Yair Rand writes:
I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall under that section, the policy was yet again violated.
I don't find it difficult at all to believe time was of the essence, but, then, I'm an attorney who's worked for many years on collaborative efforts, including but not limited to legal action.
I grant, of course, that your experience with doing legal and public-policy assessments may be different. But if your view is that either the Board of Trustees or WMF staff cannot be trusted to make these assessments, then I urge you to explain in more depth why you think this is so.
My own experience has been that quite often the Board or the WMF staff have to make quick decisions, especially when the timeline for decision-making is not in WMF's control. Certainly I often was called upon to make decisions on behalf of WMF and the Wikimedia movement on timelines that made consultation with Wikimedia-l or with committees and affiliated organizations unworkable. I hope you don't find that difficult to believe.
Please assume good faith.
Best,
--Mike
Michelle
Would you let us know how much of the donors' money will be spent on this legal brief, either directly or in the costs of staff time, please? It would also be of interest to know why you felt that the input of the WMF to this brief was essential given that there are 90 other organisations involved?
"Rogol"
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Yair Rand writes:
I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall
under
that section, the policy was yet again violated.
I don't find it difficult at all to believe time was of the essence, but, then, I'm an attorney who's worked for many years on collaborative efforts, including but not limited to legal action.
I grant, of course, that your experience with doing legal and public-policy assessments may be different. But if your view is that either the Board of Trustees or WMF staff cannot be trusted to make these assessments, then I urge you to explain in more depth why you think this is so.
My own experience has been that quite often the Board or the WMF staff have to make quick decisions, especially when the timeline for decision-making is not in WMF's control. Certainly I often was called upon to make decisions on behalf of WMF and the Wikimedia movement on timelines that made consultation with Wikimedia-l or with committees and affiliated organizations unworkable. I hope you don't find that difficult to believe.
Please assume good faith.
Best,
--Mike
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
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
Yair Rand writes:
I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall
under
that section, the policy was yet again violated.
I don't find it difficult at all to believe time was of the essence, but, then, I'm an attorney who's worked for many years on collaborative efforts, including but not limited to legal action.
I grant, of course, that your experience with doing legal and public-policy assessments may be different. But if your view is that either the Board of Trustees or WMF staff cannot be trusted to make these assessments, then I urge you to explain in more depth why you think this is so.
My own experience has been that quite often the Board or the WMF staff have to make quick decisions, especially when the timeline for decision-making is not in WMF's control. Certainly I often was called upon to make decisions on behalf of WMF and the Wikimedia movement on timelines that made consultation with Wikimedia-l or with committees and affiliated organizations unworkable. I hope you don't find that difficult to believe.
Please assume good faith.
You're completely right. I failed to assume good faith, and it is certainly possible that there was no time to conduct an RfC. My apologies.
I would still like confirmation of whether it was in fact an urgent situation, however. Further, the requirement for consultation with the Public Policy Advisory Group does not allow for bypassing in time-sensitive situations, so further explanation is required.
Thank you.
-- Yair Rand
On 2/6/2017 2:01 PM, Yair Rand wrote:
I would still like confirmation of whether it was in fact an urgent situation, however.
The legal posture of the case (temporary restraining order issued prior to hearing on a preliminary injunction) makes it urgent. In order to participate meaningfully in the case at this point, it was necessary to join the brief now. If you've been following events, we're talking about a ruling that was issued within a week after the executive order came out, which is incredibly swift action for the courts. It's my understanding that the appeal could be decided this week, potentially as early as Tuesday.
This is not a trial where the parties might take months gathering their evidence before presenting it to the judge and/or jury. Given that the circumstances can involve people detained at airport customs who might be involuntarily put on a plane back to their point of origin at any moment, the legal system's urgency is appropriate to the situation.
As an aside, people focused more on the general policy issues as opposed to the facts of particular cases may wonder what makes it urgent (for Wikimedia) when we're talking about decisions that are "temporary" or "preliminary" in nature. But as those experienced in this area know, despite such designations these rulings have a powerful tendency to create facts on the ground in a way that they can easily end up determining the final outcome as well.
--Michael Snow
I generally share Yair's reluctance to see the WMF engage in political activity outside the scope of the Wikimedia mission, but I'd like to express my support for the WMF taking action specifically in pursuit of maintaining the freedom to travel and work of its employees and volunteers engaged in Wikimedia movement work. It's clear that appellate orders on this subject are imminent, and high quality briefs from individuals and organizations with meaningful injury are essential. This brief is tightly focused on the disruptive and damaging effect the executive order has on the operations and future interests of the filers. While the WMF's own guideline should be followed or revised so that it can be practically followed, I think this is an example of acceptable and even necessary work that directly serves the WMF's mission.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org