? The answer may be nothing at all, and its possible (in light if Jimmy's email) that there is a misunderstanding at the source of this problem.
Whether something can be done from afar or not... Beria, Luiz and Porantim are entitled to have the discussion focus at least initially on the specific problem they point out. I suspect that there is very little that can be done
- the Foundation, and ChapCom, have almost no control over the operations of
any chapter. Even withdrawing permission to use the Wikimedia-related intellectual property (without prejudging the need for that in this case, of course) would need to be backed up in court in Brasil if a chapter refused to comply.
Luiz, have there been any responses from members of WM-Brasil indicating their desire to engage on this list (or on any list, I suppose) on this dispute? If they join the discussion on Foundation-l, perhaps the mediation of Florence or Jimmy (or Michael or Andrew) could help you come to an understanding.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Nathan wrote:
The question is, if the characterization of the Wikimedia Brasil is accurate (i.e. comprised mainly of non-editors, hostile to editors, authoritarian to the extent of banning discussion of chapter composition and goals, etc.) what can be done? The answer may be nothing at all, and its possible (in light if Jimmy's email) that there is a misunderstanding at the source of this problem.
Having spent 3 days there working with Thomas morning to night, I think it is almost certainly some kind of misunderstanding. Editors are very welcome, there is no hostility to editors, and there is no authoritarianism at all. It is actually quite funny and ironic that this charge is being put forward, because Thomas very much takes the opposite approach from authoritarianism.
--Jimbo
Jimbo, look, nobody here are in doubt about the honesty of this or those person.
The discussion here is not about the people, is about the positions. Is about the actions.
Sorry, Jimbo, but I believe, nobody here really can believe in a maniqueist discussion like that.
I don't care if Thomas is a beatifull guy, if he can cook very well or if he smells good. This is not the point.
The point here is: Thomas is one of the people who deny the debate. This is the fact.
Of course I want Thomas close to us, fighting with us, but I cant't believe in dictatorship.
If you really want to help us, you can speak with your friend Thomas about those problemas. What do you think?
Saludos.
-- Porantim
** Sorry about my bad english. **
2008/11/25 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
Nathan wrote:
The question is, if the characterization of the Wikimedia Brasil is
accurate
(i.e. comprised mainly of non-editors, hostile to editors, authoritarian
to
the extent of banning discussion of chapter composition and goals, etc.) what can be done? The answer may be nothing at all, and its possible (in light if Jimmy's email) that there is a misunderstanding at the source of this problem.
Having spent 3 days there working with Thomas morning to night, I think it is almost certainly some kind of misunderstanding. Editors are very welcome, there is no hostility to editors, and there is no authoritarianism at all. It is actually quite funny and ironic that this charge is being put forward, because Thomas very much takes the opposite approach from authoritarianism.
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Porantim wrote:
The point here is: Thomas is one of the people who deny the debate. This is the fact.
Of course I want Thomas close to us, fighting with us, but I cant't believe in dictatorship.
If you really want to help us, you can speak with your friend Thomas about those problemas. What do you think?
In my experience with Thomas, he does not seem like the kind of person who would be denying the opportunity for people to debate, and indeed, he was quite clear with me that he's not a dictator (indeed, I got quite the opposite idea from him, that he's a believer in lots of independent action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
I am meeting Thomas on Friday, and of course this will be our main topic of conversation.
I really think these issues should be quite easy to resolve.
--Jimbo
Jimmy, again, the problem isn't personal. Please, dont't try to take this way.
-- Porantim
2008/11/25 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
Porantim wrote:
The point here is: Thomas is one of the people who deny the debate. This
is
the fact.
Of course I want Thomas close to us, fighting with us, but I cant't
believe
in dictatorship.
If you really want to help us, you can speak with your friend Thomas
about
those problemas. What do you think?
In my experience with Thomas, he does not seem like the kind of person who would be denying the opportunity for people to debate, and indeed, he was quite clear with me that he's not a dictator (indeed, I got quite the opposite idea from him, that he's a believer in lots of independent action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
I am meeting Thomas on Friday, and of course this will be our main topic of conversation.
I really think these issues should be quite easy to resolve.
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If you are convinced that this is not personal, and that there is an issue, then please provide evidence. Otherwise, this looks like bunch of people who are unhappy because their proposal wasn't passed.
Geoffrey Plourde
________________________________ From: Porantim porantim@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:40:29 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Jimmy, again, the problem isn't personal. Please, dont't try to take this way.
-- Porantim
2008/11/25 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
Porantim wrote:
The point here is: Thomas is one of the people who deny the debate. This
is
the fact.
Of course I want Thomas close to us, fighting with us, but I cant't
believe
in dictatorship.
If you really want to help us, you can speak with your friend Thomas
about
those problemas. What do you think?
In my experience with Thomas, he does not seem like the kind of person who would be denying the opportunity for people to debate, and indeed, he was quite clear with me that he's not a dictator (indeed, I got quite the opposite idea from him, that he's a believer in lots of independent action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
I am meeting Thomas on Friday, and of course this will be our main topic of conversation.
I really think these issues should be quite easy to resolve.
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Geoffrey, I have been working with Luis and other guys as translators for years. Their devotion is much appreciated and I know them thoughtful, patient and experience Wikimedians who are deeply concerned about their project and thus its relationship to the real world.
Personally I am afraid Jimmy is too relying on his personal recent experience and tend to weigh less those people from the lusophone editing community than it should be, specially in the circumstance no objection toward them and support for the "chapter guys" has come from the editing community. "Believe me, he is a good guy" is no strong argument at least for me which esteem those wikipedian's long experience, devotion and their usual patient attitude to deal with things.
Cheers,
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
If you are convinced that this is not personal, and that there is an issue, then please provide evidence. Otherwise, this looks like bunch of people who are unhappy because their proposal wasn't passed.
Geoffrey Plourde
From: Porantim porantim@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:40:29 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Jimmy, again, the problem isn't personal. Please, dont't try to take this way.
-- Porantim
2008/11/25 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
Porantim wrote:
The point here is: Thomas is one of the people who deny the debate. This
is
the fact.
Of course I want Thomas close to us, fighting with us, but I cant't
believe
in dictatorship.
If you really want to help us, you can speak with your friend Thomas
about
those problemas. What do you think?
In my experience with Thomas, he does not seem like the kind of person who would be denying the opportunity for people to debate, and indeed, he was quite clear with me that he's not a dictator (indeed, I got quite the opposite idea from him, that he's a believer in lots of independent action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
I am meeting Thomas on Friday, and of course this will be our main topic of conversation.
I really think these issues should be quite easy to resolve.
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I mean no disrespect to anyone. Unfortunately, this all hinges on strength of character. I am confident that many are like me and little experience with any of these users. I can muddle through Portuguese, so if someone can point me to where discussion broke down or where there is proof, then we will have something to go on.
________________________________ From: Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 6:06:04 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Geoffrey, I have been working with Luis and other guys as translators for years. Their devotion is much appreciated and I know them thoughtful, patient and experience Wikimedians who are deeply concerned about their project and thus its relationship to the real world.
Personally I am afraid Jimmy is too relying on his personal recent experience and tend to weigh less those people from the lusophone editing community than it should be, specially in the circumstance no objection toward them and support for the "chapter guys" has come from the editing community. "Believe me, he is a good guy" is no strong argument at least for me which esteem those wikipedian's long experience, devotion and their usual patient attitude to deal with things.
Cheers,
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
If you are convinced that this is not personal, and that there is an issue, then please provide evidence. Otherwise, this looks like bunch of people who are unhappy because their proposal wasn't passed.
Geoffrey Plourde
From: Porantim porantim@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:40:29 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Jimmy, again, the problem isn't personal. Please, dont't try to take this way.
-- Porantim
2008/11/25 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
Porantim wrote:
The point here is: Thomas is one of the people who deny the debate. This
is
the fact.
Of course I want Thomas close to us, fighting with us, but I cant't
believe
in dictatorship.
If you really want to help us, you can speak with your friend Thomas
about
those problemas. What do you think?
In my experience with Thomas, he does not seem like the kind of person who would be denying the opportunity for people to debate, and indeed, he was quite clear with me that he's not a dictator (indeed, I got quite the opposite idea from him, that he's a believer in lots of independent action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
I am meeting Thomas on Friday, and of course this will be our main topic of conversation.
I really think these issues should be quite easy to resolve.
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
on 11/25/08 5:35 PM, Jimmy Wales at jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
lots of independent
action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
Jimmy,
In this type of "loosely coordinated" situation, how do you prevent the more aggressive persons from dominating a project?
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 11/25/08 5:35 PM, Jimmy Wales at jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
lots of independent
action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
Jimmy,
In this type of "loosely coordinated" situation, how do you prevent the more aggressive persons from dominating a project?
I am unaware of any chapters having a problem with aggressive people dominating. Normally, though, I would say that lots of independent action loosely coordinated is a really good way to route around aggressive people. If we are worried about aggressive people dominating, then we want to avoid structures and social customs that allow for top-down authoritarianism as the primary mode of operation.
--Jimbo
2008/11/25 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 11/25/08 5:35 PM, Jimmy Wales at jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
lots of independent
action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
Jimmy,
In this type of "loosely coordinated" situation, how do you prevent the more aggressive persons from dominating a project?
I am unaware of any chapters having a problem with aggressive people dominating. Normally, though, I would say that lots of independent action loosely coordinated is a really good way to route around aggressive people. If we are worried about aggressive people dominating, then we want to avoid structures and social customs that allow for top-down authoritarianism as the primary mode of operation.
Aren't most (all?) chapters democratically run? That should prevent individuals from dominating things - just elect someone else to be in charge.
Democracy is still the enemy of autocracy. Also if a chapter gets really bad, people will vote with their dues and chapter will soon find itself in the red.
________________________________ From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:22:10 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The Wkii Way
2008/11/25 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 11/25/08 5:35 PM, Jimmy Wales at jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
lots of independent
action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
Jimmy,
In this type of "loosely coordinated" situation, how do you prevent the more aggressive persons from dominating a project?
I am unaware of any chapters having a problem with aggressive people dominating. Normally, though, I would say that lots of independent action loosely coordinated is a really good way to route around aggressive people. If we are worried about aggressive people dominating, then we want to avoid structures and social customs that allow for top-down authoritarianism as the primary mode of operation.
Aren't most (all?) chapters democratically run? That should prevent individuals from dominating things - just elect someone else to be in charge.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/11/26 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com:
Democracy is still the enemy of autocracy. Also if a chapter gets really bad, people will vote with their dues and chapter will soon find itself in the red.
That depends on the chapter - I think different chapters rely on membership fees to different extents. If a chapter gets its funding primarily from donations (and perhaps grants) from non-members it would be theoretically able to function effectively without a large membership (although a lack of manpower may harm the quality of its outreach programs, etc.).
People tend not to fund paper nonprofits. If someone pokes the grant funders hard enough, they will reconsider their grants.
________________________________ From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 9:07:31 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The Wkii Way
2008/11/26 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com:
Democracy is still the enemy of autocracy. Also if a chapter gets really bad, people will vote with their dues and chapter will soon find itself in the red.
That depends on the chapter - I think different chapters rely on membership fees to different extents. If a chapter gets its funding primarily from donations (and perhaps grants) from non-members it would be theoretically able to function effectively without a large membership (although a lack of manpower may harm the quality of its outreach programs, etc.).
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Best question...
Maybe the [[ w:Invisible hand ]] (ouch)
-- Porantim
2008/11/25 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net
on 11/25/08 5:35 PM, Jimmy Wales at jwales@wikia-inc.com wrote:
lots of independent
action loosely coordinated... the wiki way).
Jimmy,
In this type of "loosely coordinated" situation, how do you prevent the more aggressive persons from dominating a project?
Marc Riddell
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jimbo will be talking with Thomas, so let's table this discussion until he and ChapCom are finished looking around, ok?
________________________________ From: Porantim porantim@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:12:54 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Jimbo, look, nobody here are in doubt about the honesty of this or those person.
The discussion here is not about the people, is about the positions. Is about the actions.
Sorry, Jimbo, but I believe, nobody here really can believe in a maniqueist discussion like that.
I don't care if Thomas is a beatifull guy, if he can cook very well or if he smells good. This is not the point.
The point here is: Thomas is one of the people who deny the debate. This is the fact.
Of course I want Thomas close to us, fighting with us, but I cant't believe in dictatorship.
If you really want to help us, you can speak with your friend Thomas about those problemas. What do you think?
Saludos.
-- Porantim
** Sorry about my bad english. **
2008/11/25 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
Nathan wrote:
The question is, if the characterization of the Wikimedia Brasil is
accurate
(i.e. comprised mainly of non-editors, hostile to editors, authoritarian
to
the extent of banning discussion of chapter composition and goals, etc.) what can be done? The answer may be nothing at all, and its possible (in light if Jimmy's email) that there is a misunderstanding at the source of this problem.
Having spent 3 days there working with Thomas morning to night, I think it is almost certainly some kind of misunderstanding. Editors are very welcome, there is no hostility to editors, and there is no authoritarianism at all. It is actually quite funny and ironic that this charge is being put forward, because Thomas very much takes the opposite approach from authoritarianism.
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Your problem (mine and of the boys) is NOT that have non wikimedians in brazilian chapter. Is because that non wikimedians hostilize every wikimedian and don't permite anyone discussion... every is taboo.
What kind of organisation is Wikimedia Brazil? Do members not have legal rights? The way the new Wikimedia UK is being set up, if the members weren't happy with the way it was being run they could demand a general meeting and elect a new board (and if the current board refused to comply the members could take legal action). Is there no equivalent for the way you are set up? Or is the problem that a majority of members, not just the board, are non-Wikimedians? In which case, the answer is to recruit more Wikimedians as members.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Your problem (mine and of the boys) is NOT that have non wikimedians in brazilian chapter. Is because that non wikimedians hostilize every wikimedian and don't permite anyone discussion... every is taboo.
The problem is that there isn't any real way to judge these situations prior to chapcom approval. When we get bylaws from a chapter group, we only know the things that we've been told about the organization, and the things we've heard by chance. We don't do any kind of investigation, or go out of our way to solicit feedback from the community. We also don't have a strict requirement that new chapters contain any number of active wikimedians. Red flags obviously go up if we find a group that doesn't contain any, but I'm not sure such a group couldn't get approved if they tried hard enough under the current system.
Something like a public hearing over all new bylaws would help to eliminate these problems, assuming active wikimedians attended such meetings and raised objections. Of course, having to schedule and organize such a meeting, even a virtual one over IRC, would dramatically increase the amount of time that it takes for bylaws to clear the committee. The Brazil group would have even made this more difficult because they made it clear to us that they were under time pressure due to Jimmy's visit. So many chapters have told us that significant delays in approval by the chapcom and the board have a chilling effect on a chapter, sometimes an insurmountable one because of lost enthusiasm and momentum.
The closest solution that I can imagine, and I'm not speaking as a chapcom member right now, would be to create chapters in some sort of probationary status for a year or so, before they become "official". This way we could identify those groups that don't meet our expectations in practice (as opposed to the "on paper" review they get now) and rescind their status because of that. It might be worthwhile for the community to review exactly what requirements are needed to become and to remain a chapter.
Someone said for we change the bylaws to protect Wikimedia Brasil. We try that, but every time when we tried... We have been silenced with the argument: "The Wikimedia approved the bylaws of the way that is"
Chapters are independent organizations and do not need chapcom/WMF approval to change their bylaws. As Michael says, we usually like to hear about changes, just as we like to hear about any other news from chapters. If we become aware of changes that are highly negative we might review them to see that the chapter still meets our expectations, but this has never happened so I am only speculating. We simply don't have the infrastructure to keep track of every change made by every chapter to their bylaws, their operating procedures, or their membership composition.
The chapcom is definitely going to discuss this issue, but lots of feedback and ideas will be appreciated.
--Andrew Whitworth
Hello all,
Good to hear your thoughts. I'll share with you how I see what is going on and how we could tackle the issues mentioned on the previous messages. First, let me summarize below the Brazilian Chapter's history, for those unaware of it:
1. From April to August 2008 the bylaws have been openly discussed and collaboratively translated into English by a group of 13 peoplehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Brasil/Bylaws#Thanks_to.... All the steps were constantly communicated to the remaining grouphttp://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil/Participantes&diff=1154643&oldid=1148591of around 35 people interested in helping the local chapter. 2. In September and October the Chapters Committee and the Board of Trustees approved the bylaws.
3. In October a group of less than 5 people (including Beria Lima, Porantim and Luis Augusto) decided to make new suggestions for the text of the already approved bylaws. The discussion of this alternative content was opened on Metahttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto_2, but very little people participated so far (less than 10 people, including some from the mailing-list) and the opinions on the matter are still divided among them.
4. In November, Jimmy Wales came to Brazil and the press reported the existence of a local chapter, formed by volunteers only and open to anyone interested to be part of it. The list of potential volunteers jumped to more than 120 peoplehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Participantesafter it.
5. So far, no legal entity has been created and there is no such a group of Wikimedia representatives. There are, on the other hand, many dedicated volunteers working together in different projects. For instance, the event/debate with the presence of Jimmy Wales was organized by some of these volunteers and it has not used Wikimedia trademarks.
As far as I understand, there are 3 main issues being discussed. I'll share below my point-of-view on each subject:
A. Changes to the bylaws
B. Participation of non-wikimedians and hostile behavior
C. Risk of potential illicit activities
*A. **Changes to the bylaws*
The discussion is still open, but so far very few people participated and the opinions are divided. My opinion has been that there could be a deadline, when either there are enough people willing to change the bylaws, or the approved version could be used to create a legal entity for the local chapter. In my opinion, we could agree on a two-month period and a target of at least the same number of people willing to submit a new version as there was for the already approved first version.
*B. **Participation of non-wikimedians and hostile behavior*
Any hostile behavior or obstacles for participation of non-wikimedians should ever be accepted within the Wikimedia community. Everybody should be able to join and contribute politely to the promotion of Wikimedia's mission and vision. And the community of volunteers in Brazil will select its legal representatives only when a General Meeting of the future local chapter happens. As long as there is no such meeting, the community will be formed of volunteers only.
*C. **Risk of potential illicit activities*
Due to concerns already raised and the local context for NGOs, I agree that an independent auditing firm should be hired to evaluate the financial statements that will be presented by the local chapter. Although it may be expensive, the local community could agree on this initiative in order to avoid any risk. There is also the possibility of establishing a local pro-bono relationship with KMPG, Wikimedia Foundation's auditing firm.
Please feel invited to join the Brazilian Chapter's Mailing-listhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/WikimediaBR-l(at least temporarily, if you prefer) and to visit the pages on Meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil, where everything has been openly discussed. All my personal information and contacts have always been public on Meta, but I share it once again if anyone feels like further discussing privately (skype thomasbuckupbrasil, phone 5511 9213 3931). Abracos, Thomas
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Your problem (mine and of the boys) is NOT that have non wikimedians in brazilian chapter. Is because that non wikimedians hostilize every wikimedian and don't permite anyone discussion... every is taboo.
The problem is that there isn't any real way to judge these situations prior to chapcom approval. When we get bylaws from a chapter group, we only know the things that we've been told about the organization, and the things we've heard by chance. We don't do any kind of investigation, or go out of our way to solicit feedback from the community. We also don't have a strict requirement that new chapters contain any number of active wikimedians. Red flags obviously go up if we find a group that doesn't contain any, but I'm not sure such a group couldn't get approved if they tried hard enough under the current system.
Something like a public hearing over all new bylaws would help to eliminate these problems, assuming active wikimedians attended such meetings and raised objections. Of course, having to schedule and organize such a meeting, even a virtual one over IRC, would dramatically increase the amount of time that it takes for bylaws to clear the committee. The Brazil group would have even made this more difficult because they made it clear to us that they were under time pressure due to Jimmy's visit. So many chapters have told us that significant delays in approval by the chapcom and the board have a chilling effect on a chapter, sometimes an insurmountable one because of lost enthusiasm and momentum.
The closest solution that I can imagine, and I'm not speaking as a chapcom member right now, would be to create chapters in some sort of probationary status for a year or so, before they become "official". This way we could identify those groups that don't meet our expectations in practice (as opposed to the "on paper" review they get now) and rescind their status because of that. It might be worthwhile for the community to review exactly what requirements are needed to become and to remain a chapter.
Someone said for we change the bylaws to protect Wikimedia Brasil. We try that, but every time when we tried... We have been silenced with the argument: "The Wikimedia approved the bylaws of the way that is"
Chapters are independent organizations and do not need chapcom/WMF approval to change their bylaws. As Michael says, we usually like to hear about changes, just as we like to hear about any other news from chapters. If we become aware of changes that are highly negative we might review them to see that the chapter still meets our expectations, but this has never happened so I am only speculating. We simply don't have the infrastructure to keep track of every change made by every chapter to their bylaws, their operating procedures, or their membership composition.
The chapcom is definitely going to discuss this issue, but lots of feedback and ideas will be appreciated.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
So far, no legal entity has been created and there is no such a groupof Wikimedia representatives.
That's an interesting point that we seemed to be missing. This is all just at the planning stage so far? I don't see that we have any serious problem then, this dispute simply means that more time needs to be spent discussing the bylaws and achieving a consensus on them before things move forwards (it's unfortunate that they were sent to ChapCom before this was achieved, but it's not the end of the world, you can start the process with ChapCom again from scratch if you need to, I'm sure they won't mind).
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
So far, no legal entity has been created and there is no such a groupof Wikimedia representatives.
That's an interesting point that we seemed to be missing.
Yes. I somehow thought that Wikimedia Brasil had been incorporated between ChapCom approval.
This is all just at the planning stage so far? I don't see that we have any serious problem then, this dispute simply means that more time needs to be spent discussing the bylaws and achieving a consensus on them before things move forwards (it's unfortunate that they were sent to ChapCom before this was achieved, but it's not the end of the world, you can start the process with ChapCom again from scratch if you need to, I'm sure they won't mind).
Absolutely. Nota: The approval has already been granted, so if we determine that the entire committee is fine with the changes, we do not need to formally vote on it again and neither does the board. (If part of the committee is not happy, then we'd have to have an internal vote whether we shall issue a de-recommendation resolution, this being the only step we can take if discussion with the chapter fails, but this is highly unlikely)
So, it will just be ChapCom looking at it again and determining if it sees problems with it and possibly getting in touch with the chapter again, offering comments.
Michael
"you can start the process with ChapCom again from scratch if you need to..."
I agree whit this pharse of Thomas...
Is that whem we want... start over again... from zero. Discuss point to point... and after all we back and re-approve the Brazilian Chapter.
Att,
Béria Lima
2008/11/24 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
So far, no legal entity has been created and there is no such agroup
of Wikimedia representatives.
That's an interesting point that we seemed to be missing.
Yes. I somehow thought that Wikimedia Brasil had been incorporated between ChapCom approval.
This is all just at the planning stage so far? I don't see that we have any serious problem then, this dispute simply means that more time needs to be spent discussing the bylaws and achieving a consensus on them before things move forwards (it's unfortunate that they were sent to ChapCom before this was achieved, but it's not the end of the world, you can start the process with ChapCom again from scratch if you need to, I'm sure they won't mind).
Absolutely. Nota: The approval has already been granted, so if we determine that the entire committee is fine with the changes, we do not need to formally vote on it again and neither does the board. (If part of the committee is not happy, then we'd have to have an internal vote whether we shall issue a de-recommendation resolution, this being the only step we can take if discussion with the chapter fails, but this is highly unlikely)
So, it will just be ChapCom looking at it again and determining if it sees problems with it and possibly getting in touch with the chapter again, offering comments.
Michael
-- Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Michael Bimmler wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
So far, no legal entity has been created and there is no such a groupof Wikimedia representatives.
That's an interesting point that we seemed to be missing.
Yes. I somehow thought that Wikimedia Brasil had been incorporated between ChapCom approval.
This is all just at the planning stage so far? I don't see that we have any serious problem then, this dispute simply means that more time needs to be spent discussing the bylaws and achieving a consensus on them before things move forwards (it's unfortunate that they were sent to ChapCom before this was achieved, but it's not the end of the world, you can start the process with ChapCom again from scratch if you need to, I'm sure they won't mind).
Absolutely. Nota: The approval has already been granted, so if we determine that the entire committee is fine with the changes, we do not need to formally vote on it again and neither does the board. (If part of the committee is not happy, then we'd have to have an internal vote whether we shall issue a de-recommendation resolution, this being the only step we can take if discussion with the chapter fails, but this is highly unlikely)
So, it will just be ChapCom looking at it again and determining if it sees problems with it and possibly getting in touch with the chapter again, offering comments.
Michael
I think it is not appropriate that Wikimedia Brasil is listed (and described) as a non-profit organization if it is not yet incorporated: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters.
I also note that the website proposed is not working.
Ant
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I think it is not appropriate that Wikimedia Brasil is listed (and described) as a non-profit organization if it is not yet incorporated: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters.
I disagree, it's a list of approved chapters -- WMBR is approved and is therefore listed.
2008/11/24 Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I think it is not appropriate that Wikimedia Brasil is listed (and described) as a non-profit organization if it is not yet incorporated: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters.
I disagree, it's a list of approved chapters -- WMBR is approved and is therefore listed.
But there is no chapter, just a proposal. The idea of a Brazilian chapter has been approved, but that idea still needs to be implemented. It doesn't make sense to include it on the list of chapters when it doesn't exist.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But there is no chapter, just a proposal. The idea of a Brazilian chapter has been approved, but that idea still needs to be implemented. It doesn't make sense to include it on the list of chapters when it doesn't exist.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
"The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia Brasil as a Wikimedia Chapter."
2008/11/24 Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But there is no chapter, just a proposal. The idea of a Brazilian chapter has been approved, but that idea still needs to be implemented. It doesn't make sense to include it on the list of chapters when it doesn't exist.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
"The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia Brasil as a Wikimedia Chapter."
I know what the resolution says, it doesn't mean it makes sense. There is no "Wikimedia Brasil", so the resolution is pretty meaningless. I think the board ought to wait until the actual contracts are signed before official recognising anything (the resolution could say something like "The board authorises the management to enter negotiations to officially recognise a Brazilian chapter.". The phrase "Wikimedia Brasil" shouldn't be used for anything official until there is a legal entity with permission to use that trademark.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I know what the resolution says, it doesn't mean it makes sense. There is no "Wikimedia Brasil", so the resolution is pretty meaningless. I think the board ought to wait until the actual contracts are signed before official recognising anything (the resolution could say something like "The board authorises the management to enter negotiations to officially recognise a Brazilian chapter.". The phrase "Wikimedia Brasil" shouldn't be used for anything official until there is a legal entity with permission to use that trademark.
You had a good point until I got to the end of your message -- did you actually read the resolution? "The Board of Trustees grants Wikimedia Brasil interim permission to use the Wikimedia trademarks pending signature of the Chapters Agreement." WMBR is a chapter, it may not be an government-approved organization yet, but once you are approved by the Board and a resolution is passed you become a chapter.
[Re "interim permission", there is no legal entity, but there is still the group that is given the permission.]
