I second, and strongly support Pine's suggestion. Being the Affiliations Committee a community-run Wikimedia committee emanating from the Wikimedia Movement itself, transparency is to be expected whenever it is possible. As far as I know, there is nothing confidential in that resolution. Obscurity is the mother of all rumors, and we're dearly suffering from that. All the best, Paulo Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> escreveu no dia segunda, 3/09/2018 à(s) 19:18:

Hi everyone, The Affiliations Committee would like to provide some clarification around the privacy of affiliate suspension notices, particularly in the context of ongoing conflict mediation within and between affiliates. When we conduct investigations into the behavior of individual editors, we strive to maintain privacy for the individual as to the specific concerns under investigation. In the case of affiliate compliance investigations, we similarly treat the specific concerns and the details of any intermediate measures (including possible suspensions) with an appropriate degree of privacy. This is to avoid undue public embarrassment or ridicule for the individuals involved in the conflict mediation process, and to ensure that people are able to work with us in good faith to resolve issues without feeling that they will be subjected to public shaming during the process. Basic reporting compliance is documented in the reporting table on the [[m:Reports]] page, where you can see those groups which have fallen behind on compliance [1]. The suspension-remediation-derecognition process is also publicly documented on Meta [2]. It is 100% at the discretion of the suspended organization whether and how to communicate publicly about their suspension or the details of their non-compliance. Only upon revocation of recognition does the committee communicate publicly about the issue; even then, private details are not shared except as required to correct misinformation. As for ways this could be more transparent without causing undue embarrassment, perhaps suspension status could be indicated on the reports page on Meta; however, even this seems appropriate only if done at the discretion of those who have been suspended. We would be interested in hearing more thoughts about this from those who have been through the process. For anyone who wants to share their views without public disclosure, please feel free to message the private AffCom mailing list with your perspective on this topic at affcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org. Regards, Kirill Lokshin Chair, Affiliations Committee [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_… On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 3:40 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <paulosperneta(a)gmail.com> wrote: