Hi Kirill,
(changing the topic to reflect better the more abstract case: this is no longer about WMPT, as I don't know enough about that specific instance)
I appreciate your concerns for embarrassing situations. This may be the least painful approach in many of the cases. I also appreciate that the Committee is between a rock and a hard place here: if such a situation arises, there is no approach that makes everyone happy.
However, I think there's another complicating factor, which I'm not sure whether it is currently considered sufficiently. The system of affiliates has been designed so that there is always some level of 'democratic' control: chapters and thematic organizations are required to have a membership, and also user groups are required to have more participants than just the liaisons. At least in the case of Thematic organizations and Chapters, these membership bodies are also legally the highest authority of the organization. (the user groups are more fuzzy, and I'll focus on Chapters and Thematic Organizations for now)
If an organization gets suspended, that can be generally for two reasons. First, there could be a simple misunderstanding. In that case, the board can probably resolve this quickly, and a public announcement would definitely do much more good than harm. But there is also the second possibility: that there is a real problem. In that scenario, the democratic control that we require, may be needed to manage the problem. Sure, it may result in some messy questions to the board, and some embarrassment, but it may also result in more actual resolutions. As a member, I would definitely not appreciate it to only learn about the problems when there is no way back (revocation of status).
Affiliation with the Wikimedia Movement is a core 'asset' for the Wikimedia affiliates, and should not be revoked lightly - as I'm sure the Committee will agree.
I would suggest that the AffCom reviews its approach here, and considers a middle way, where the membership (or the whole community, if there is no way to contact the membership) is informed. Whether that is through the board or directly, whether publicly or privately will depend on the case. The most important thing is that the membership can exercise their responsibility and potentially decide that the board should be replaced, or instructed to act in a certain manner.
I can imagine an approach where the board is given a week to respond to the charges to resolve misunderstandings before the step is taken to inform the membership (while leaving the board full discretion to contact the membership earlier than that).
Chapters and Thematic Organizations have often a history going back many years in our movement. They are larger than their boards, and if the current board is unable or unwilling to resolve an issue, the membership is at task to interfere.
Best, Lodewijk
On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 7:39 PM Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
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@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_n...
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 3:40 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
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@gmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 3/09/2018 à(s) 19:18:
Hello Gonçalo,
Thank you for this report.
I would like to ask the Affiliations Committee to post the July 2018 resolution regarding Wikimedia Portugal to this mailing list and to
publish
that resolution on Meta.
I am an advocate for transparency about financial and governance
matters,
which includes the activities of the Affiliations Committee. I request
that
going forward, all similar resolutions from the Affiliations Committee should be sent to Wikimedia-l and published on Meta within one week of their approval by AffCom.
Thank you,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:56 AM GoEthe.wiki goethe.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear all,
As part of the roadmap AffCom agreed with us after they decided to
suspend
some of our benefits within the Wikimedia Foundation programs (
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/wikimediapt/2018-July/002625.htm...
<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/wikimediapt/2018-July/002625.htm...
),
Wikimedia Portugal held an Extraordinary General Assembly on the 1st
of
September, and a board was elected. This board is identical, with one exception, to the board elected in April of this year and that I
announced
in a similar message (
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-April/090073.html
).
The board is now composed of:
Gonçalo Themudo, president
André Barbosa, treasurer
Ana Cravo, secretary
We also elected members for the other governing bodies of the
chapter:
General Assembly
Paulo Santos Perneta, president
Carlos Barradas, secretary
João Carvalho, member
Fiscal Council
Waldir Pimenta, president
Manuel de Sousa, secretary
João Lemos, member
The general assembly also approved the financial statement of our
annual
report, which is published at https://pt.wikimedia.org/wiki/Relat%C3%B3rios/Anual/2017. An English translation is provided at
https://pt.wikimedia.org/wiki/Relat%C3%B3rios/Anual/2017/en.
The minutes of the meeting are available at https://pt.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reuni%C3%B5es/XI_Assembleia-Geral (in Portuguese only).
We are currently working on the final step of the roadmap, which is a
plan
for active contributor involvement and improved chapter capacity. The
first
part is to gather signatures of at least 20 chapter members who are
active
contributors to Wikimedia projects, which is currently underway at
https://pt.wikimedia.org/wiki/Utilizador:GoEThe/P%C3%A1gina_de_apoio_%C3%A0_...
. We will keep you informed of the second part, once we have developed
it.
Best regards,
Gonçalo _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my main feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the public interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or an investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because it is bad news or embarrassing news.
There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such as preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying information that has not been made public. The potential for negative publicity if information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate, isn't sufficient justification for keeping information private.
Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept private. One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be public is that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in this case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against favoritism, negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in general. I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions of affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom to set an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good or bad.
Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they did or didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been heading in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar - often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and handled consistently, there need not be shame in it.
On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote:
I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my main feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the public interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or an investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because it is bad news or embarrassing news.
There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such as preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying information that has not been made public. The potential for negative publicity if information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate, isn't sufficient justification for keeping information private.
Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept private. One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be public is that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in this case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against favoritism, negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in general. I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions of affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom to set an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good or bad.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
As always, it is complicated. While there are benefits to extreme transparency, there are also very real downsides. Depending on the culture in the country, being overly public in the 'warning phase' can have the result that partners will pull out of agreements, donations will be held back and volunteers good name get damaged (and withdraw from the organization). Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make the warning moot. Another side effect of going public with such warnings is that people get real defensive. This is already sensitive when you involve all members, but this gets even worse when you involve the whole world.
Efforts of AffCom should not focus (imho) on sanctions or punishing, but rather on adjusting the processes and practices of the organization to align with movement values and directions. Diplomacy often requires some silence - and as long as AffCom still sees hope that the organization can adjust and repair - I'm all for it that they use silent backchannels. Admitting to the problem is required to start fixing it - and such admission is usually easier achieved in private.
A community that tried to get maximum effective affiliates needs to find a healthy balance between transparency and diplomacy. Where exactly that balance is to be found, it a complicated question though.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:15 AM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they did or didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been heading in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar - often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and handled consistently, there need not be shame in it.
On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote:
I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my main feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the public interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or an investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because it is bad news or embarrassing news.
There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such as preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying information that has not been made public. The potential for negative publicity if information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate, isn't sufficient justification for keeping information private.
Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept
private.
One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be public
is
that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in this case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against favoritism, negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in
general.