2008/11/24 Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I know what the resolution says, it doesn't mean it makes sense. There is no "Wikimedia Brasil", so the resolution is pretty meaningless. I think the board ought to wait until the actual contracts are signed before official recognising anything (the resolution could say something like "The board authorises the management to enter negotiations to officially recognise a Brazilian chapter.". The phrase "Wikimedia Brasil" shouldn't be used for anything official until there is a legal entity with permission to use that trademark.
You had a good point until I got to the end of your message -- did you actually read the resolution? "The Board of Trustees grants Wikimedia Brasil interim permission to use the Wikimedia trademarks pending signature of the Chapters Agreement." WMBR is a chapter, it may not be an government-approved organization yet, but once you are approved by the Board and a resolution is passed you become a chapter.
[Re "interim permission", there is no legal entity, but there is still the group that is given the permission.]
So you are defining "Wikimedia Brasil" to be the group of people that intend to form the legal entity? It's not clear that the resolution means that, or that it is even well defined. Granting permission to use a trademark is a legal thing, you can't do it in informal and poorly defined terms. I think that interim permission is null and void since one of the parties doesn't exist (perhaps a lawyer will inform me otherwise - is there some standard legal interpretation for licenses that reference an undefined party?).
I'm a mathematician, so I'm big on defining things precisely and, judging by the long "definitions" section at the top of most legal documents I've seen, so are lawyers. So, could you please define "chapter" and "Wikimedia Brasil"?
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I think it is not appropriate that Wikimedia Brasil is listed (and described) as a non-profit organization if it is not yet incorporated: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters.
I disagree, it's a list of approved chapters -- WMBR is approved and is therefore listed.
I guess the issue is that usually organisations need to "earn" the title of non-profit (by being accepted as such by the courts/authorities), so a non-incorporated group of people recognised as WM Brasil should not be branded as a non-profit until they are actually incorporated, as it is misleading.
Bence Damokos
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
I guess the issue is that usually organisations need to "earn" the title of non-profit (by being accepted as such by the courts/authorities), so a non-incorporated group of people recognised as WM Brasil should not be branded as a non-profit until they are actually incorporated, as it is misleading.
You're right about that, the text I was given to put up was a bit misleading; fixed: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/?diff=36303
Casey Brown wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
I guess the issue is that usually organisations need to "earn" the title of non-profit (by being accepted as such by the courts/authorities), so a non-incorporated group of people recognised as WM Brasil should not be branded as a non-profit until they are actually incorporated, as it is misleading.
You're right about that, the text I was given to put up was a bit misleading; fixed: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/?diff=36303
The text you put was still misleading. Fixed:http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Local_chapters&diff=363...
Ant
2008/11/24 Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Casey Brown wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
I guess the issue is that usually organisations need to "earn" the title of non-profit (by being accepted as such by the courts/authorities), so a non-incorporated group of people recognised as WM Brasil should not be branded as a non-profit until they are actually incorporated, as it is misleading.
You're right about that, the text I was given to put up was a bit misleading; fixed: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/?diff=36303
The text you put was still misleading. Fixed:http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Local_chapters&diff=363...
I much prefer that version. Thank you!
Agreed. Not yet existing corporate cannot be approved by anyone. It just may say the idea was favored, and it may be sure it is being planned, but we should not mislead our readers as if there were an organization already.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Michael Bimmler wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
So far, no legal entity has been created and there is no such a groupof Wikimedia representatives.
That's an interesting point that we seemed to be missing.
Yes. I somehow thought that Wikimedia Brasil had been incorporated between ChapCom approval.
This is all just at the planning stage so far? I don't see that we have any serious problem then, this dispute simply means that more time needs to be spent discussing the bylaws and achieving a consensus on them before things move forwards (it's unfortunate that they were sent to ChapCom before this was achieved, but it's not the end of the world, you can start the process with ChapCom again from scratch if you need to, I'm sure they won't mind).
Absolutely. Nota: The approval has already been granted, so if we determine that the entire committee is fine with the changes, we do not need to formally vote on it again and neither does the board. (If part of the committee is not happy, then we'd have to have an internal vote whether we shall issue a de-recommendation resolution, this being the only step we can take if discussion with the chapter fails, but this is highly unlikely)
So, it will just be ChapCom looking at it again and determining if it sees problems with it and possibly getting in touch with the chapter again, offering comments.
Michael
I think it is not appropriate that Wikimedia Brasil is listed (and described) as a non-profit organization if it is not yet incorporated: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters.
I also note that the website proposed is not working.
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Replying to three messages at the same time
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Thomas de Souza Buckup < thomasdesouzabuckup@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
In October a group of less than 5 people (including Beria Lima,Porantim and Luis Augusto) decided to make new suggestions for the text of the already approved bylaws. The discussion of this alternative content was opened on Meta< http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto_2%3E, but very little people participated so far (less than 10 people, including some from the mailing-list) and the opinions on the matter are still divided among them.
Thomas, you have forgotten to say that this "group of less than 5 people" is about to 40% of all that are engaged on Wikimedia Brasil. Please remember that the page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Participanteslists the interested people on creating a brazilian local chapter, as the header in Portuguese language says it. Unfortunately the amount of interested peoples is only the amount of supporters of the idea that having a local chapter can be a good addition, not the ones that are working to make it.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
[...] I don't see that we have any serious problem then, this dispute simply means that more time needs to be spent discussing the bylaws and achieving a consensus on them before things move forwards (it's unfortunate that they were sent to ChapCom before this was achieved, but it's not the end of the world, you can start the process with ChapCom again from scratch if you need to, I'm sure they won't mind).
This is what we need: to stop the current attempt and start it again. The key problem there was the non-wikimedian group progressing on it with no one from Wikimedia projects helping it, assuring that the views and needs of projects in Portuguese language gets figured.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Luiz, have there been any responses from members of WM-Brasil indicating their desire to engage on this list (or on any list, I suppose) on this dispute? If they join the discussion on Foundation-l, perhaps the mediation of Florence or Jimmy (or Michael or Andrew) could help you come to an understanding.
I've notified the discussion list in 20 November about talking this subject there ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000343.html) and again at 24 November after starting this tread ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000387.html )
Presumably we will need a mediation. Thomas de Souza Buckup don't reply to anything on the brazilian discussion list (only there, foundation-l) and Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton keeps making personal attacks instead of talking about the subject.
[[:m:User:555]]
I agree, why the hell should we blow off a couple thousand hours of work and toast a chapter? While there may be some issues in the bylaws and they still need to legally organize, there is more support for this chapter than some of the European ones.
My friend, this is starting to appear disruptive.
________________________________ From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:42:35 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Luiz Augusto wrote:
This is what we need: to stop the current attempt and start it again
Why?
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Geoffrey...
The guy whit you are talking is one of the best sysops on pt.wikipedia. Don't be maniqueist please.
The case is: Thomas is a good guy... but in the mailing list he stopped all the process of consensus. The problem is not just a discussion of Porantim and Thomas... are more of 10 wikipedist that agree whit Porantim, me and Luiz Augusto. Don't ut that in terms of "dispurtive", "vandal" or anything about that...
We are discuss the bylaws again... because that mensage of Luiz. Before that Thomas and another user don't permit the dialog.
Att, Béria Lima
2008/11/25 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
I agree, why the hell should we blow off a couple thousand hours of work and toast a chapter? While there may be some issues in the bylaws and they still need to legally organize, there is more support for this chapter than some of the European ones.
My friend, this is starting to appear disruptive.
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:42:35 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Luiz Augusto wrote:
This is what we need: to stop the current attempt and start it again
Why?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/11/25 Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com:
Geoffrey...
The guy whit you are talking is one of the best sysops on pt.wikipedia. Don't be maniqueist please.
The case is: Thomas is a good guy... but in the mailing list he stopped all the process of consensus. The problem is not just a discussion of Porantim and Thomas... are more of 10 wikipedist that agree whit Porantim, me and Luiz Augusto. Don't ut that in terms of "dispurtive", "vandal" or anything about that...
We are discuss the bylaws again... because that mensage of Luiz. Before that Thomas and another user don't permit the dialog.
How about some (translated) quotes so we can see what was really going on? Text can be a very inaccurate way of conveying ones point, perhaps Thomas was just misunderstood? Judging by Jimbo's assessment of the guy and your assessment of the situation, it seems the most likely explanation is that there has been a misunderstanding somewhere.
I am sorry if I am misunderstanding something, but reading the Google-translated versions of the quoted e-mails, they seem to all come from Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, so in solving any misunderstanding his opinions should be heard, and to make this discussion more constructive, maybe we could leave the character of Tomas out of it, if he isn't the one with whom some members of WM Brasil have a misunderstanding. -- Bence Damokos
For those who have lost the first mails in this discussion, from Porantis' e-mail dated Nov 24, 2008 at 2:30 AM: [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000296.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000357.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-October/000080.html [4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000301.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000310.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000316.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000351.html
[5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000328.html
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2008/11/25 Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com:
Geoffrey...
The guy whit you are talking is one of the best sysops on pt.wikipedia. Don't be maniqueist please.
The case is: Thomas is a good guy... but in the mailing list he stopped
all
the process of consensus. The problem is not just a discussion of
Porantim
and Thomas... are more of 10 wikipedist that agree whit Porantim, me and Luiz Augusto. Don't ut that in terms of "dispurtive", "vandal" or
anything
about that...
We are discuss the bylaws again... because that mensage of Luiz. Before
that
Thomas and another user don't permit the dialog.
How about some (translated) quotes so we can see what was really going on? Text can be a very inaccurate way of conveying ones point, perhaps Thomas was just misunderstood? Judging by Jimbo's assessment of the guy and your assessment of the situation, it seems the most likely explanation is that there has been a misunderstanding somewhere. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Beria,
I meant no offense by my remarks. I apologize if any was taken, that was not the point. By disruptive, I was not referring to Luiz, but the request to kill a chapter, for the reasons listed below.
I don't believe that killing the manifestation of thousands of hours of work is going to solve any dispute. I am going off what we have currently. As far as I can see, we have an assertion that work on bylaws was silenced by Thomas. We have two people that vouch for his character (Mr. Wales, you). We do not have any hard evidence proving that Thomas killed the discussion. If there is some, we should see it. Otherwise, it appears that this is simple dissatisfaction which in my not so humble opinion has no place on this list.
Since some people may be unable to follow this thread, I have translated my comments into something that resembles Portuguese.
Respectfully Yours;
Geoffrey Plourde
----- Beria,
Eu quis dizer que não ofenda por minhas observações. Peço desculpas se alguma foi tomada, não foi esse o ponto. Por perturbador, não me referia ao Luiz, mas o pedido de matar um capítulo, pelos motivos listados abaixo.
Não creio que matar a manifestação de milhares de horas de trabalho está indo para resolver qualquer litígio. Eu vou desligar o que temos actualmente. Tanto quanto eu posso ver, temos um trabalho em alegação de que foi silenciada pelo Estatuto Social Thomas. Temos duas pessoas que atestam a sua personagem (Mr. País de Gales, você). Nós não temos qualquer evidência sólida de provar que Thomas mataram a discussão. Se houver algum, que devemos encará-la. Caso contrário, parece que este é simples insatisfação que, na minha modesta opinião não assim não tem lugar nesta lista.
Uma vez que algumas pessoas pode não ser capaz de seguir essa linha, eu tenho o meu comentário traduzido em algo que se assemelha Português.
Yours respeitosamente;
Geoffrey Plourde
________________________________ From: Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:08:40 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Geoffrey...
The guy whit you are talking is one of the best sysops on pt.wikipedia. Don't be maniqueist please.
The case is: Thomas is a good guy... but in the mailing list he stopped all the process of consensus. The problem is not just a discussion of Porantim and Thomas... are more of 10 wikipedist that agree whit Porantim, me and Luiz Augusto. Don't ut that in terms of "dispurtive", "vandal" or anything about that...
We are discuss the bylaws again... because that mensage of Luiz. Before that Thomas and another user don't permit the dialog.
Att, Béria Lima
2008/11/25 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
I agree, why the hell should we blow off a couple thousand hours of work and toast a chapter? While there may be some issues in the bylaws and they still need to legally organize, there is more support for this chapter than some of the European ones.
My friend, this is starting to appear disruptive.
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:42:35 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Luiz Augusto wrote:
This is what we need: to stop the current attempt and start it again
Why?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Geoffrey,
We came here, on this list, looking for other opinions. Looking for any kind of light.
We don't really need that you *make* somethink, but we need your expertise, we need your view, your look [I don't know how I can say that].
We came here to open your eyes about the danger of a chapter without clear positions can make, too.
Nobody says "work on bylaws was silenced *by Thomas*", but the evidences of the problems is in our discussion list. Unfortunately, we can't translate all the messages to english to show that and I think you have a lot of other issues to take care.
Nobody request to "kill" a chapter too. We request to start again. Start again because the process has transformed in a addicted process. *This* addicted process is "killing the manifestation of thousands of hours of work". You see?
Any way, perhaps this conversation can't make anythink more.
When Jimmy puts his personal feelings as the unique argument, no more have to say. When he puts his friendship against the interests of the community, no more remain to do.
You know, Jimmy is a kind of symbol to some us, maybe all of us. Then, when he puts this conversation in that maniqueist form, I don't know what more remain.
Jimmy has feelings about Thomas. That's OK to me, but there is no argument against that, when that is de unique argument.
I apologize to do you lost your time.
My hope is that I am wrong (and the remain of brazillian wikimedians) and Jimmy and his friend are rigth.
I apologize too if any of my words sounds offensive. I can't speak english well.
Thanks Geoffrey about your care in try to translate your messages to portuguese.
Saludos
-- Porantim
2008/11/26 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
Beria,
I meant no offense by my remarks. I apologize if any was taken, that was not the point. By disruptive, I was not referring to Luiz, but the request to kill a chapter, for the reasons listed below.
