It appears that Affiliate agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation are not published on-wiki in a consistent way.[1]
Though the standard templates are available, these have varied over time, so at a minimum to understand which Chapter/Thorg/User Group has currently agreed which legally binding statement, there should be an indication or link to the specific version. The templates have to be customized, and this may include some legally meaningful changes, not just bureaucratic ones.
As an example, the table of 108 User Groups, simply gives the names of the groups. It would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to work out exactly when each signed up to the UG agreement, or confirm which User Groups legally signed up to the post May 2015 version that makes compliance with the Code of Conduct mandatory. As a second example, tracking down the UK Chapter agreement,[2] a customized one was agreed by the WMF and WMUK, but when I followed the 'official' links, the version I was directed to was a 2009 draft version on the UK Chapter wiki (no copy on Meta), which appears unlikely to be the current chapters agreement due to a fairly obvious drafting error.
Could the Affiliates Committee look into this as a matter of its necessary and tracked administration of a correct public record, rather than relying on it happening ad hoc?
Thanks, Fae
Links 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Agreements 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_agreements
I agree that this is a problematic issue which someone should answer. Likely entities to answer this could be the WMF board, because they recently granted voting rights to user groups, or the Affiliations Committee, which instituted the practices of privacy in applying to be a user group.
I expect that all of this is a bureaucratic misunderstanding that probably arose from WMF staff rather than Wikimedia community management in the Wikimedia affiliate application process.
In answer to Fae, no, the agreements are not available, because the application process is intentionally private, off-wiki, and only to be known to the WMF and the in confidence to the Affiliations Committee.
I made similar points here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws/December_20...
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_Committee#No_more_private_... !
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 7:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
It appears that Affiliate agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation are not published on-wiki in a consistent way.[1]
Though the standard templates are available, these have varied over time, so at a minimum to understand which Chapter/Thorg/User Group has currently agreed which legally binding statement, there should be an indication or link to the specific version. The templates have to be customized, and this may include some legally meaningful changes, not just bureaucratic ones.
As an example, the table of 108 User Groups, simply gives the names of the groups. It would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to work out exactly when each signed up to the UG agreement, or confirm which User Groups legally signed up to the post May 2015 version that makes compliance with the Code of Conduct mandatory. As a second example, tracking down the UK Chapter agreement,[2] a customized one was agreed by the WMF and WMUK, but when I followed the 'official' links, the version I was directed to was a 2009 draft version on the UK Chapter wiki (no copy on Meta), which appears unlikely to be the current chapters agreement due to a fairly obvious drafting error.
Could the Affiliates Committee look into this as a matter of its necessary and tracked administration of a correct public record, rather than relying on it happening ad hoc?
Thanks, Fae
Links
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Agreements 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_agreements -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Il giorno mer, 23/01/2019 alle 11.37 -0500, Lane Rasberry ha scritto:
[...] Likely entities to answer this could be the WMF board, because they recently granted voting rights to user groups
Actually there is no change in the board selection process so far: the change is on the agenda of a board meeting next week [1]. The agenda does not specify whether a specific amendment will be voted or it will be only a discussion, nor whether the December proposal [2] has been updated based on the comments received. (It is good to see, by the way, that four trustees - Natalia, María, Christophe and Dariusz - took part in the discussion on Meta)
Laurentius
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_agenda_2019-01 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws/December_2018_-_...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org