I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions of affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom to set an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good or bad.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
Hi all,
As a daft question, why doesn’t affcom say to the affiliates something like "we won’t publish this, but if you want to, then please go ahead and do so yourself”? That way, it’s up to the affiliate to work out what works best in their culture/country/community and to go with that, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Thanks, Mike
On 19 Sep 2018, at 18:27, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
As always, it is complicated. While there are benefits to extreme transparency, there are also very real downsides. Depending on the culture in the country, being overly public in the 'warning phase' can have the result that partners will pull out of agreements, donations will be held back and volunteers good name get damaged (and withdraw from the organization). Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make the warning moot. Another side effect of going public with such warnings is that people get real defensive. This is already sensitive when you involve all members, but this gets even worse when you involve the whole world.
Efforts of AffCom should not focus (imho) on sanctions or punishing, but rather on adjusting the processes and practices of the organization to align with movement values and directions. Diplomacy often requires some silence - and as long as AffCom still sees hope that the organization can adjust and repair - I'm all for it that they use silent backchannels. Admitting to the problem is required to start fixing it - and such admission is usually easier achieved in private.
A community that tried to get maximum effective affiliates needs to find a healthy balance between transparency and diplomacy. Where exactly that balance is to be found, it a complicated question though.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:15 AM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they did or didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been heading in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar - often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and handled consistently, there need not be shame in it.
On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote:
I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my main feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the public interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or an investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because it is bad news or embarrassing news.
There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such as preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying information that has not been made public. The potential for negative publicity if information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate, isn't sufficient justification for keeping information private.
Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept
private.
One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be public
is
that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in this case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against favoritism, negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in
general.
I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions of affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom to set an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good or bad.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
I completely agree with Lodewijk here: Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make the warning moot.
This was, however, very much what the AffCom has done to Wikimedia Portugal. In 18 May the AffCom has sent a message to the WMPT general mailing list, which is for general information and includes our partners and people which are just interested in WMPT, not only associates.
In that message the AffCom requested* "all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences.*" The so called "conflict" was nothing but a single individual sending legal and personal threats against members of the chapter. this is the information we had back then, this is what we had reported to teh AffCom - it still is the same information we have today, it has not changed. So the AffCom told those on the receiving end to "cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences".
Then continued: "Y*ou may also officially request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more than happy to help with.*" - no conversation with any of the three members of the elected board took place before this message. So much for "hearing all parts".
And continued: "*In the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT*" - Apparently we in the chapter should refrain from receiving menaces and threats from the single individual that was harassing us, or else the chapter would be derecognized. How this would make any sense, I don't know.
"*having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based on the the reports submitted.*" - this bit is fair. Wikimedia Portugal was kind of comatose for many years - basically since the individual who is now harassing us - a non Wikimedian - became president. What is not fair is that all this pressure comes precisely after we finished taking all the necessary steps to fix that mess that had been forming since 2014 at least. We had just fixed our stuff, and the missing report was about to be sent - and the AffCom knew it perfectly, I personally told them that in Berlin - when this message was sent.
It then demanded what what seems to be a vote of silence about this matter, reducing discussions about it to the AffCom list, which was now apparently lifted by Kirill: "*In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list (affcom@lists.wikimedia.org affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal communications channels.*"
And they finally ended with a demand which was plainly illegal under the Portuguese law: "*Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.*" Wikimedia Portugal by then was - as it is now - a registered Association of full right in Portugal, with an elected board validated according to the law, and that board cannot "refrain to present itself as such" on the course of it's obligations to the state and the law (tax records, registration updates, etc.)
I recall, this was sent by the AffCom to the general list of Wikimedia Portugal, without any previous warning or contact that would hint about such a thing, generating surprise, questions and apprehension among the people in that list.
I don't believe this is OK. I don't believe the AffCom was correct in doing this this way.
Paulo
(This is only my personal opinion, I'm not writing in the name of WMPT, but merely as a member of the chapter who has passed through all that)
effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 19/09/2018 à(s) 22:28:
As always, it is complicated. While there are benefits to extreme transparency, there are also very real downsides. Depending on the culture in the country, being overly public in the 'warning phase' can have the result that partners will pull out of agreements, donations will be held back and volunteers good name get damaged (and withdraw from the organization). Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make the warning moot. Another side effect of going public with such warnings is that people get real defensive. This is already sensitive when you involve all members, but this gets even worse when you involve the whole world.
Efforts of AffCom should not focus (imho) on sanctions or punishing, but rather on adjusting the processes and practices of the organization to align with movement values and directions. Diplomacy often requires some silence - and as long as AffCom still sees hope that the organization can adjust and repair - I'm all for it that they use silent backchannels. Admitting to the problem is required to start fixing it - and such admission is usually easier achieved in private.
A community that tried to get maximum effective affiliates needs to find a healthy balance between transparency and diplomacy. Where exactly that balance is to be found, it a complicated question though.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:15 AM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they did or didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been heading in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar - often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and handled consistently, there need not be shame in it.
On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote:
I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my main feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the public interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or an investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because it
is
bad news or embarrassing news.
There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such as preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying
information
that has not been made public. The potential for negative publicity if information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate, isn't sufficient justification for keeping information private.
Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept
private.
One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be public
is
that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in this case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against favoritism, negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in
general.
I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions of affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom to
set
an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good or
bad.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
Anyway, getting back to the more abstract case.
I do not agree with total transparency to the "outside world" on communications between AffCom and the affiliate. As Lodewijk mentioned, and we felt on our skins over here, sometimes (most of the time?) it does more harm than good, at least in an initial phase of the process.
I also do not believe that raising the spectre of "de-recognition" before a vast audience, especially one directly connected to the chapter - especially before any communication has been attempted to the people in charge of the chapter - is helpful at all. If anything, it is highly counterproductive, sowing confusion and scaring partners and stakeholders away, creating a whole new problem the affiliate has to deal with, and actively contributing to the situation deterioration. I believe it should only be done as a last resource, when the chapter has been irresponsive and the situation has been deteriorating significantly.
In a first moment, and if it is working, silent backchannels and backstage acting should be the way to go. However, I don't believe the AffCom has any legitimacy to impose a vote of silence on an affiliate about his own situation, especially when misinformation and rumours about it are circulating around wildly.
I absolutely agree this is not a simple issue, and we cannot expect the AffCom, who are a group of volunteers as many of us are, to know the answers to all of them, and to act perfectly. That's why a more public and broader discussion among the Movement is needed about this.
Paulo
Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com escreveu no dia quinta, 20/09/2018 à(s) 00:56:
I completely agree with Lodewijk here: Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make the warning moot.
This was, however, very much what the AffCom has done to Wikimedia Portugal. In 18 May the AffCom has sent a message to the WMPT general mailing list, which is for general information and includes our partners and people which are just interested in WMPT, not only associates.
In that message the AffCom requested* "all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences.*" The so called "conflict" was nothing but a single individual sending legal and personal threats against members of the chapter. this is the information we had back then, this is what we had reported to teh AffCom - it still is the same information we have today, it has not changed. So the AffCom told those on the receiving end to "cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences".