I don't believe that killing the manifestation of thousands of hours of work is going to solve any dispute. I am going off what we have currently. As far as I can see, we have an assertion that work on bylaws was silenced by Thomas. We have two people that vouch for his character (Mr. Wales, you). We do not have any hard evidence proving that Thomas killed the discussion. If there is some, we should see it. Otherwise, it appears that this is simple dissatisfaction which in my not so humble opinion has no place on this list.
Since some people may be unable to follow this thread, I have translated my comments into something that resembles Portuguese.
Respectfully Yours;
Geoffrey Plourde
Beria,
Eu quis dizer que não ofenda por minhas observações. Peço desculpas se alguma foi tomada, não foi esse o ponto. Por perturbador, não me referia ao Luiz, mas o pedido de matar um capítulo, pelos motivos listados abaixo.
Não creio que matar a manifestação de milhares de horas de trabalho está indo para resolver qualquer litígio. Eu vou desligar o que temos actualmente. Tanto quanto eu posso ver, temos um trabalho em alegação de que foi silenciada pelo Estatuto Social Thomas. Temos duas pessoas que atestam a sua personagem (Mr. País de Gales, você). Nós não temos qualquer evidência sólida de provar que Thomas mataram a discussão. Se houver algum, que devemos encará-la. Caso contrário, parece que este é simples insatisfação que, na minha modesta opinião não assim não tem lugar nesta lista.
Uma vez que algumas pessoas pode não ser capaz de seguir essa linha, eu tenho o meu comentário traduzido em algo que se assemelha Português.
Yours respeitosamente;
Geoffrey Plourde
From: Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:08:40 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Geoffrey...
The guy whit you are talking is one of the best sysops on pt.wikipedia. Don't be maniqueist please.
The case is: Thomas is a good guy... but in the mailing list he stopped all the process of consensus. The problem is not just a discussion of Porantim and Thomas... are more of 10 wikipedist that agree whit Porantim, me and Luiz Augusto. Don't ut that in terms of "dispurtive", "vandal" or anything about that...
We are discuss the bylaws again... because that mensage of Luiz. Before that Thomas and another user don't permit the dialog.
Att, Béria Lima
2008/11/25 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
I agree, why the hell should we blow off a couple thousand hours of work and toast a chapter? While there may be some issues in the bylaws and
they
still need to legally organize, there is more support for this chapter
than
some of the European ones.
My friend, this is starting to appear disruptive.
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:42:35 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Luiz Augusto wrote:
This is what we need: to stop the current attempt and start it again
Why?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Porantim wrote:
When Jimmy puts his personal feelings as the unique argument, no more have to say. When he puts his friendship against the interests of the community, no more remain to do.
You know, Jimmy is a kind of symbol to some us, maybe all of us. Then, when he puts this conversation in that maniqueist form, I don't know what more remain.
Jimmy has feelings about Thomas. That's OK to me, but there is no argument against that, when that is de unique argument.
Porantim, I would like to be your friend as well. Please don't take anything that I have said as being a matter of taking sides against you or for Thomas *and* especially not supposing that I have any opinion on the proposed bylaw changes (I don't even know what they are).
All that I have said is that I met Thomas, and based on what I know of him, he will be a peace seeker and he has no interest in being any kind of boss or tyrant of the chapter process. Nor is he an aggressive person. I found the suggestions (I don't know who made them first, perhaps not you) that the chapter might be at risk of being used for purposes of money laundering to be a bit over top, and I felt it important to mention what little I do know.
Again, I will meet with Thomas, and I will ask him what is going on, and I will recommend to him that everyone should make peace.
It is not helpful to suppose that I am putting my "friendship against the interests of the community".
--Jimbo
This subject line is very strange to me: "A chapter without Wikimedians". A member of a Wikimedia organisation is a Wikimedian by definition, he is someone who supports with his fee and his invested sparetime the Wikimedia goals.
If someone calls a fellow member "a non Wikimedian", this is at least rude. If someone claims that a fellow member has other goals than Wikimedia and wants to take abuse of the organisation, that is a very serious allegation. An allegation that is better based on evidence and not on stomach feelings.
As others have already said, a good Wikimedian is not necessarily an extensive editor. I know of a senior member of Wikimedia Deutschland who is very, very active for our goals, but he told me that he was not allowed to vote for the WMF board this year, because he did not make enough edits the months before.
Ziko
2008/11/26 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
Porantim wrote:
When Jimmy puts his personal feelings as the unique argument, no more
have
to say. When he puts his friendship against the interests of the
community,
no more remain to do.
You know, Jimmy is a kind of symbol to some us, maybe all of us. Then,
when
he puts this conversation in that maniqueist form, I don't know what more remain.
Jimmy has feelings about Thomas. That's OK to me, but there is no
argument
against that, when that is de unique argument.
Porantim, I would like to be your friend as well. Please don't take anything that I have said as being a matter of taking sides against you or for Thomas *and* especially not supposing that I have any opinion on the proposed bylaw changes (I don't even know what they are).
All that I have said is that I met Thomas, and based on what I know of him, he will be a peace seeker and he has no interest in being any kind of boss or tyrant of the chapter process. Nor is he an aggressive person. I found the suggestions (I don't know who made them first, perhaps not you) that the chapter might be at risk of being used for purposes of money laundering to be a bit over top, and I felt it important to mention what little I do know.
Again, I will meet with Thomas, and I will ask him what is going on, and I will recommend to him that everyone should make peace.
It is not helpful to suppose that I am putting my "friendship against the interests of the community".
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ziko,
Maybe the problem is my very poor english and I can't explain what I really think.
There is *no* "Wikimedia organisation" in Brazil. There is no "allegation" about nothing. There is facts about *proposed* chapter.
I suggest you to read the messas in beggining of this thread.
Exept Jimb, nobody wrote about "feelings".
The problem don't is people with no edits participate of the chapter, the problem is deny editors to participate.
Well, that's it.
Saludos
-- Porantim
2008/11/26 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
This subject line is very strange to me: "A chapter without Wikimedians". A member of a Wikimedia organisation is a Wikimedian by definition, he is someone who supports with his fee and his invested sparetime the Wikimedia goals.
If someone calls a fellow member "a non Wikimedian", this is at least rude. If someone claims that a fellow member has other goals than Wikimedia and wants to take abuse of the organisation, that is a very serious allegation. An allegation that is better based on evidence and not on stomach feelings.
As others have already said, a good Wikimedian is not necessarily an extensive editor. I know of a senior member of Wikimedia Deutschland who is very, very active for our goals, but he told me that he was not allowed to vote for the WMF board this year, because he did not make enough edits the months before.
Ziko
2008/11/26 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
Porantim wrote:
When Jimmy puts his personal feelings as the unique argument, no more
have
to say. When he puts his friendship against the interests of the
community,
no more remain to do.
You know, Jimmy is a kind of symbol to some us, maybe all of us. Then,
when
he puts this conversation in that maniqueist form, I don't know what
more
remain.
Jimmy has feelings about Thomas. That's OK to me, but there is no
argument
against that, when that is de unique argument.
Porantim, I would like to be your friend as well. Please don't take anything that I have said as being a matter of taking sides against you or for Thomas *and* especially not supposing that I have any opinion on the proposed bylaw changes (I don't even know what they are).
All that I have said is that I met Thomas, and based on what I know of him, he will be a peace seeker and he has no interest in being any kind of boss or tyrant of the chapter process. Nor is he an aggressive person. I found the suggestions (I don't know who made them first, perhaps not you) that the chapter might be at risk of being used for purposes of money laundering to be a bit over top, and I felt it important to mention what little I do know.
Again, I will meet with Thomas, and I will ask him what is going on, and I will recommend to him that everyone should make peace.
It is not helpful to suppose that I am putting my "friendship against the interests of the community".
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/11/26 Porantim porantim@gmail.com
The problem don't is people with no edits participate of the chapter, the problem is deny editors to participate.
Sounds pretty much like an allegation to me. Make it hard. Ziko
Porantim wrote:
The problem don't is people with no edits participate of the chapter, the problem is deny editors to participate.
Porantim, I hear what you are saying and I agree with you. There should never be a chapter which denies that participation of editors. I'll go even further: there should never be a chapter, particularly a new chapter, which is not put together and managed by the local editing community (with of course the welcome assistance of people who don't enjoy editing but do enjoy doing all the other things that a chapter will do.)
I am sure that Thomas agrees, based on conversations that we had, and if he doesn't, then I will work to change his mind. When I spoke with him, he did not want to be the leader of the chapter, and he spoke a lot about how it should take some time to form the chapter properly.
I can't read Portuguese, so I can't really find out how communication broke down. But my only goal in all this is to encourage everyone to talk openly in a friendly way because as far as I can see, everyone agrees on all the important points.
--Jimbo
Porantim;
I mean you no disrespect, but we really need to see proof of discussion being monopolized.
Sincerely;
Geoffrey Plourde
-----
Porantim;
Quer dizer que você não desrespeitar, mas nós realmente precisamos de ver a prova de discussão a ser monopolizada.
Atenciosamente;
Geoffrey Plourde
________________________________ From: Porantim porantim@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 5:11:39 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Ziko,
Maybe the problem is my very poor english and I can't explain what I really think.
There is *no* "Wikimedia organisation" in Brazil. There is no "allegation" about nothing. There is facts about *proposed* chapter.
I suggest you to read the messas in beggining of this thread.
Exept Jimb, nobody wrote about "feelings".
The problem don't is people with no edits participate of the chapter, the problem is deny editors to participate.
Well, that's it.
Saludos
-- Porantim
2008/11/26 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com
This subject line is very strange to me: "A chapter without Wikimedians". A member of a Wikimedia organisation is a Wikimedian by definition, he is someone who supports with his fee and his invested sparetime the Wikimedia goals.
If someone calls a fellow member "a non Wikimedian", this is at least rude. If someone claims that a fellow member has other goals than Wikimedia and wants to take abuse of the organisation, that is a very serious allegation. An allegation that is better based on evidence and not on stomach feelings.
As others have already said, a good Wikimedian is not necessarily an extensive editor. I know of a senior member of Wikimedia Deutschland who is very, very active for our goals, but he told me that he was not allowed to vote for the WMF board this year, because he did not make enough edits the months before.
Ziko
2008/11/26 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
Porantim wrote:
When Jimmy puts his personal feelings as the unique argument, no more
have
to say. When he puts his friendship against the interests of the
community,
no more remain to do.
You know, Jimmy is a kind of symbol to some us, maybe all of us. Then,
when
he puts this conversation in that maniqueist form, I don't know what
more
remain.
Jimmy has feelings about Thomas. That's OK to me, but there is no
argument
against that, when that is de unique argument.
Porantim, I would like to be your friend as well. Please don't take anything that I have said as being a matter of taking sides against you or for Thomas *and* especially not supposing that I have any opinion on the proposed bylaw changes (I don't even know what they are).
All that I have said is that I met Thomas, and based on what I know of him, he will be a peace seeker and he has no interest in being any kind of boss or tyrant of the chapter process. Nor is he an aggressive person. I found the suggestions (I don't know who made them first, perhaps not you) that the chapter might be at risk of being used for purposes of money laundering to be a bit over top, and I felt it important to mention what little I do know.
Again, I will meet with Thomas, and I will ask him what is going on, and I will recommend to him that everyone should make peace.
It is not helpful to suppose that I am putting my "friendship against the interests of the community".
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I agree, I have been tempted to write an essay on wikimedians, but one probably already exists.
________________________________ From: Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:29:06 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
This subject line is very strange to me: "A chapter without Wikimedians". A member of a Wikimedia organisation is a Wikimedian by definition, he is someone who supports with his fee and his invested sparetime the Wikimedia goals.
If someone calls a fellow member "a non Wikimedian", this is at least rude. If someone claims that a fellow member has other goals than Wikimedia and wants to take abuse of the organisation, that is a very serious allegation. An allegation that is better based on evidence and not on stomach feelings.
As others have already said, a good Wikimedian is not necessarily an extensive editor. I know of a senior member of Wikimedia Deutschland who is very, very active for our goals, but he told me that he was not allowed to vote for the WMF board this year, because he did not make enough edits the months before.
Ziko
2008/11/26 Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com
Porantim wrote:
When Jimmy puts his personal feelings as the unique argument, no more
have
to say. When he puts his friendship against the interests of the
community,
no more remain to do.
You know, Jimmy is a kind of symbol to some us, maybe all of us. Then,
when
he puts this conversation in that maniqueist form, I don't know what more remain.
Jimmy has feelings about Thomas. That's OK to me, but there is no
argument
against that, when that is de unique argument.
Porantim, I would like to be your friend as well. Please don't take anything that I have said as being a matter of taking sides against you or for Thomas *and* especially not supposing that I have any opinion on the proposed bylaw changes (I don't even know what they are).
All that I have said is that I met Thomas, and based on what I know of him, he will be a peace seeker and he has no interest in being any kind of boss or tyrant of the chapter process. Nor is he an aggressive person. I found the suggestions (I don't know who made them first, perhaps not you) that the chapter might be at risk of being used for purposes of money laundering to be a bit over top, and I felt it important to mention what little I do know.
Again, I will meet with Thomas, and I will ask him what is going on, and I will recommend to him that everyone should make peace.
It is not helpful to suppose that I am putting my "friendship against the interests of the community".
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It was probably me who made the direct correlation, but I feel that has a snowball's chance in hell of occurring. Who the hell would put money through a non profit encyclopedia? It's too much of a financially risky proposition.
________________________________ From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:05:48 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Porantim wrote:
When Jimmy puts his personal feelings as the unique argument, no more have to say. When he puts his friendship against the interests of the community, no more remain to do.
