On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) &lt;fdevouard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued... we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to achieve that. Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial audit... According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days... But to make things easier for us... * some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted for the new agenda... * in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions to the agenda. * the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which means we can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them. How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about it. How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond shameful behavior. So, friends, I would like to ask you help. If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please vote. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septemb… Please, do realy our call in your network. If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France, please tell them about the vote. It is here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septemb… Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704 Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they behave by not giving a chance to democracy Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote opened for the new agenda : " The current board members * Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue * the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil * the vice President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon * The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo * and the former president who is now regular member: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk Thanks Florence > Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit : > The passing of Louise is really sad :( > > On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the > way > they really are. > > "The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by > 25% > of the member. Our bylaws dictate that. > > The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of > inexact/false > statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board > on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]). > This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame! > > In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the > community/member > for > the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the > agenda > ... during the summer ... and Wikimania. > > I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the > community, > but I wish we did not had to go this way. > > I am truly ashamed of this board, > > [1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html > [2] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.html > [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/ > Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour > > 2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter &lt;ymbalt(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: > >> Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting. >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> >>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault &lt;n.rault(a)me.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> probably me... >>>> Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter &lt;ymbalt(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit >> : >>>> >>>> Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by >>> someone >>>> I can not recognize from the username. >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Yaroslav >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher &lt;kmaher(a)wikimedia.org >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France, >>>>> >>>>> We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I >>> did >>>>> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for >> the >>>>> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the >>>>> relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have >>> gotten >>>>> along well. >>>>> >>>>> Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are >> grateful >>> for >>>>> the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have >>> benefited >>>>> greatly from her continued advocacy. >>>>> >>>>> I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can >>>>> quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us. >>> However, >>>>> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who >> have >>>>> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion >> and >>>>> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or >>> challenges. >>>>> Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize >> her >>>>> passing. >>>>> >>>>> On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our >>>>> thoughts and that the community has our condolences. >>>>> >>>>> Katherine >>>>> >>>>> PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from >>> her >>>>> article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >>> Louise_Merzeau _______________________________________________ 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

>> >> However, >>>> >>>> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people >>>> who > > have >>>> >>>> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The >>>> passion > > and >>>> >>>> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or >> >> challenges. >>>> >>>> Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to >>>> recognize > > her >>>> >>>> passing. >>>> >>>> On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in >>>> our thoughts and that the community has our condolences. >>>> >>>> Katherine >>>> >>>> PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life >>>> from >> >> her >>>> >>>> article on French Wikipedia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >> >> Louise_Merzeau

Rogol, What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards of a Chapter? Is there some French law that requires charities to be more independent of their international affiliates than would be under such a requirement? The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control, because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ... engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three months notice. On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors &lt;domedonfors(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter > at > the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the > legal > status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) > and > of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body). The Foundation > is > free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise. But not to > control. > _______________________________________________ > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and a series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was shared outside of the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a suitable way. G. Chagnon Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit : Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the > most appropriate solution. > > It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be > interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and > another > by the FDC. > > The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too, > defining the auditing entity. > > Kind regards > > > --