Then continued: "Y*ou may also officially request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more than happy to help with.*" - no conversation with any of the three members of the elected board took place before this message. So much for "hearing all parts".
And continued: "*In the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT*"
- Apparently we in the chapter should refrain from receiving menaces and
threats from the single individual that was harassing us, or else the chapter would be derecognized. How this would make any sense, I don't know.
"*having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based on the the reports submitted.*" - this bit is fair. Wikimedia Portugal was kind of comatose for many years - basically since the individual who is now harassing us - a non Wikimedian - became president. What is not fair is that all this pressure comes precisely after we finished taking all the necessary steps to fix that mess that had been forming since 2014 at least. We had just fixed our stuff, and the missing report was about to be sent - and the AffCom knew it perfectly, I personally told them that in Berlin - when this message was sent.
It then demanded what what seems to be a vote of silence about this matter, reducing discussions about it to the AffCom list, which was now apparently lifted by Kirill: "*In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list (affcom@lists.wikimedia.org affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal communications channels.*"
And they finally ended with a demand which was plainly illegal under the Portuguese law: "*Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.*" Wikimedia Portugal by then was - as it is now - a registered Association of full right in Portugal, with an elected board validated according to the law, and that board cannot "refrain to present itself as such" on the course of it's obligations to the state and the law (tax records, registration updates, etc.)
I recall, this was sent by the AffCom to the general list of Wikimedia Portugal, without any previous warning or contact that would hint about such a thing, generating surprise, questions and apprehension among the people in that list.
I don't believe this is OK. I don't believe the AffCom was correct in doing this this way.
Paulo
(This is only my personal opinion, I'm not writing in the name of WMPT, but merely as a member of the chapter who has passed through all that)
effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 19/09/2018 à(s) 22:28:
As always, it is complicated. While there are benefits to extreme transparency, there are also very real downsides. Depending on the culture in the country, being overly public in the 'warning phase' can have the result that partners will pull out of agreements, donations will be held back and volunteers good name get damaged (and withdraw from the organization). Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make the warning moot. Another side effect of going public with such warnings is that people get real defensive. This is already sensitive when you involve all members, but this gets even worse when you involve the whole world.
Efforts of AffCom should not focus (imho) on sanctions or punishing, but rather on adjusting the processes and practices of the organization to align with movement values and directions. Diplomacy often requires some silence - and as long as AffCom still sees hope that the organization can adjust and repair - I'm all for it that they use silent backchannels. Admitting to the problem is required to start fixing it - and such admission is usually easier achieved in private.
A community that tried to get maximum effective affiliates needs to find a healthy balance between transparency and diplomacy. Where exactly that balance is to be found, it a complicated question though.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:15 AM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they did or didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been heading in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar - often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and handled consistently, there need not be shame in it.
On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote:
I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my main feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the public interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or an investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because
it is
bad news or embarrassing news.
There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such as preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying
information
that has not been made public. The potential for negative publicity if information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate,
isn't
sufficient justification for keeping information private.
Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept
private.
One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be
public
is
that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in this case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against favoritism, negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in
general.
I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions of affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom to
set
an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good or
bad.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
The way AffCom deals with certain situations is clearly not transparent enough for the Wikimedia environment.
We have a situation in Brazil that remains unsolved and Affcom wouldn’t even follow their own ways of dealing with it.
Here is a clearer example: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Step...
AffCom has created a page on Meta to discuss the issues, but it has been ignored by them. And it’s like they have no need to answer. Regardless of the many moments my group tried to solve the issues, even when being ignored about important complaints, we were punished with de-recognition with no warning. *No warning.*
Is it really the proper way a group should be de-recognized? Despite being one of the most active groups in the World, we were trying to solve the problems. However, AffCom dealt with it in the easiest way, as if both involved groups had done the same and should be punished the same way, which is not correct.
It is a matter of volunteer time? Being a volunteer body is not a reason for being absent. If the body is unable to solve an issue, it should declare itself unable and community can think of better ways of doing it. I see that the only actions on AffCom are cutting relations and transfering responsibilities to others when it comes to conflict resolution. Some should solve the problems, otherwise they will be punished.
I have been asking a lot elsewhere. What is the best way to discuss this with community. Me and others trie to discuss with AffCom itself, but were ignored. So, I wonder if there are others interested in discussing it, because AffCom is not or don’t have the time, which is not that bad, but then we should be addressed to anyone that would act properly. Should we create a conflict resolution body to help AffCom? That may be the a good start in my opinion, but let’s not keep it the way it is, for the best of our community.
Teles
Em qui, 20 de set de 2018 às 08:55, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> escreveu:
Anyway, getting back to the more abstract case.
I do not agree with total transparency to the "outside world" on communications between AffCom and the affiliate. As Lodewijk mentioned, and we felt on our skins over here, sometimes (most of the time?) it does more harm than good, at least in an initial phase of the process.
I also do not believe that raising the spectre of "de-recognition" before a vast audience, especially one directly connected to the chapter - especially before any communication has been attempted to the people in charge of the chapter - is helpful at all. If anything, it is highly counterproductive, sowing confusion and scaring partners and stakeholders away, creating a whole new problem the affiliate has to deal with, and actively contributing to the situation deterioration. I believe it should only be done as a last resource, when the chapter has been irresponsive and the situation has been deteriorating significantly.
In a first moment, and if it is working, silent backchannels and backstage acting should be the way to go. However, I don't believe the AffCom has any legitimacy to impose a vote of silence on an affiliate about his own situation, especially when misinformation and rumours about it are circulating around wildly.
I absolutely agree this is not a simple issue, and we cannot expect the AffCom, who are a group of volunteers as many of us are, to know the answers to all of them, and to act perfectly. That's why a more public and broader discussion among the Movement is needed about this.
Paulo
Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com escreveu no dia quinta, 20/09/2018 à(s) 00:56:
I completely agree with Lodewijk here: Publishing such warnings could
very
well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make the warning moot.
This was, however, very much what the AffCom has done to Wikimedia Portugal. In 18 May the AffCom has sent a message to the WMPT general mailing list, which is for general information and includes our partners and people which are just interested in WMPT, not only associates.
In that message the AffCom requested* "all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve
differences.*"
The so called "conflict" was nothing but a single individual sending
legal
and personal threats against members of the chapter. this is the information we had back then, this is what we had reported to teh AffCom
it still is the same information we have today, it has not changed. So
the
AffCom told those on the receiving end to "cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences".
Then continued: "Y*ou may also officially request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more than happy to help with.*" - no conversation with any of the three members of the elected board took place before this message. So much for "hearing all parts".