You know, Jimmy is a kind of symbol to some us, maybe all of us. Then, when he puts this conversation in that maniqueist form, I don't know what more remain.
Jimmy has feelings about Thomas. That's OK to me, but there is no argument against that, when that is de unique argument.
Porantim, I would like to be your friend as well. Please don't take anything that I have said as being a matter of taking sides against you or for Thomas *and* especially not supposing that I have any opinion on the proposed bylaw changes (I don't even know what they are).
All that I have said is that I met Thomas, and based on what I know of him, he will be a peace seeker and he has no interest in being any kind of boss or tyrant of the chapter process. Nor is he an aggressive person. I found the suggestions (I don't know who made them first, perhaps not you) that the chapter might be at risk of being used for purposes of money laundering to be a bit over top, and I felt it important to mention what little I do know.
Again, I will meet with Thomas, and I will ask him what is going on, and I will recommend to him that everyone should make peace.
It is not helpful to suppose that I am putting my "friendship against the interests of the community".
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Porantim, unfortunately we have a unique set of circumstances here. The fact that the discussions are in a language that many may be unable to read is a major hindrance. If you can point to the particular posts, then you will have met the proof issue. That being said, I do have some questions, mainly about why the chapter is still not legally organized, and whether or not the bylaws are legally ok as written. The membership section still disturbs me.
----
Porantim, infelizmente, temos um único conjunto de circunstâncias aqui. O fato de que as discussões estão em um idioma que muitos podem ser incapazes de ler é um grande entrave. Se você pode apontar para os lugares particular, então você vai ter atendido a prova questão. Dito isto, ainda tenho algumas dúvidas, principalmente sobre o motivo do capítulo ainda não está legalmente organizada, e se existem ou não são juridicamente o estatuto social ok como está escrita. A filiação seção ainda me perturba.
________________________________ From: Porantim porantim@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 11:27:44 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Geoffrey,
We came here, on this list, looking for other opinions. Looking for any kind of light.
We don't really need that you *make* somethink, but we need your expertise, we need your view, your look [I don't know how I can say that].
We came here to open your eyes about the danger of a chapter without clear positions can make, too.
Nobody says "work on bylaws was silenced *by Thomas*", but the evidences of the problems is in our discussion list. Unfortunately, we can't translate all the messages to english to show that and I think you have a lot of other issues to take care.
Nobody request to "kill" a chapter too. We request to start again. Start again because the process has transformed in a addicted process. *This* addicted process is "killing the manifestation of thousands of hours of work". You see?
Any way, perhaps this conversation can't make anythink more.
When Jimmy puts his personal feelings as the unique argument, no more have to say. When he puts his friendship against the interests of the community, no more remain to do.
You know, Jimmy is a kind of symbol to some us, maybe all of us. Then, when he puts this conversation in that maniqueist form, I don't know what more remain.
Jimmy has feelings about Thomas. That's OK to me, but there is no argument against that, when that is de unique argument.
I apologize to do you lost your time.
My hope is that I am wrong (and the remain of brazillian wikimedians) and Jimmy and his friend are rigth.
I apologize too if any of my words sounds offensive. I can't speak english well.
Thanks Geoffrey about your care in try to translate your messages to portuguese.
Saludos
-- Porantim
2008/11/26 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
Beria,
I meant no offense by my remarks. I apologize if any was taken, that was not the point. By disruptive, I was not referring to Luiz, but the request to kill a chapter, for the reasons listed below.
I don't believe that killing the manifestation of thousands of hours of work is going to solve any dispute. I am going off what we have currently. As far as I can see, we have an assertion that work on bylaws was silenced by Thomas. We have two people that vouch for his character (Mr. Wales, you). We do not have any hard evidence proving that Thomas killed the discussion. If there is some, we should see it. Otherwise, it appears that this is simple dissatisfaction which in my not so humble opinion has no place on this list.
Since some people may be unable to follow this thread, I have translated my comments into something that resembles Portuguese.
Respectfully Yours;
Geoffrey Plourde
Beria,
Eu quis dizer que não ofenda por minhas observações. Peço desculpas se alguma foi tomada, não foi esse o ponto. Por perturbador, não me referia ao Luiz, mas o pedido de matar um capítulo, pelos motivos listados abaixo.
Não creio que matar a manifestação de milhares de horas de trabalho está indo para resolver qualquer litígio. Eu vou desligar o que temos actualmente. Tanto quanto eu posso ver, temos um trabalho em alegação de que foi silenciada pelo Estatuto Social Thomas. Temos duas pessoas que atestam a sua personagem (Mr. País de Gales, você). Nós não temos qualquer evidência sólida de provar que Thomas mataram a discussão. Se houver algum, que devemos encará-la. Caso contrário, parece que este é simples insatisfação que, na minha modesta opinião não assim não tem lugar nesta lista.
Uma vez que algumas pessoas pode não ser capaz de seguir essa linha, eu tenho o meu comentário traduzido em algo que se assemelha Português.
Yours respeitosamente;
Geoffrey Plourde
From: Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:08:40 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Geoffrey...
The guy whit you are talking is one of the best sysops on pt.wikipedia. Don't be maniqueist please.
The case is: Thomas is a good guy... but in the mailing list he stopped all the process of consensus. The problem is not just a discussion of Porantim and Thomas... are more of 10 wikipedist that agree whit Porantim, me and Luiz Augusto. Don't ut that in terms of "dispurtive", "vandal" or anything about that...
We are discuss the bylaws again... because that mensage of Luiz. Before that Thomas and another user don't permit the dialog.
Att, Béria Lima
2008/11/25 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
I agree, why the hell should we blow off a couple thousand hours of work and toast a chapter? While there may be some issues in the bylaws and
they
still need to legally organize, there is more support for this chapter
than
some of the European ones.
My friend, this is starting to appear disruptive.
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:42:35 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Luiz Augusto wrote:
This is what we need: to stop the current attempt and start it again
Why?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Geoffrey,
Here are some answers to your questions:
*1. "why the chapter is still not legally organized?"*
Since October, a legal entity could have already been created with the approved bylaws, but I personally didn't push this forward because a discussion about another version of the bylaws began around the same time. Although I thought the approved bylaws were adequate, I wrote on Meta that I agreed that we should wait until more people could be heard on the matter. I wrote here and on our Brazilian list that I was in favour of waiting until next February to discuss whether or not the bylaws should be changed before legally launching the chapter, in order to give two months for more people to provide their point of view.
A very important lesson I learned from this experience is that the lack of a legal structure and its official representatives--which requires us to exclusively count on the engagement of empowered volunteers working together in a non-hierarchical way--can be very beneficial for a local chapter during its early existence. Of course there should come a day when a legal entity will be necessary and funds will be raised, but the history of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation and the first projects of Wikimedia Brasil prove that much can be done with no money at all, as long as you have many empowered volunteers. A potential side effect is that without a legal structure and official representatives, some people may stir up trouble more often than usual. But I still think that this approach is the most relevant we have.
*2. "whether or not the bylaws are legally ok as written?"* ** Before we sent the bylaws to the Chapters Committee, they were reviewed by Bruno Magrani, a lawyer from Creative Commons Brasil that kindly volunteered to provide legal support.
I'm guessing that most of the readers on this list were unaware of the details of the Brazilian Wikimedia chapter before having gotten involved in the discussion started by Luiz Augusto. I'll do my best to answer any further questions you may have.
Abracos, Thomas
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.comwrote:
Porantim, unfortunately we have a unique set of circumstances here. The fact that the discussions are in a language that many may be unable to read is a major hindrance. If you can point to the particular posts, then you will have met the proof issue. That being said, I do have some questions, mainly about why the chapter is still not legally organized, and whether or not the bylaws are legally ok as written. The membership section still disturbs me.
Porantim, infelizmente, temos um único conjunto de circunstâncias aqui. O fato de que as discussões estão em um idioma que muitos podem ser incapazes de ler é um grande entrave. Se você pode apontar para os lugares particular, então você vai ter atendido a prova questão. Dito isto, ainda tenho algumas dúvidas, principalmente sobre o motivo do capítulo ainda não está legalmente organizada, e se existem ou não são juridicamente o estatuto social ok como está escrita. A filiação seção ainda me perturba.
From: Porantim porantim@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 11:27:44 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Geoffrey,
We came here, on this list, looking for other opinions. Looking for any kind of light.
We don't really need that you *make* somethink, but we need your expertise, we need your view, your look [I don't know how I can say that].
We came here to open your eyes about the danger of a chapter without clear positions can make, too.
Nobody says "work on bylaws was silenced *by Thomas*", but the evidences of the problems is in our discussion list. Unfortunately, we can't translate all the messages to english to show that and I think you have a lot of other issues to take care.
Nobody request to "kill" a chapter too. We request to start again. Start again because the process has transformed in a addicted process. *This* addicted process is "killing the manifestation of thousands of hours of work". You see?
Any way, perhaps this conversation can't make anythink more.
When Jimmy puts his personal feelings as the unique argument, no more have to say. When he puts his friendship against the interests of the community, no more remain to do.
You know, Jimmy is a kind of symbol to some us, maybe all of us. Then, when he puts this conversation in that maniqueist form, I don't know what more remain.
Jimmy has feelings about Thomas. That's OK to me, but there is no argument against that, when that is de unique argument.
I apologize to do you lost your time.
My hope is that I am wrong (and the remain of brazillian wikimedians) and Jimmy and his friend are rigth.
I apologize too if any of my words sounds offensive. I can't speak english well.
Thanks Geoffrey about your care in try to translate your messages to portuguese.
Saludos
-- Porantim
2008/11/26 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
Beria,
I meant no offense by my remarks. I apologize if any was taken, that was not the point. By disruptive, I was not referring to Luiz, but the
request
to kill a chapter, for the reasons listed below.
I don't believe that killing the manifestation of thousands of hours of work is going to solve any dispute. I am going off what we have
currently.
As far as I can see, we have an assertion that work on bylaws was
silenced
by Thomas. We have two people that vouch for his character (Mr. Wales,
you).
We do not have any hard evidence proving that Thomas killed the
discussion.
If there is some, we should see it. Otherwise, it appears that this is simple dissatisfaction which in my not so humble opinion has no place on this list.
Since some people may be unable to follow this thread, I have translated
my
comments into something that resembles Portuguese.
Respectfully Yours;
Geoffrey Plourde
Beria,
Eu quis dizer que não ofenda por minhas observações. Peço desculpas se alguma foi tomada, não foi esse o ponto. Por perturbador, não me referia ao Luiz, mas o pedido de matar um capítulo, pelos motivos listados abaixo.
Não creio que matar a manifestação de milhares de horas de trabalho está indo para resolver qualquer litígio. Eu vou desligar o que temos actualmente. Tanto quanto eu posso ver, temos um trabalho em alegação de que foi silenciada pelo Estatuto Social Thomas. Temos duas pessoas que atestam a sua personagem (Mr. País de Gales, você). Nós não temos qualquer evidência sólida de provar que Thomas mataram a discussão. Se houver algum, que devemos encará-la. Caso contrário, parece que este é simples insatisfação que, na minha modesta opinião não assim não tem lugar nesta lista.
Uma vez que algumas pessoas pode não ser capaz de seguir essa linha, eu tenho o meu comentário traduzido em algo que se assemelha Português.
Yours respeitosamente;
Geoffrey Plourde
From: Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:08:40 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Geoffrey...
The guy whit you are talking is one of the best sysops on pt.wikipedia. Don't be maniqueist please.
The case is: Thomas is a good guy... but in the mailing list he stopped
all
the process of consensus. The problem is not just a discussion of
Porantim
and Thomas... are more of 10 wikipedist that agree whit Porantim, me and Luiz Augusto. Don't ut that in terms of "dispurtive", "vandal" or
anything
about that...
We are discuss the bylaws again... because that mensage of Luiz. Before that Thomas and another user don't permit the dialog.
Att, Béria Lima
2008/11/25 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
I agree, why the hell should we blow off a couple thousand hours of
work
and toast a chapter? While there may be some issues in the bylaws and
they
still need to legally organize, there is more support for this chapter
than
some of the European ones.
My friend, this is starting to appear disruptive.
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:42:35 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Luiz Augusto wrote:
This is what we need: to stop the current attempt and start it again
Why?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thomas;
Thank you for your answers to my questions. I was under the impression that the chapter had been approved in February, but I must have been wrong. Since a Brazilian lawyer has cleared the bylaws, I have no further legal concerns. Am I correct in assuming now that we have a big misunderstanding?
Geoffrey
________________________________ From: Thomas de Souza Buckup thomasdesouzabuckup@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 8:57:17 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Geoffrey,
Here are some answers to your questions:
*1. "why the chapter is still not legally organized?"*
Since October, a legal entity could have already been created with the approved bylaws, but I personally didn't push this forward because a discussion about another version of the bylaws began around the same time. Although I thought the approved bylaws were adequate, I wrote on Meta that I agreed that we should wait until more people could be heard on the matter. I wrote here and on our Brazilian list that I was in favour of waiting until next February to discuss whether or not the bylaws should be changed before legally launching the chapter, in order to give two months for more people to provide their point of view.
A very important lesson I learned from this experience is that the lack of a legal structure and its official representatives--which requires us to exclusively count on the engagement of empowered volunteers working together in a non-hierarchical way--can be very beneficial for a local chapter during its early existence. Of course there should come a day when a legal entity will be necessary and funds will be raised, but the history of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation and the first projects of Wikimedia Brasil prove that much can be done with no money at all, as long as you have many empowered volunteers. A potential side effect is that without a legal structure and official representatives, some people may stir up trouble more often than usual. But I still think that this approach is the most relevant we have.
*2. "whether or not the bylaws are legally ok as written?"* ** Before we sent the bylaws to the Chapters Committee, they were reviewed by Bruno Magrani, a lawyer from Creative Commons Brasil that kindly volunteered to provide legal support.
I'm guessing that most of the readers on this list were unaware of the details of the Brazilian Wikimedia chapter before having gotten involved in the discussion started by Luiz Augusto. I'll do my best to answer any further questions you may have.
Abracos, Thomas
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.comwrote:
Porantim, unfortunately we have a unique set of circumstances here. The fact that the discussions are in a language that many may be unable to read is a major hindrance. If you can point to the particular posts, then you will have met the proof issue. That being said, I do have some questions, mainly about why the chapter is still not legally organized, and whether or not the bylaws are legally ok as written. The membership section still disturbs me.
Porantim, infelizmente, temos um único conjunto de circunstâncias aqui. O fato de que as discussões estão em um idioma que muitos podem ser incapazes de ler é um grande entrave. Se você pode apontar para os lugares particular, então você vai ter atendido a prova questão. Dito isto, ainda tenho algumas dúvidas, principalmente sobre o motivo do capítulo ainda não está legalmente organizada, e se existem ou não são juridicamente o estatuto social ok como está escrita. A filiação seção ainda me perturba.
From: Porantim porantim@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 11:27:44 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Geoffrey,
We came here, on this list, looking for other opinions. Looking for any kind of light.
We don't really need that you *make* somethink, but we need your expertise, we need your view, your look [I don't know how I can say that].
We came here to open your eyes about the danger of a chapter without clear positions can make, too.
Nobody says "work on bylaws was silenced *by Thomas*", but the evidences of the problems is in our discussion list. Unfortunately, we can't translate all the messages to english to show that and I think you have a lot of other issues to take care.
Nobody request to "kill" a chapter too. We request to start again. Start again because the process has transformed in a addicted process. *This* addicted process is "killing the manifestation of thousands of hours of work". You see?
Any way, perhaps this conversation can't make anythink more.
When Jimmy puts his personal feelings as the unique argument, no more have to say. When he puts his friendship against the interests of the community, no more remain to do.
You know, Jimmy is a kind of symbol to some us, maybe all of us. Then, when he puts this conversation in that maniqueist form, I don't know what more remain.
Jimmy has feelings about Thomas. That's OK to me, but there is no argument against that, when that is de unique argument.
I apologize to do you lost your time.
My hope is that I am wrong (and the remain of brazillian wikimedians) and Jimmy and his friend are rigth.
I apologize too if any of my words sounds offensive. I can't speak english well.
Thanks Geoffrey about your care in try to translate your messages to portuguese.
Saludos
-- Porantim
2008/11/26 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
Beria,
I meant no offense by my remarks. I apologize if any was taken, that was not the point. By disruptive, I was not referring to Luiz, but the
request
to kill a chapter, for the reasons listed below.
I don't believe that killing the manifestation of thousands of hours of work is going to solve any dispute. I am going off what we have
currently.
As far as I can see, we have an assertion that work on bylaws was
silenced
by Thomas. We have two people that vouch for his character (Mr. Wales,
you).
We do not have any hard evidence proving that Thomas killed the
discussion.
If there is some, we should see it. Otherwise, it appears that this is simple dissatisfaction which in my not so humble opinion has no place on this list.
Since some people may be unable to follow this thread, I have translated
my
comments into something that resembles Portuguese.
Respectfully Yours;
Geoffrey Plourde
Beria,
Eu quis dizer que não ofenda por minhas observações. Peço desculpas se alguma foi tomada, não foi esse o ponto. Por perturbador, não me referia ao Luiz, mas o pedido de matar um capítulo, pelos motivos listados abaixo.
Não creio que matar a manifestação de milhares de horas de trabalho está indo para resolver qualquer litígio. Eu vou desligar o que temos actualmente. Tanto quanto eu posso ver, temos um trabalho em alegação de que foi silenciada pelo Estatuto Social Thomas. Temos duas pessoas que atestam a sua personagem (Mr. País de Gales, você). Nós não temos qualquer evidência sólida de provar que Thomas mataram a discussão. Se houver algum, que devemos encará-la. Caso contrário, parece que este é simples insatisfação que, na minha modesta opinião não assim não tem lugar nesta lista.
Uma vez que algumas pessoas pode não ser capaz de seguir essa linha, eu tenho o meu comentário traduzido em algo que se assemelha Português.
Yours respeitosamente;
Geoffrey Plourde
From: Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:08:40 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Geoffrey...
The guy whit you are talking is one of the best sysops on pt.wikipedia. Don't be maniqueist please.
The case is: Thomas is a good guy... but in the mailing list he stopped
all
the process of consensus. The problem is not just a discussion of
Porantim
and Thomas... are more of 10 wikipedist that agree whit Porantim, me and Luiz Augusto. Don't ut that in terms of "dispurtive", "vandal" or
anything
about that...
We are discuss the bylaws again... because that mensage of Luiz. Before that Thomas and another user don't permit the dialog.
Att, Béria Lima
2008/11/25 Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.com
I agree, why the hell should we blow off a couple thousand hours of
work
and toast a chapter? While there may be some issues in the bylaws and
they
still need to legally organize, there is more support for this chapter
than
some of the European ones.
My friend, this is starting to appear disruptive.
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia-inc.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:42:35 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Luiz Augusto wrote:
This is what we need: to stop the current attempt and start it again
Why?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
With regards to the bylaw changes, what exactly were they?
________________________________ From: Thomas de Souza Buckup thomasdesouzabuckup@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 8:22:49 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Hello all,
Good to hear your thoughts. I'll share with you how I see what is going on and how we could tackle the issues mentioned on the previous messages. First, let me summarize below the Brazilian Chapter's history, for those unaware of it:
1. From April to August 2008 the bylaws have been openly discussed and collaboratively translated into English by a group of 13 peoplehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Brasil/Bylaws#Thanks_to.... All the steps were constantly communicated to the remaining grouphttp://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil/Participantes&diff=1154643&oldid=1148591of around 35 people interested in helping the local chapter. 2. In September and October the Chapters Committee and the Board of Trustees approved the bylaws.
3. In October a group of less than 5 people (including Beria Lima, Porantim and Luis Augusto) decided to make new suggestions for the text of the already approved bylaws. The discussion of this alternative content was opened on Metahttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto_2, but very little people participated so far (less than 10 people, including some from the mailing-list) and the opinions on the matter are still divided among them.
4. In November, Jimmy Wales came to Brazil and the press reported the existence of a local chapter, formed by volunteers only and open to anyone interested to be part of it. The list of potential volunteers jumped to more than 120 peoplehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Participantesafter it.
5. So far, no legal entity has been created and there is no such a group of Wikimedia representatives. There are, on the other hand, many dedicated volunteers working together in different projects. For instance, the event/debate with the presence of Jimmy Wales was organized by some of these volunteers and it has not used Wikimedia trademarks.
As far as I understand, there are 3 main issues being discussed. I'll share below my point-of-view on each subject:
A. Changes to the bylaws
B. Participation of non-wikimedians and hostile behavior
C. Risk of potential illicit activities
*A. **Changes to the bylaws*
The discussion is still open, but so far very few people participated and the opinions are divided. My opinion has been that there could be a deadline, when either there are enough people willing to change the bylaws, or the approved version could be used to create a legal entity for the local chapter. In my opinion, we could agree on a two-month period and a target of at least the same number of people willing to submit a new version as there was for the already approved first version.
*B. **Participation of non-wikimedians and hostile behavior*
Any hostile behavior or obstacles for participation of non-wikimedians should ever be accepted within the Wikimedia community. Everybody should be able to join and contribute politely to the promotion of Wikimedia's mission and vision. And the community of volunteers in Brazil will select its legal representatives only when a General Meeting of the future local chapter happens. As long as there is no such meeting, the community will be formed of volunteers only.
*C. **Risk of potential illicit activities*
Due to concerns already raised and the local context for NGOs, I agree that an independent auditing firm should be hired to evaluate the financial statements that will be presented by the local chapter. Although it may be expensive, the local community could agree on this initiative in order to avoid any risk. There is also the possibility of establishing a local pro-bono relationship with KMPG, Wikimedia Foundation's auditing firm.
Please feel invited to join the Brazilian Chapter's Mailing-listhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/WikimediaBR-l(at least temporarily, if you prefer) and to visit the pages on Meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil, where everything has been openly discussed. All my personal information and contacts have always been public on Meta, but I share it once again if anyone feels like further discussing privately (skype thomasbuckupbrasil, phone 5511 9213 3931). Abracos, Thomas
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Your problem (mine and of the boys) is NOT that have non wikimedians in brazilian chapter. Is because that non wikimedians hostilize every wikimedian and don't permite anyone discussion... every is taboo.
The problem is that there isn't any real way to judge these situations prior to chapcom approval. When we get bylaws from a chapter group, we only know the things that we've been told about the organization, and the things we've heard by chance. We don't do any kind of investigation, or go out of our way to solicit feedback from the community. We also don't have a strict requirement that new chapters contain any number of active wikimedians. Red flags obviously go up if we find a group that doesn't contain any, but I'm not sure such a group couldn't get approved if they tried hard enough under the current system.
Something like a public hearing over all new bylaws would help to eliminate these problems, assuming active wikimedians attended such meetings and raised objections. Of course, having to schedule and organize such a meeting, even a virtual one over IRC, would dramatically increase the amount of time that it takes for bylaws to clear the committee. The Brazil group would have even made this more difficult because they made it clear to us that they were under time pressure due to Jimmy's visit. So many chapters have told us that significant delays in approval by the chapcom and the board have a chilling effect on a chapter, sometimes an insurmountable one because of lost enthusiasm and momentum.
The closest solution that I can imagine, and I'm not speaking as a chapcom member right now, would be to create chapters in some sort of probationary status for a year or so, before they become "official". This way we could identify those groups that don't meet our expectations in practice (as opposed to the "on paper" review they get now) and rescind their status because of that. It might be worthwhile for the community to review exactly what requirements are needed to become and to remain a chapter.
Someone said for we change the bylaws to protect Wikimedia Brasil. We try that, but every time when we tried... We have been silenced with the argument: "The Wikimedia approved the bylaws of the way that is"
Chapters are independent organizations and do not need chapcom/WMF approval to change their bylaws. As Michael says, we usually like to hear about changes, just as we like to hear about any other news from chapters. If we become aware of changes that are highly negative we might review them to see that the chapter still meets our expectations, but this has never happened so I am only speculating. We simply don't have the infrastructure to keep track of every change made by every chapter to their bylaws, their operating procedures, or their membership composition.
The chapcom is definitely going to discuss this issue, but lots of feedback and ideas will be appreciated.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Regarding the subject of Brazil's local chapter, I would like to say a few words.
I believe that the local chapter should be comprised of more than only Wikimedians, after all, Wikimedia is much more than only Wikipedia. On the other hand, since the local chapter's approval by the Chapter Committee, a certain culture has been created, under pressure of the non-Wikimedians, that editing in Wikipedia is harmful, that the Wikimedians are a hindrance to Wikimedia, etc.
Besides, the statute that has been approved by the Chapter Committee is not consensual among the Brazilian community [1] and, as of the moment of its approval, it has been forbidden to discuss the subject [2].
The approval of the local chapter has crystalized "in power" a certain group of people. This group has been blocking both the discussions and the consensus-reaching process, referring frequently to non-Wikimedians as "we" and to Wikimedians as "them".
Allow me to fill you in on a Brazilian reality: around here NGOs are quite often used for moneylaundering, political and even drug trafficking-related purposes [3]. I am not implying that this is the objective of such a group, but the appropriate cares must be taken so that it won't happen to us.
Regarding the event with Jimbo, all Wikimedians with whom I talked left with the impression that the local chapter is defending the end of formal, academic education. Jimbo very appropriately stated that Wikimedia does not defend such a thing, but no one has clearly come forward with the local chapter's position.
Even worse: to discuss the positions of the local chapter is taboo [4] (including threats of Wikimedians being blocked off the list [5]). The members of this group which was crystalized as "head" of the local chapter will not allow discussions about principles and have stated that literally.
For the public and the press, a designated Wikimedia Brasil (Brazilian Wikimedia), is the own Wikimedia Foundation [6]. Whitout the settings, the principles, without decide what the Wikimedia Brasil defendes in Brazil, the use of the name of the foundation can be extremely harmful for this.
More over everything, to participate and organize events, to disseminate the culture of voluntary work, to realize classes about the wiki, it is not necessary have a "name". Is it not necessary be called "Wikimedia". Be sufficient the willingness, be sufficient just the compromise.
In conclusion, I believe that the approval of the local chapter has been harmful to the construction of the local chapter itself. I believe that the only thing to do is to suspend temporarily the approval, so that discussions can evolve again and we are able to create, truly, a section able to build Wikimedia in Brazil.
Therefore, we can thinking and doing without haste, without pressure, look for consensus and the collectivity.
-- Porantim
== Notes ==
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto_2
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000296.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000357.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-October/000080.html
[3] http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/interna/0,,OI1689725-EI5030,00.html http://www.baixinho.net/lavagem-de-dinheiro-ongs-no-brasil/ http://www.mp.al.gov.br/noticias/saiu_na_imprensa/Index.asp?vCod=4422 http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u391773.shtml http://www.cvm.gov.br/port/public/publ/ie_ufrj_cvm/Gisele_Fernandes_Cardoso_... http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/noticias/2008/08/29/materia.2008-08-29.77008... http://noticias.pgr.mpf.gov.br/noticias-do-site/criminal/chega-a-justica-den... http://frankherles.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/ongs-se-dedicam-ao-trafico-de-dr...