And continued: "*In the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of
WMPT*"
- Apparently we in the chapter should refrain from receiving menaces and
threats from the single individual that was harassing us, or else the chapter would be derecognized. How this would make any sense, I don't
know.
"*having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based on the the reports submitted.*" - this bit is fair. Wikimedia Portugal was kind of comatose for many years - basically since the individual who is
now
harassing us - a non Wikimedian - became president. What is not fair is that all this pressure comes precisely after we finished taking all the necessary steps to fix that mess that had been forming since 2014 at
least.
We had just fixed our stuff, and the missing report was about to be sent
and the AffCom knew it perfectly, I personally told them that in Berlin - when this message was sent.
It then demanded what what seems to be a vote of silence about this matter, reducing discussions about it to the AffCom list, which was now apparently lifted by Kirill: "*In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list (affcom@lists.wikimedia.org affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal
communications
channels.*"
And they finally ended with a demand which was plainly illegal under the Portuguese law: "*Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.*" Wikimedia Portugal by then was - as it is now - a registered Association
of
full right in Portugal, with an elected board validated according to the law, and that board cannot "refrain to present itself as such" on the course of it's obligations to the state and the law (tax records, registration updates, etc.)
I recall, this was sent by the AffCom to the general list of Wikimedia Portugal, without any previous warning or contact that would hint about such a thing, generating surprise, questions and apprehension among the people in that list.
I don't believe this is OK. I don't believe the AffCom was correct in doing this this way.
Paulo
(This is only my personal opinion, I'm not writing in the name of WMPT, but merely as a member of the chapter who has passed through all that)
effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 19/09/2018 à(s) 22:28:
As always, it is complicated. While there are benefits to extreme transparency, there are also very real downsides. Depending on the
culture
in the country, being overly public in the 'warning phase' can have the result that partners will pull out of agreements, donations will be held back and volunteers good name get damaged (and withdraw from the organization). Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill
off
the affiliate, and make the warning moot. Another side effect of going public with such warnings is that people get real defensive. This is already sensitive when you involve all members, but this gets even worse when you involve the whole world.
Efforts of AffCom should not focus (imho) on sanctions or punishing, but rather on adjusting the processes and practices of the organization to align with movement values and directions. Diplomacy often requires some silence - and as long as AffCom still sees hope that the organization
can
adjust and repair - I'm all for it that they use silent backchannels. Admitting to the problem is required to start fixing it - and such admission is usually easier achieved in private.
A community that tried to get maximum effective affiliates needs to
find
a healthy balance between transparency and diplomacy. Where exactly that balance is to be found, it a complicated question though.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:15 AM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they did
or
didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been heading in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar - often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and handled consistently, there need not be shame in it.
On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote:
I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my
main
feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the public interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or
an
investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because
it is
bad news or embarrassing news.
There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such as preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying
information
that has not been made public. The potential for negative publicity
if
information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate,
isn't
sufficient justification for keeping information private.
Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept
private.
One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be
public
is
that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in
this
case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against
favoritism,
negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in
general.
I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions of affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom
to
set
an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good or
bad.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
I concur with Teles that a conflict resolution body would be very helpful to assist in the situations the AffCom has to deal. Though in the case of Wikimedia Portugal the conflict was limited to a unique individual harassing, stalking and sending legal and personal threats to several members of the chapter, such a body would probably have made the difference in helping the AffCom understand and properly deal with that situation.
I would also like to suggest allocating enough resources to the AffCom, so that they would be able to understand the law of the country where the affiliate is located. Something, I understand, is essential to the AFfCom's objective.
After WMPT sent the AffCom all the applicable legislation and jurisprudence, to explain and fundament why a number of AffCom demands where absurd, or outright illegal under the Portuguese law, the AffCom replied that "*the AffCom does not have the resources to search through all the Portuguese legislation to find a permissive court decision*."
I can even be sympathetic with the AffCom as a resourseless body of volunteers struggling to do their mission, but it also seems evident that such a body is very much unprepared to deal properly with any serious situation that may arise with the affiliates, and therefore unable to fulfill the mission they were created for.
Paulo
Lucas Teles teleswiki@gmail.com escreveu no dia quinta, 20/09/2018 à(s) 19:12:
The way AffCom deals with certain situations is clearly not transparent enough for the Wikimedia environment.
We have a situation in Brazil that remains unsolved and Affcom wouldn’t even follow their own ways of dealing with it.
Here is a clearer example:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Step...
AffCom has created a page on Meta to discuss the issues, but it has been ignored by them. And it’s like they have no need to answer. Regardless of the many moments my group tried to solve the issues, even when being ignored about important complaints, we were punished with de-recognition with no warning. *No warning.*
Is it really the proper way a group should be de-recognized? Despite being one of the most active groups in the World, we were trying to solve the problems. However, AffCom dealt with it in the easiest way, as if both involved groups had done the same and should be punished the same way, which is not correct.
It is a matter of volunteer time? Being a volunteer body is not a reason for being absent. If the body is unable to solve an issue, it should declare itself unable and community can think of better ways of doing it. I see that the only actions on AffCom are cutting relations and transfering responsibilities to others when it comes to conflict resolution. Some should solve the problems, otherwise they will be punished.
I have been asking a lot elsewhere. What is the best way to discuss this with community. Me and others trie to discuss with AffCom itself, but were ignored. So, I wonder if there are others interested in discussing it, because AffCom is not or don’t have the time, which is not that bad, but then we should be addressed to anyone that would act properly. Should we create a conflict resolution body to help AffCom? That may be the a good start in my opinion, but let’s not keep it the way it is, for the best of our community.
Teles
Em qui, 20 de set de 2018 às 08:55, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> escreveu:
Anyway, getting back to the more abstract case.
I do not agree with total transparency to the "outside world" on communications between AffCom and the affiliate. As Lodewijk mentioned,
and
we felt on our skins over here, sometimes (most of the time?) it does
more
harm than good, at least in an initial phase of the process.
I also do not believe that raising the spectre of "de-recognition"
before a
vast audience, especially one directly connected to the chapter - especially before any communication has been attempted to the people in charge of the chapter - is helpful at all. If anything, it is highly counterproductive, sowing confusion and scaring partners and stakeholders away, creating a whole new problem the affiliate has to deal with, and actively contributing to the situation deterioration. I believe it should only be done as a last resource, when the chapter has been irresponsive
and
the situation has been deteriorating significantly.
In a first moment, and if it is working, silent backchannels and
backstage
acting should be the way to go. However, I don't believe the AffCom has
any
legitimacy to impose a vote of silence on an affiliate about his own situation, especially when misinformation and rumours about it are circulating around wildly.
I absolutely agree this is not a simple issue, and we cannot expect the AffCom, who are a group of volunteers as many of us are, to know the answers to all of them, and to act perfectly. That's why a more public
and
broader discussion among the Movement is needed about this.
Paulo
Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com escreveu no dia quinta, 20/09/2018 à(s) 00:56:
I completely agree with Lodewijk here: Publishing such warnings could
very
well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make the warning moot.
This was, however, very much what the AffCom has done to Wikimedia Portugal. In 18 May the AffCom has sent a message to the WMPT general mailing list, which is for general information and includes our
partners
and people which are just interested in WMPT, not only associates.
In that message the AffCom requested* "all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve
differences.*"
The so called "conflict" was nothing but a single individual sending
legal
and personal threats against members of the chapter. this is the information we had back then, this is what we had reported to teh
AffCom
it still is the same information we have today, it has not changed. So
the
AffCom told those on the receiving end to "cease from taking part in
this
conflict and to work to resolve differences".
Then continued: "Y*ou may also officially request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more than happy to help with.*" - no conversation with any of the three members of the elected board took place before this message. So much
for
"hearing all parts".
And continued: "*In the case of no interest in resolving your
differences
and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of
WMPT*"
- Apparently we in the chapter should refrain from receiving menaces
and
threats from the single individual that was harassing us, or else the chapter would be derecognized. How this would make any sense, I don't
know.
"*having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based
on
the the reports submitted.*" - this bit is fair. Wikimedia Portugal was kind of comatose for many years - basically since the individual who is
now
harassing us - a non Wikimedian - became president. What is not fair is that all this pressure comes precisely after we finished taking all the necessary steps to fix that mess that had been forming since 2014 at
least.
We had just fixed our stuff, and the missing report was about to be
sent
and the AffCom knew it perfectly, I personally told them that in
Berlin -
when this message was sent.
It then demanded what what seems to be a vote of silence about this matter, reducing discussions about it to the AffCom list, which was now apparently lifted by Kirill: "*In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list (affcom@lists.wikimedia.org affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal
communications
channels.*"
And they finally ended with a demand which was plainly illegal under
the
Portuguese law: "*Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is
resolved.*"
Wikimedia Portugal by then was - as it is now - a registered
Association
of
full right in Portugal, with an elected board validated according to
the
law, and that board cannot "refrain to present itself as such" on the course of it's obligations to the state and the law (tax records, registration updates, etc.)
I recall, this was sent by the AffCom to the general list of Wikimedia Portugal, without any previous warning or contact that would hint about such a thing, generating surprise, questions and apprehension among the people in that list.
I don't believe this is OK. I don't believe the AffCom was correct in doing this this way.
Paulo
(This is only my personal opinion, I'm not writing in the name of WMPT, but merely as a member of the chapter who has passed through all that)
effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 19/09/2018 à(s) 22:28:
As always, it is complicated. While there are benefits to extreme transparency, there are also very real downsides. Depending on the
culture
in the country, being overly public in the 'warning phase' can have
the
result that partners will pull out of agreements, donations will be
held
back and volunteers good name get damaged (and withdraw from the organization). Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill
off
the affiliate, and make the warning moot. Another side effect of going public with such warnings is that people get real defensive. This is already sensitive when you involve all members, but this gets even
worse
when you involve the whole world.
Efforts of AffCom should not focus (imho) on sanctions or punishing,
but
rather on adjusting the processes and practices of the organization to align with movement values and directions. Diplomacy often requires
some
silence - and as long as AffCom still sees hope that the organization
can
adjust and repair - I'm all for it that they use silent backchannels. Admitting to the problem is required to start fixing it - and such admission is usually easier achieved in private.
A community that tried to get maximum effective affiliates needs to
find
a healthy balance between transparency and diplomacy. Where exactly that balance is to be found, it a complicated question though.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:15 AM Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com
wrote:
Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they
did
or
didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been
heading
in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar - often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and handled consistently, there need not be shame in it.
On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote:
I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my
main
feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the
public
interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or
an
investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply
because
it is
bad news or embarrassing news.
There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such
as
preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying
information
that has not been made public. The potential for negative
publicity
if
information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate,
isn't
sufficient justification for keeping information private.
Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept
private.
One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be
public
is
that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in
this
case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against
favoritism,
negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in
general.
I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions
of
affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom
to
set
an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good
or
bad.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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>
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>
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
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
-- Steward for Wikimedia projects. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity.
+55 (71) 99707 6409 _______________________________________________ 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
I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or neglect their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that AffCom is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that should be addressed.
As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of these actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to evaluate AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give me cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom made an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that AffCom has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF Legal.
Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the end of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I think that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good and bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to discontinue a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning letter was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a temporary setback from which the affiliate can recover.
I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and people can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and continuous self-improvement.
One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they are primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My impression is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and dedication from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general is an interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts about how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are generously volunteering their limited time.
Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15 April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly, was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely the former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That too is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head of the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that conveys a General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would have been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had not any right to do that.
Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer knowledgeable of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere imposition of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its tax form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the association bank account.
Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) 22:01:
I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or neglect their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that AffCom is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that should be addressed.
As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of these actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to evaluate AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give me cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom made an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that AffCom has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF Legal.
Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the end of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I think that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good and bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to discontinue a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning letter was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a temporary setback from which the affiliate can recover.
I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and people can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and continuous self-improvement.
One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they are primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My impression is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and dedication from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general is an interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts about how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are generously volunteering their limited time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
While I cannot speak to the legality of these actions, Affcom's demand that we (Brazilian affiliates) meet with reported harassers was very troubling to me. The fact that despite our agreement with that baffling condition no actual mediation took place, Affcom refused to engage with communications, and then issued false statements about this[1] is even more concerning.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps
Chico Venancio
2018-09-25 19:42 GMT-03:00 Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com:
Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15 April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly, was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely the former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That too is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head of the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that conveys a General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would have been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had not any right to do that.
Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer knowledgeable of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere imposition of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its tax form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the association bank account.
Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) 22:01:
I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or neglect their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that
AffCom
is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that should be addressed.
As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of these actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to
evaluate
AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give me cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom
made
an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that AffCom has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF
Legal.
Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the
end
of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I think that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good and bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to
discontinue
a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning letter was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a
temporary
setback from which the affiliate can recover.
I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and
people
can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and continuous self-improvement.
One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they are primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My
impression
is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and
dedication
from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general is
an
interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts
about
how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are generously volunteering their limited time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
It does not surprises me in the least the AffCom had forced other affiliates to "negotiate" with reported harassers.
On the message sent to the associates of WMPT in 18 May, the AffCom demanded "*all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences*" with the reported individual that was threatening, stalking and harassing them. They also offered "*to discuss a potential mediation plan*" between the chapter and the harasser, as if such a situation needed any "mediation" at all. Furthermore, they threatened with de-recognition, in case the harasser was not appeased: "*In the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT*".
it's always worth recalling that this was a situation of an entire chapter vs. a rogue individual, a non-Wikimedian, who was harassing, stalking and threatening a number of its members.