[4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000301.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000310.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000316.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000351.html
[5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000328.html
[6] http://info.abril.com.br/aberto/infonews/102008/20102008-12.shl
----
= Message in Portuguese: =
----
Sobre o assunto do local chapter brasileiro, gostaria de dizer algumas palavras.
Creio que o local chapter deve ter mais do que Wikimedianos, afinal, a Wikimédia é muito mais do que simplesmente a Wikipédia. Por outro lado, desde a aprovação do local chapter pelo Chapter Comitee, criou-se, pressionada pelos não-Wikimedianos, uma cultura de que editar na Wikipédia é nocivo, que os Wikimedianos atrapalham a Wikimedia, etc.
Além disso, o Estatuto aprovado pelo Chapter Comitee não é consenso entre a comunidade brasileira [1] e, a partir do momento da aprovação pela Wikimedia Foundation, discuti-lo tornou-se proibido [2].
A aprovação do local chapter acabou por cristalizar um grupo no "poder". Tal grupo impede a discussão, impede a busca pelo consenso. Frequentemente utilizam os termos "nós" para se referir aos não-Wikimedianos e "eles" para se referir aos wikimedianos.
Deixem-me deixá-los a par de uma realidade brasileira: por aqui, frequentemente as ONGs são usadas para lavagem de dinheiro, para fins partidários e até para tráfico de drogas [3] . Não quero dizer que esse é o objetivo de tal grupo, mas cuidados devem ser tomados para que isso não aconteça conosco.
Sobre o evento com o Jimbo, todos os Wikimedistas com quem conversei saíram com a impressão de que o local chapter defende o fim da educação formal, acadêmica. O Jimbo colocou muito bem que a Wikimedia não defende tal coisa, mas ninguém colocou claramente qual a posição do local chapter.
Pior do que isso: discutir as posições do local chapter é um tabu[4] (inclusive com ameças de bloqueio de wikimedianos da lista [5]). Os membros do grupo que se cristalizou como "comando" do local chapter não permitem discussões de princípio e já disseram isso literalmente.
Para o público e para a imprensa, a denominada Wikimedia Brasil (Brazillian Wikimedia), é a própria Wikimedia Foundation [6]. Sem a definição de posições, de princípios, sem decidir o que defendemos no Brasil, a utilização do nome da fundação pode ser extremamente danoso a esta.
Além de tudo isso, para participar e organizar eventos, para disseminar a cultura do trabalho voluntário, para realizar cursos de da plataforma Wiki, não é necessário ter um "nome", não é necessário se chamar Wikimedia. Basta a vontade, basta o compromisso.
Concluindo, creio que a aprovação do local chapter foi nociva à construção do próprio local chapter. Creio que a única coisa a se fazer seja suspender temporariamente a aprovação. Assim, espero que as discussões evoluam novamente e que possamos criar, realmente, uma seção que construa, de fato, a Wikimedia no Brasil.
Assim, poderemos pensar e fazer sem pressa, sem pressão, buscando o consenso e a coletividade.
-- Porantim
== Notas ==
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto_2
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000296.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000357.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-October/000080.html
[3] http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/interna/0,,OI1689725-EI5030,00.html http://www.baixinho.net/lavagem-de-dinheiro-ongs-no-brasil/ http://www.mp.al.gov.br/noticias/saiu_na_imprensa/Index.asp?vCod=4422 http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u391773.shtml http://www.cvm.gov.br/port/public/publ/ie_ufrj_cvm/Gisele_Fernandes_Cardoso_... http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/noticias/2008/08/29/materia.2008-08-29.77008... http://noticias.pgr.mpf.gov.br/noticias-do-site/criminal/chega-a-justica-den... http://frankherles.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/ongs-se-dedicam-ao-trafico-de-dr...
[4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000301.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000310.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000316.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000351.html
[5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000328.html
[6] http://info.abril.com.br/aberto/infonews/102008/20102008-12.shl
2008/11/23 Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com
I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion mistakes.
Brazil have 8,514,877 km² of extesion and more of 190,000,000 inhabitants, in 26 states[2]. Build a local chapter in Brazil is very complicated. Since 2006, that is the dream of some users, but they never have a significant number of wikimedians living in a same geografic region.
In the beging of 2008, ist created a meta-wiki page to centralize the ideias for a local chapter[3]. follow the example of the wikimedians in Portugal[4]. After that, people that never edited in anyone project of wikimedia appears to participate. That people are welcome and beging to work whit the brazilians wikimedians. The time are past, the people interested but whitout free time are gone (exactly like ist happened in every others times that the brazilian local chapter have been discuss by the comunity). The people that never participated before of the wikimedians projects ended up taking the front of several efforts and achieved progress, include the aproval of Wikimedia[5].
The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia project before. Mediators of the debate either.
A common concern in various wikipedians and wikimedians is on the future of this local chapter. If they continue the current way, he will not be composed of people from the Wikimedia projects, will only a support organization with no one wikimedian. There is even the fear of Wikimedia's name be used in an NGO ([[w:NGO]]) if it no more of an organizational issue that receives money from the Brazilian government to carry out certain activities, but in order not to hold agreed on how (such as those investigated by Brazilian senators[7], do not know how it is in other countries, but in Brazil the NGOs receive money from the government in exchange for doing something that the government should do but can not).
My opinion on the subject: I am very against the local chapter of the Brazilian continue current form. I would rather wait a few more years and see it being done by wikimedians to see it being done for people who do not participate in Wikimedia. If the desire of that people in help Wikimedia Foundation is legitimate, I imagine that should open some other kind of institution, but without using the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Should the Wikimedia Brazil continue the current form or should be aborted for a little longer?
(other peoples have speak in similar terms of mine on the mailing list[1]. I invited them to the foundation-l for addition views to this discussion, then to this message, in wikimediabr-l disclose the existence of my questioning here on foundation-l.)
[[:m:User:555]]
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/ [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil [3] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&am... [4] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&... [5] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil [6] - http://wikibr.org/ [7] - http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
(thanks to [[:m:User:Beria]] for the translation!)
Message in Portuguese:
Vou tentar com meu limitado inglês relatar um problema que está sendo discutido na lista de discussão sobre o local chapter brasileiro[1]. Anexo ao final do texto em inglês o meu rascunho inicial em português, para tentar reduzir ao máximo as possibilidades de falha de comunicação.
O Brasil possui 8,514,877 km² de extensão e mais de 190,000,000 de habitantes, divididos em 26 estados[2]. Constituir um local chapter nele é algo bastante trabalhoso: desde 2006 isso é almejado por alguns usuários, mas jamais foi possível reunir uma quantia razoável de wikimedianos experientes morando na mesma região geográfica.
No começo deste ano, foi criada uma página no Meta-Wiki para centralizar esforços relativos à criação de um local chapter no Brasil[3], seguindo-se o exemplo tomado pelos desejosos de um em Portugal[4]. Com a criação de tal página sobre o brasileiro, apareceram pessoas que jamais editaram antes em algum projeto Wikimedia interessadas em participar. Tais pessoas foram inicialmente bem-acolhidas e começaram a trabalhar juntamente aos wikimedianos brasileiros. O tempo foi passando, as pessoas entusiasmadas mas sem disponibilidade de ajudar começaram a se afastar (tal como ocorrido em todas as tentativas anteriores de discutir sobre o tema). As pessoas que jamais participaram anteriormente de projetos Wikimedia acabaram tomando a frente dos esforços e conseguido diversos progressos, inclusive o de ser aprovarem os seus esforços perante a Wikimedia[5].
O mesmo grupo de não-Wikimedianos conseguiu organizar um evento que contou com a participação do Jimmy Wales[6]. Imagino que o próprio Jimmy tenha pensado que se tratavam de wikimedianos, por isso, antes de prosseguir, quero deixar bem claro: as pessoas que organizaram tal evento jamais participaram de algum projeto Wikimedia antes. Os mediadores do debate idem.
Uma preocupação comum em diversos wikipedistas e wikimedianos é sobre o futuro de tal local chapter. Se ele continuar prosseguindo da forma atual, ele não será composto por pessoas vindas dos projetos Wikimedia, será apenas uma organização de apoio, sem ninguém das wikis. Há até mesmo o receio do nome da Wikimedia ser utilizado em uma ONG ([[:w:NGO]]) que não passe de mais uma organização problemática que recebe dinheiro do governo brasileiro para executar determinadas atividades, mas que no fim não as realiza da forma como acordada (tais como as investigadas pelos senadores brasileiros [7]; não sei como é em outros países, mas no Brasil as NGOs recebem dinheiro do governo em troca de fazer alguma coisa que o governo deveria fazer mas não consegue).
Minha opinião sobre o tema: sou extremamente contra que o local chapter brasileiro prossiga da forma atual. Preferia aguardar mais alguns anos e ver ele sendo feito pelos wikimedianos do que por pessoas que não participam da Wikimedia. Caso a vontade delas de ajudar a Wikimedia Foundation seja legítima, imagino que deveriam abrir algum outro tipo de instituição, mas sem usar a marca registrada da Wikimedia Foundation.
Deve a Wikimedia Brasil prosseguir da forma atual ou deve ser abortada por mais algum tempo?
(Outras pessoas tem opinado de forma parecida à mim na lista de discussão[1]. Convidei algumas delas para a foundation-l para opinarem nesta discussão além de, em seguida à esta mensagem, divulgar na wikimediabr-l a existência deste meu questionamento aqui na foundation-l.)
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/ [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil [3] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&am... [4] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&... [5] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil [6] - http://wikibr.org/ [7] - http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
So as I understand it, the concern is due to Wikimedia becoming an NGO and possibly being used for illicit activities? If that is the case, then there is a cause for concern which I think could be handled by auditing requirements. However I would think that Chapcom would be the ones with the experience to address this.
Sincerely;
Geoffrey Plourde
Então, se bem entendi, a preocupação se deve a Wikimedia tornar-se uma ONG e, possivelmente, a ser utilizado para atividades ilícitas? Se for esse o caso, então é um motivo de preocupação que eu penso que poderia ser processada por exigências de auditoria. No entanto eu acho que seria Chapcom seriam as únicas que possuem a experiência para resolver esta questão.
Atenciosamente;
Geoffrey Plourde
________________________________ From: Porantim porantim@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org; Mailing list do Capítulo brasileiro da Wikimedia. wikimediabr-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:30:45 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
Regarding the subject of Brazil's local chapter, I would like to say a few words.
I believe that the local chapter should be comprised of more than only Wikimedians, after all, Wikimedia is much more than only Wikipedia. On the other hand, since the local chapter's approval by the Chapter Committee, a certain culture has been created, under pressure of the non-Wikimedians, that editing in Wikipedia is harmful, that the Wikimedians are a hindrance to Wikimedia, etc.
Besides, the statute that has been approved by the Chapter Committee is not consensual among the Brazilian community [1] and, as of the moment of its approval, it has been forbidden to discuss the subject [2].
The approval of the local chapter has crystalized "in power" a certain group of people. This group has been blocking both the discussions and the consensus-reaching process, referring frequently to non-Wikimedians as "we" and to Wikimedians as "them".
Allow me to fill you in on a Brazilian reality: around here NGOs are quite often used for moneylaundering, political and even drug trafficking-related purposes [3]. I am not implying that this is the objective of such a group, but the appropriate cares must be taken so that it won't happen to us.
Regarding the event with Jimbo, all Wikimedians with whom I talked left with the impression that the local chapter is defending the end of formal, academic education. Jimbo very appropriately stated that Wikimedia does not defend such a thing, but no one has clearly come forward with the local chapter's position.
Even worse: to discuss the positions of the local chapter is taboo [4] (including threats of Wikimedians being blocked off the list [5]). The members of this group which was crystalized as "head" of the local chapter will not allow discussions about principles and have stated that literally.
For the public and the press, a designated Wikimedia Brasil (Brazilian Wikimedia), is the own Wikimedia Foundation [6]. Whitout the settings, the principles, without decide what the Wikimedia Brasil defendes in Brazil, the use of the name of the foundation can be extremely harmful for this.
More over everything, to participate and organize events, to disseminate the culture of voluntary work, to realize classes about the wiki, it is not necessary have a "name". Is it not necessary be called "Wikimedia". Be sufficient the willingness, be sufficient just the compromise.
In conclusion, I believe that the approval of the local chapter has been harmful to the construction of the local chapter itself. I believe that the only thing to do is to suspend temporarily the approval, so that discussions can evolve again and we are able to create, truly, a section able to build Wikimedia in Brazil.
Therefore, we can thinking and doing without haste, without pressure, look for consensus and the collectivity.
-- Porantim
== Notes ==
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto_2
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000296.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000357.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-October/000080.html
[3] http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/interna/0,,OI1689725-EI5030,00.html http://www.baixinho.net/lavagem-de-dinheiro-ongs-no-brasil/ http://www.mp.al.gov.br/noticias/saiu_na_imprensa/Index.asp?vCod=4422 http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u391773.shtml http://www.cvm.gov.br/port/public/publ/ie_ufrj_cvm/Gisele_Fernandes_Cardoso_... http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/noticias/2008/08/29/materia.2008-08-29.77008... http://noticias.pgr.mpf.gov.br/noticias-do-site/criminal/chega-a-justica-den... http://frankherles.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/ongs-se-dedicam-ao-trafico-de-dr...
[4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000301.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000310.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000316.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000351.html
[5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000328.html
[6] http://info.abril.com.br/aberto/infonews/102008/20102008-12.shl
----
= Message in Portuguese: =
----
Sobre o assunto do local chapter brasileiro, gostaria de dizer algumas palavras.