Paulo
Chico Venancio chicocvenancio@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 00:13:
While I cannot speak to the legality of these actions, Affcom's demand that we (Brazilian affiliates) meet with reported harassers was very troubling to me. The fact that despite our agreement with that baffling condition no actual mediation took place, Affcom refused to engage with communications, and then issued false statements about this[1] is even more concerning.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps
Chico Venancio
2018-09-25 19:42 GMT-03:00 Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com:
Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15 April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly, was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely
the
former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That
too
is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head
of
the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that
conveys a
General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would
have
been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had
not
any right to do that.
Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer
knowledgeable
of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere
imposition
of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its
tax
form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the association bank account.
Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s)
22:01:
I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or
neglect
their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that
AffCom
is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that
should
be addressed.
As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of
these
actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to
evaluate
AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give
me
cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom
made
an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that
AffCom
has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF
Legal.
Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the
end
of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I
think
that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good
and
bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to
discontinue
a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning
letter
was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a
temporary
setback from which the affiliate can recover.
I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and
people
can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and continuous self-improvement.
One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they
are
primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My
impression
is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and
dedication
from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general
is
an
interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts
about
how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are
generously
volunteering their limited time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
Paulo,
The email that the Affiliations Committee sent to you -- among various others -- on May 18 read as follows:
Dear members of Wikimedia Portugal,
The recent developments in your chapter have been brought to our attention by a number of members of the chapter, as well as members of the community. We are monitoring the situation and in the meantime, would like to request all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences. You may also officially request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more than happy to help with. In the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT, having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based on the the reports submitted.
In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list ( affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal communications channels. Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.
Do not hesitate contacting this committee if you have further questions.
The request concerning "presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal" was in reference to people stating that they were the official representatives of the chapter in meetings -- a fact of which you were doubtless well aware, seeing as it was your own complaint on the subject which prompted the committee's request in the first place.
At no time did you -- or any of your colleagues -- indicate that you were interpreting the request as having anything to do with the execution of the legal functions of the board, the filing of financial statements with tax authorities, or anything of the sort. Rather, you had responded with questions as to how you might present yourselves to your current and potential partners.
For you to now insist that the committee's request was a demand that you violate Portuguese law -- an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time -- is a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:42 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15 April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly, was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely the former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That too is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head of the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that conveys a General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would have been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had not any right to do that.
Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer knowledgeable of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere imposition of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its tax form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the association bank account.
Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) 22:01:
I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or neglect their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that
AffCom
is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that should be addressed.
As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of these actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to
evaluate
AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give me cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom
made
an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that AffCom has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF
Legal.
Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the
end
of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I think that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good and bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to
discontinue
a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning letter was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a
temporary
setback from which the affiliate can recover.
I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and
people
can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and continuous self-improvement.
One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they are primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My
impression
is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and
dedication
from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general is
an
interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts
about
how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are generously volunteering their limited time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
Hello Kirill,
On the message the AffCom has sent on 20 May, addressed to the chair of the WMPT board, answering to a request for clarification, you stated: "*we would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT*".
It seems quite obvious to me that, had the board headed the AffCom request, and not introduced themselves as such, the obligations of the association towards the Portuguese state could not have been fulfilled. Therefore I believe it is fair to say you were indeed requesting us to do something out of the law.
You also failed to address the second point, about the AffCom requesting that a new General Assembly should be conveyed by some party of your choice, something which is clearly against this country law, as mentioned.
As for the validity of the General Assembly you were contesting, it suffices to say it was and is recognized as perfectly valid by the Portuguese state - the tax authority, namely - and by the biggest bank of the country, Caixa Geral de Depósitos. Only the rogue guy that had been reported to you for severe harassment and for sending very serious legal and personal threats to a number of WMPT members, and the AFfCom itself, saw it as problematic.
I would also like to ask you to not make unfounded and unfair accusations against me, nor indulge in personal attacks, as you have done ("*a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith*"). It is not my responsibility to lecture and educate the AffCom on what they should do ("*an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time*"). As far as I know, it is the AffCom duty and responsibility to know the affiliate country law, at least to the degree of not commanding the affiliate do an illegal action, as you have done. It was my responsibility, as a member of WMPT, to denounce your requests as illegal, and I've done exactly that at the time. That's why your request for conveying a General Assembly through a "neutral party" was never headed.
Paulo
Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 00:51:
Paulo,
The email that the Affiliations Committee sent to you -- among various others -- on May 18 read as follows:
Dear members of Wikimedia Portugal,
The recent developments in your chapter have been brought to our attention by a number of members of the chapter, as well as members of the community. We are monitoring the situation and in the meantime, would like to request all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences. You may also officially request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more than happy to help with. In the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT, having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based on the the reports submitted.
In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list ( affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal communications channels. Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.
Do not hesitate contacting this committee if you have further questions.
The request concerning "presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal" was in reference to people stating that they were the official representatives of the chapter in meetings -- a fact of which you were doubtless well aware, seeing as it was your own complaint on the subject which prompted the committee's request in the first place.
At no time did you -- or any of your colleagues -- indicate that you were interpreting the request as having anything to do with the execution of the legal functions of the board, the filing of financial statements with tax authorities, or anything of the sort. Rather, you had responded with questions as to how you might present yourselves to your current and potential partners.
For you to now insist that the committee's request was a demand that you violate Portuguese law -- an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time -- is a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:42 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15 April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly, was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely the former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That too is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head of the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that conveys a General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would have been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had not any right to do that.
Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer knowledgeable of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere imposition of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its tax form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the association bank account.
Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) 22:01:
I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or
neglect
their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that
AffCom
is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that
should
be addressed.
As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of
these
actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to
evaluate
AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give me cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom
made
an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that
AffCom
has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF
Legal.
Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the
end
of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I
think
that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good and bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to
discontinue
a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning
letter
was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a
temporary
setback from which the affiliate can recover.
I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and
people
can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and continuous self-improvement.
One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they are primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My
impression
is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and
dedication
from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general
is an
interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts
about
how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are generously volunteering their limited time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
Paulo,
The request for clarification to which you refer was -- as I'm sure you recall -- in reference to carrying out planned activities, and had nothing to do with any legal matters, tax filings, or the like; the same was true of the committee's response:
Olá Gonçalo,
Yes, you can count on us to help solve the current situation!
You understood correctly, we would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT and carry on with your activities, since all of you are full members of the chapter and can participate in different activities and events. Just for the sake of avoiding further confusion.
@Paulo, please carry on with all the activities planned -just introduce yourself as member of the chapter is needed.
To conclude, from this email, that the committee was somehow instructing you to violate Portuguese law is what I might charitably call a "creative" interpretation of our words. But let's set that aside for the moment.
You are correct in that it's not your responsibility to "lecture and educate" the committee. What *is* your responsibility, however, is to be honest with the committee regarding your compliance -- or lack thereof -- with our requests. If you decide, for whatever reason, that you cannot or will not do as we've asked -- whether because you believe your national law prohibits you from doing so, or because you and your colleagues want to do something different, or simply because you think we're stupid and don't feel like listening to us -- then that's your decision.
We expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore our request. To simply thank us for clarifying it, as you did, while secretly having no intention of complying with it in the first place is hardly something one does when negotiating in good faith.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Kirill,
On the message the AffCom has sent on 20 May, addressed to the chair of the WMPT board, answering to a request for clarification, you stated: "*we would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT*".
It seems quite obvious to me that, had the board headed the AffCom request, and not introduced themselves as such, the obligations of the association towards the Portuguese state could not have been fulfilled. Therefore I believe it is fair to say you were indeed requesting us to do something out of the law.
You also failed to address the second point, about the AffCom requesting that a new General Assembly should be conveyed by some party of your choice, something which is clearly against this country law, as mentioned.
As for the validity of the General Assembly you were contesting, it suffices to say it was and is recognized as perfectly valid by the Portuguese state - the tax authority, namely - and by the biggest bank of the country, Caixa Geral de Depósitos. Only the rogue guy that had been reported to you for severe harassment and for sending very serious legal and personal threats to a number of WMPT members, and the AFfCom itself, saw it as problematic.
I would also like to ask you to not make unfounded and unfair accusations against me, nor indulge in personal attacks, as you have done ("*a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith*"). It is not my responsibility to lecture and educate the AffCom on what they should do ("*an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time*"). As far as I know, it is the AffCom duty and responsibility to know the affiliate country law, at least to the degree of not commanding the affiliate do an illegal action, as you have done. It was my responsibility, as a member of WMPT, to denounce your requests as illegal, and I've done exactly that at the time. That's why your request for conveying a General Assembly through a "neutral party" was never headed.
Paulo
Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 00:51:
Paulo,
The email that the Affiliations Committee sent to you -- among various others -- on May 18 read as follows:
Dear members of Wikimedia Portugal,
The recent developments in your chapter have been brought to our attention by a number of members of the chapter, as well as members of the community. We are monitoring the situation and in the meantime, would like to request all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences. You may also officially request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more than happy to help with. In the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT, having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based on the the reports submitted.
In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list ( affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal communications channels. Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.
Do not hesitate contacting this committee if you have further questions.
The request concerning "presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal" was in reference to people stating that they were the official representatives of the chapter in meetings -- a fact of which you were doubtless well aware, seeing as it was your own complaint on the subject which prompted the committee's request in the first place.
At no time did you -- or any of your colleagues -- indicate that you were interpreting the request as having anything to do with the execution of the legal functions of the board, the filing of financial statements with tax authorities, or anything of the sort. Rather, you had responded with questions as to how you might present yourselves to your current and potential partners.
For you to now insist that the committee's request was a demand that you violate Portuguese law -- an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time -- is a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:42 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15 April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly, was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely the former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That too is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head of the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that conveys a General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would have been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had not any right to do that.
Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer knowledgeable of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere imposition of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its tax form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the association bank account.
Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) 22:01:
I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or
neglect
their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that
AffCom
is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that
should
be addressed.
As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of
these
actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to
evaluate
AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give
me
cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom
made
an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that
AffCom
has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF
Legal.
Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to
the end
of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I
think
that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good
and
bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to
discontinue
a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning
letter
was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a
temporary
setback from which the affiliate can recover.
I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and
people
can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and continuous self-improvement.
One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they
are
primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My
impression
is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and
dedication
from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general
is an
interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts
about
how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are
generously
volunteering their limited time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
Kirill,
I requested a clarification regarding WMPT activities, and Gonçalo asked a general clarification, also mentioning activities. In no way it implies that we have understood your request as applying only to activities - In fact, my understanding is everyone at WMPT understood it as a general prohibition of the board presenting itself and acting as a board. The fact that none of us has recalled to specifically mentioning the WMPT obligations to the Portuguese state on the message in no way implies that we have understood your initial message as relating only to activities. What came to mind immediately after that message was the activities, so that was what I asked about.
I really fail to understand why you are accusing WMPT of acting clandestinely, saying you "*expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore our request*". You were clearly informed about that illegality, and that we were not going to head those specific requests, on a message we sent to you dated 15 July, which you acknowledged and answered in 8 August, saying, among other things, that you had no time to read the law. Don't you communicate between yourselves? Don't you read the cases you have at hands before coming into a public mailing list talking about them?
Paulo
Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 02:29:
Paulo,
The request for clarification to which you refer was -- as I'm sure you recall -- in reference to carrying out planned activities, and had nothing to do with any legal matters, tax filings, or the like; the same was true of the committee's response:
Olá Gonçalo,
Yes, you can count on us to help solve the current situation!
You understood correctly, we would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT and carry on with your activities, since all of you are full members of the chapter and can participate in different activities and events. Just for the sake of avoiding further confusion.
@Paulo, please carry on with all the activities planned -just introduce yourself as member of the chapter is needed.
To conclude, from this email, that the committee was somehow instructing you to violate Portuguese law is what I might charitably call a "creative" interpretation of our words. But let's set that aside for the moment.
You are correct in that it's not your responsibility to "lecture and educate" the committee. What *is* your responsibility, however, is to be honest with the committee regarding your compliance -- or lack thereof -- with our requests. If you decide, for whatever reason, that you cannot or will not do as we've asked -- whether because you believe your national law prohibits you from doing so, or because you and your colleagues want to do something different, or simply because you think we're stupid and don't feel like listening to us -- then that's your decision.
We expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore our request. To simply thank us for clarifying it, as you did, while secretly having no intention of complying with it in the first place is hardly something one does when negotiating in good faith.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Kirill,
On the message the AffCom has sent on 20 May, addressed to the chair of the WMPT board, answering to a request for clarification, you stated: "*we would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT*".
It seems quite obvious to me that, had the board headed the AffCom request, and not introduced themselves as such, the obligations of the association towards the Portuguese state could not have been fulfilled. Therefore I believe it is fair to say you were indeed requesting us to do something out of the law.
You also failed to address the second point, about the AffCom requesting that a new General Assembly should be conveyed by some party of your choice, something which is clearly against this country law, as mentioned.
As for the validity of the General Assembly you were contesting, it suffices to say it was and is recognized as perfectly valid by the Portuguese state - the tax authority, namely - and by the biggest bank of the country, Caixa Geral de Depósitos. Only the rogue guy that had been reported to you for severe harassment and for sending very serious legal and personal threats to a number of WMPT members, and the AFfCom itself, saw it as problematic.