Creio que o local chapter deve ter mais do que Wikimedianos, afinal, a Wikimédia é muito mais do que simplesmente a Wikipédia. Por outro lado, desde a aprovação do local chapter pelo Chapter Comitee, criou-se, pressionada pelos não-Wikimedianos, uma cultura de que editar na Wikipédia é nocivo, que os Wikimedianos atrapalham a Wikimedia, etc.
Além disso, o Estatuto aprovado pelo Chapter Comitee não é consenso entre a comunidade brasileira [1] e, a partir do momento da aprovação pela Wikimedia Foundation, discuti-lo tornou-se proibido [2].
A aprovação do local chapter acabou por cristalizar um grupo no "poder". Tal grupo impede a discussão, impede a busca pelo consenso. Frequentemente utilizam os termos "nós" para se referir aos não-Wikimedianos e "eles" para se referir aos wikimedianos.
Deixem-me deixá-los a par de uma realidade brasileira: por aqui, frequentemente as ONGs são usadas para lavagem de dinheiro, para fins partidários e até para tráfico de drogas [3] . Não quero dizer que esse é o objetivo de tal grupo, mas cuidados devem ser tomados para que isso não aconteça conosco.
Sobre o evento com o Jimbo, todos os Wikimedistas com quem conversei saíram com a impressão de que o local chapter defende o fim da educação formal, acadêmica. O Jimbo colocou muito bem que a Wikimedia não defende tal coisa, mas ninguém colocou claramente qual a posição do local chapter.
Pior do que isso: discutir as posições do local chapter é um tabu[4] (inclusive com ameças de bloqueio de wikimedianos da lista [5]). Os membros do grupo que se cristalizou como "comando" do local chapter não permitem discussões de princípio e já disseram isso literalmente.
Para o público e para a imprensa, a denominada Wikimedia Brasil (Brazillian Wikimedia), é a própria Wikimedia Foundation [6]. Sem a definição de posições, de princípios, sem decidir o que defendemos no Brasil, a utilização do nome da fundação pode ser extremamente danoso a esta.
Além de tudo isso, para participar e organizar eventos, para disseminar a cultura do trabalho voluntário, para realizar cursos de da plataforma Wiki, não é necessário ter um "nome", não é necessário se chamar Wikimedia. Basta a vontade, basta o compromisso.
Concluindo, creio que a aprovação do local chapter foi nociva à construção do próprio local chapter. Creio que a única coisa a se fazer seja suspender temporariamente a aprovação. Assim, espero que as discussões evoluam novamente e que possamos criar, realmente, uma seção que construa, de fato, a Wikimedia no Brasil.
Assim, poderemos pensar e fazer sem pressa, sem pressão, buscando o consenso e a coletividade.
-- Porantim
== Notas ==
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto_2
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000296.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000357.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-October/000080.html
[3] http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/interna/0,,OI1689725-EI5030,00.html http://www.baixinho.net/lavagem-de-dinheiro-ongs-no-brasil/ http://www.mp.al.gov.br/noticias/saiu_na_imprensa/Index.asp?vCod=4422 http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u391773.shtml http://www.cvm.gov.br/port/public/publ/ie_ufrj_cvm/Gisele_Fernandes_Cardoso_... http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/noticias/2008/08/29/materia.2008-08-29.77008... http://noticias.pgr.mpf.gov.br/noticias-do-site/criminal/chega-a-justica-den... http://frankherles.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/ongs-se-dedicam-ao-trafico-de-dr...
[4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000301.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000310.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000316.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000351.html
[5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000328.html
[6] http://info.abril.com.br/aberto/infonews/102008/20102008-12.shl
2008/11/23 Luiz Augusto lugusto@gmail.com
I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion mistakes.
Brazil have 8,514,877 km² of extesion and more of 190,000,000 inhabitants, in 26 states[2]. Build a local chapter in Brazil is very complicated. Since 2006, that is the dream of some users, but they never have a significant number of wikimedians living in a same geografic region.
In the beging of 2008, ist created a meta-wiki page to centralize the ideias for a local chapter[3]. follow the example of the wikimedians in Portugal[4]. After that, people that never edited in anyone project of wikimedia appears to participate. That people are welcome and beging to work whit the brazilians wikimedians. The time are past, the people interested but whitout free time are gone (exactly like ist happened in every others times that the brazilian local chapter have been discuss by the comunity). The people that never participated before of the wikimedians projects ended up taking the front of several efforts and achieved progress, include the aproval of Wikimedia[5].
The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia project before. Mediators of the debate either.
A common concern in various wikipedians and wikimedians is on the future of this local chapter. If they continue the current way, he will not be composed of people from the Wikimedia projects, will only a support organization with no one wikimedian. There is even the fear of Wikimedia's name be used in an NGO ([[w:NGO]]) if it no more of an organizational issue that receives money from the Brazilian government to carry out certain activities, but in order not to hold agreed on how (such as those investigated by Brazilian senators[7], do not know how it is in other countries, but in Brazil the NGOs receive money from the government in exchange for doing something that the government should do but can not).
My opinion on the subject: I am very against the local chapter of the Brazilian continue current form. I would rather wait a few more years and see it being done by wikimedians to see it being done for people who do not participate in Wikimedia. If the desire of that people in help Wikimedia Foundation is legitimate, I imagine that should open some other kind of institution, but without using the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Should the Wikimedia Brazil continue the current form or should be aborted for a little longer?
(other peoples have speak in similar terms of mine on the mailing list[1]. I invited them to the foundation-l for addition views to this discussion, then to this message, in wikimediabr-l disclose the existence of my questioning here on foundation-l.)
[[:m:User:555]]
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/ [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil [3] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&am... [4] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&... [5] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil [6] - http://wikibr.org/ [7] - http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
(thanks to [[:m:User:Beria]] for the translation!)
Message in Portuguese:
Vou tentar com meu limitado inglês relatar um problema que está sendo discutido na lista de discussão sobre o local chapter brasileiro[1]. Anexo ao final do texto em inglês o meu rascunho inicial em português, para tentar reduzir ao máximo as possibilidades de falha de comunicação.
O Brasil possui 8,514,877 km² de extensão e mais de 190,000,000 de habitantes, divididos em 26 estados[2]. Constituir um local chapter nele é algo bastante trabalhoso: desde 2006 isso é almejado por alguns usuários, mas jamais foi possível reunir uma quantia razoável de wikimedianos experientes morando na mesma região geográfica.
No começo deste ano, foi criada uma página no Meta-Wiki para centralizar esforços relativos à criação de um local chapter no Brasil[3], seguindo-se o exemplo tomado pelos desejosos de um em Portugal[4]. Com a criação de tal página sobre o brasileiro, apareceram pessoas que jamais editaram antes em algum projeto Wikimedia interessadas em participar. Tais pessoas foram inicialmente bem-acolhidas e começaram a trabalhar juntamente aos wikimedianos brasileiros. O tempo foi passando, as pessoas entusiasmadas mas sem disponibilidade de ajudar começaram a se afastar (tal como ocorrido em todas as tentativas anteriores de discutir sobre o tema). As pessoas que jamais participaram anteriormente de projetos Wikimedia acabaram tomando a frente dos esforços e conseguido diversos progressos, inclusive o de ser aprovarem os seus esforços perante a Wikimedia[5].
O mesmo grupo de não-Wikimedianos conseguiu organizar um evento que contou com a participação do Jimmy Wales[6]. Imagino que o próprio Jimmy tenha pensado que se tratavam de wikimedianos, por isso, antes de prosseguir, quero deixar bem claro: as pessoas que organizaram tal evento jamais participaram de algum projeto Wikimedia antes. Os mediadores do debate idem.
Uma preocupação comum em diversos wikipedistas e wikimedianos é sobre o futuro de tal local chapter. Se ele continuar prosseguindo da forma atual, ele não será composto por pessoas vindas dos projetos Wikimedia, será apenas uma organização de apoio, sem ninguém das wikis. Há até mesmo o receio do nome da Wikimedia ser utilizado em uma ONG ([[:w:NGO]]) que não passe de mais uma organização problemática que recebe dinheiro do governo brasileiro para executar determinadas atividades, mas que no fim não as realiza da forma como acordada (tais como as investigadas pelos senadores brasileiros [7]; não sei como é em outros países, mas no Brasil as NGOs recebem dinheiro do governo em troca de fazer alguma coisa que o governo deveria fazer mas não consegue).
Minha opinião sobre o tema: sou extremamente contra que o local chapter brasileiro prossiga da forma atual. Preferia aguardar mais alguns anos e ver ele sendo feito pelos wikimedianos do que por pessoas que não participam da Wikimedia. Caso a vontade delas de ajudar a Wikimedia Foundation seja legítima, imagino que deveriam abrir algum outro tipo de instituição, mas sem usar a marca registrada da Wikimedia Foundation.
Deve a Wikimedia Brasil prosseguir da forma atual ou deve ser abortada por mais algum tempo?
(Outras pessoas tem opinado de forma parecida à mim na lista de discussão[1]. Convidei algumas delas para a foundation-l para opinarem nesta discussão além de, em seguida à esta mensagem, divulgar na wikimediabr-l a existência deste meu questionamento aqui na foundation-l.)
[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/ [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil [3] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&am... [4] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&... [5] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil [6] - http://wikibr.org/ [7] - http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Luiz Augusto wrote:
The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia project before. Mediators of the debate either.
I would like to say quite quickly that I was not misled in any way. And based on my personal experiences in Brazil talking to people, I think that this problem can be resolved without any difficulty.
I think it is a mistake to have a chapter without a strong participation and support of the editing community, but I also think it is a mistake to assume that the main people organizing it have to be from the editing community, nor to assume that one needs a certain "edit count" in order to be able to do a great job.
What I strongly encourage is a series of local meetups - soon! Like, this Friday, why don't people get together in person in Sao Paulo and perhaps Rio or wherever the most people can be gotten together, to meet each other and talk about this.
Thomas, who made most of the arrangements for my visit, spoke a great deal about community involvement, he was quite clear with me that he is not a very active Wikipedian, but at the same time, he was friendly, open, professional, and eager to expand our activities in Brazil. It seems really unnecessary to me that there should be any conflict.
In case anyone is wondering, when I asked Thomas about who should be head of the Wikimedia chapter in Brazil, he was quite clear that he doesn't think it should be him. Anyone who imagines this to be some kind of power play does not know Thomas - I encourage you to meet him.
Luiz Augusto wrote:
I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion mistakes.
Hello,
Thank you for the feedback. I can not really give an opinion on the case raised, for I do not read portuguese, but your report brought a couple of comments to my mind.
First, is that wrong that a chapter is made in majority or entirety by non-editors ? I would tend to think it is unfortunate, but not wrong. A person may be part of the wikimedia mouvement without editing a lot. The person may be a developer, or help the chapter develop its fundraising abilities, or be a political beast and so on.
The main risk is indeed that the chapter board (or its membership) act in ways that are inappropriate for the global good, in not believing or even worshipping our values. I would also tend to consider as an obligation to participate to the global wikimedia mouvement.
Wikimedia Brasil is still very new, so they should be given time.
But over time, I would expect that every chapter should respect certain obligations, such as - being on the internal mailing list - providing a monthly activity report to WMF and other chapters - having introduced itself to the other chapters - etc...
I am not quite sure if there are any obligations right now beyond the approval of bylaws. I believe there should be. Failing to provide montly reports but only a report once every two months, should not be a valid argument to cancel the agreement to be called a wikimedia chapters. However, failing to interact with the rest of the organization during several months should be.
At some point in the future, I believe chapters and WMF should discuss together more seriously of what define "being a wikimedia chapter", and include once every year or couple of years, a review to define if the chapter should still be called a chapter. I also think this review should not be provided uniquely by the WMF (through a staff member or a commission such as the chapter committee), but should be provided by a commission including both WMF people and a selection of chapter people. If a chapter fails in its behavior (either because of lack of activity, or because it preaches the wrong thing, or because of misuse of funds or other reasons), the impact will be on all organizations, not WMF only.
We are probably still a little bit too young to establish strict rules, but I think 2009 might not be such a bad idea to start establishing obligations for all parties to respect, as well as procedure to check if obligations are followed and procedures to remove a problematic chapter.
That sounds perhaps harsh to say that, but being a "wikimedia chapter" is not being an island in the middle of the ocean. It is being part of an archipelago. Each island activity depends on and impact other islands.
Ant
2008/11/24 Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
Luiz Augusto wrote:
First, is that wrong that a chapter is made in majority or entirety by non-editors ? I would tend to think it is unfortunate, but not wrong. A person may be part of the wikimedia mouvement without editing a lot. The person may be a developer, or help the chapter develop its fundraising abilities, or be a political beast and so on.
Well, I just read documents prepared by chapcomm some time ago:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_future_chapters
"As specified in the requirements, involvement of contributors to the Wikimedia projects is essential to the grounding of a chapter."
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_chapters
"The chapter must involve contributors to the Wikimedia projects. (this is written in bold)
While chapters should welcome the input of people who are not active contributors to the Wikimedia projects, they should not stay too far from the community. The active involvement of contributors to the Wikimedia projects is necessary for a chapter to be able to bring real-life initiatives tied to the Wikimedia projects to life."
and finally:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_chapter_FAQ#Chapter_creation_questions
"Who can start a new chapter?
To initiate a new chapter you should be an experienced contributor to a Wikimedia project in a language that is widely spoken in your country. Of course one person is usually not enough to create a full fledged organization, so you have to find some more active contributors from your country who are also interested and willing to participate in all the work that comes along with the creation of a legal entity.
It would help a lot if at least one of these persons is already involved in discussions regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, and at least one person has some kind of experience in legal issues.
For the creation itself you should be a group of between 10 and 20 people (if you can find more, that's fine, of course), even if your local laws require a smaller number."
So - is that currently true, or not? If not - what other requirements and advices produced by chapcomm are currently meaningless ?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org