I would also like to ask you to not make unfounded and unfair accusations against me, nor indulge in personal attacks, as you have done ("*a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith*"). It is not my responsibility to lecture and educate the AffCom on what they should do ("*an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time*"). As far as I know, it is the AffCom duty and responsibility to know the affiliate country law, at least to the degree of not commanding the affiliate do an illegal action, as you have done. It was my responsibility, as a member of WMPT, to denounce your requests as illegal, and I've done exactly that at the time. That's why your request for conveying a General Assembly through a "neutral party" was never headed.
Paulo
Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 00:51:
Paulo,
The email that the Affiliations Committee sent to you -- among various others -- on May 18 read as follows:
Dear members of Wikimedia Portugal,
The recent developments in your chapter have been brought to our attention by a number of members of the chapter, as well as members of the community. We are monitoring the situation and in the meantime, would like to request all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences. You may also officially request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more than happy to help with. In the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT, having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based on the the reports submitted.
In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list ( affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal communications channels. Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.
Do not hesitate contacting this committee if you have further questions.
The request concerning "presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal" was in reference to people stating that they were the official representatives of the chapter in meetings -- a fact of which you were doubtless well aware, seeing as it was your own complaint on the subject which prompted the committee's request in the first place.
At no time did you -- or any of your colleagues -- indicate that you were interpreting the request as having anything to do with the execution of the legal functions of the board, the filing of financial statements with tax authorities, or anything of the sort. Rather, you had responded with questions as to how you might present yourselves to your current and potential partners.
For you to now insist that the committee's request was a demand that you violate Portuguese law -- an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time -- is a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:42 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15 April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly, was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely the former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That too is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head of the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that conveys a General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would have been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had not any right to do that.
Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer knowledgeable of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere imposition of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its tax form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the association bank account.
Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) 22:01:
I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or
neglect
their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that
AffCom
is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that
should
be addressed.
As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of
these
actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to
evaluate
AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give
me
cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that
AffCom made
an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that
AffCom
has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF
Legal.
Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to
the end
of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I
think
that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good
and
bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error
in
sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to
discontinue
a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning
letter
was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a
temporary
setback from which the affiliate can recover.
I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and
people
can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and continuous self-improvement.
One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they
are
primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My
impression
is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and
dedication
from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general
is an
interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts
about
how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are
generously
volunteering their limited time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
Kirill,
Correction: The message sent to you stating we were not going to head those specific requests due to its illegality was sent in 17 July, not 15.
While we are at it, can you please explain why the AffCom has, in a message dated 15 July, falsely accused WMPT of:
- "*Not advising the Foundation of change in the bylaws or status of the Chapter (Chapter Agreement, Section 7.2).*" Note: no change was made to the bylaws, and the new board elected in 15 April was immediately reported to the AffCom and the WMF lists. - "*The Chapter engaging in activity that might negatively impact the work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia movement (Chapter Agreement, Section 6.2)*" Note: the members of the chapter were being harassed by a single, rogue individual, I can't see how the chapter may be blamed for a rogue individual actions, even more when they were reported to the AffCom in a very timely and clear manner. - "*Members of the Board of Wikimedia Portugal have been sending each other legal threats, via e-mail and posted mail.*" Note: Only the already mentioned and reported rogue element, who was not effectively part of any board since his mandate expired in 2017, and who, at the time, had even resigned as interim president, was sending legal threats to the members of WMPT. The members of the WMPT board were (and still are) *receiving* legal and personal threats from that rogue element, not sending them.
All those accusations were false, but you never excused yourselves, never retracted them, or even acknowledged their falsity. Can you please explain it now?
Paulo
Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 02:44:
Kirill,
I requested a clarification regarding WMPT activities, and Gonçalo asked a general clarification, also mentioning activities. In no way it implies that we have understood your request as applying only to activities - In fact, my understanding is everyone at WMPT understood it as a general prohibition of the board presenting itself and acting as a board. The fact that none of us has recalled to specifically mentioning the WMPT obligations to the Portuguese state on the message in no way implies that we have understood your initial message as relating only to activities. What came to mind immediately after that message was the activities, so that was what I asked about.
I really fail to understand why you are accusing WMPT of acting clandestinely, saying you "*expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore our request*". You were clearly informed about that illegality, and that we were not going to head those specific requests, on a message we sent to you dated 15 July, which you acknowledged and answered in 8 August, saying, among other things, that you had no time to read the law. Don't you communicate between yourselves? Don't you read the cases you have at hands before coming into a public mailing list talking about them?
Paulo
Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 02:29:
Paulo,
The request for clarification to which you refer was -- as I'm sure you recall -- in reference to carrying out planned activities, and had nothing to do with any legal matters, tax filings, or the like; the same was true of the committee's response:
Olá Gonçalo,
Yes, you can count on us to help solve the current situation!
You understood correctly, we would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT and carry on with your activities, since all of you are full members of the chapter and can participate in different activities and events. Just for the sake of avoiding further confusion.
@Paulo, please carry on with all the activities planned -just introduce yourself as member of the chapter is needed.
To conclude, from this email, that the committee was somehow instructing you to violate Portuguese law is what I might charitably call a "creative" interpretation of our words. But let's set that aside for the moment.
You are correct in that it's not your responsibility to "lecture and educate" the committee. What *is* your responsibility, however, is to be honest with the committee regarding your compliance -- or lack thereof -- with our requests. If you decide, for whatever reason, that you cannot or will not do as we've asked -- whether because you believe your national law prohibits you from doing so, or because you and your colleagues want to do something different, or simply because you think we're stupid and don't feel like listening to us -- then that's your decision.
We expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore our request. To simply thank us for clarifying it, as you did, while secretly having no intention of complying with it in the first place is hardly something one does when negotiating in good faith.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Kirill,
On the message the AffCom has sent on 20 May, addressed to the chair of the WMPT board, answering to a request for clarification, you stated: "*we would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT*".
It seems quite obvious to me that, had the board headed the AffCom request, and not introduced themselves as such, the obligations of the association towards the Portuguese state could not have been fulfilled. Therefore I believe it is fair to say you were indeed requesting us to do something out of the law.
You also failed to address the second point, about the AffCom requesting that a new General Assembly should be conveyed by some party of your choice, something which is clearly against this country law, as mentioned.
As for the validity of the General Assembly you were contesting, it suffices to say it was and is recognized as perfectly valid by the Portuguese state - the tax authority, namely - and by the biggest bank of the country, Caixa Geral de Depósitos. Only the rogue guy that had been reported to you for severe harassment and for sending very serious legal and personal threats to a number of WMPT members, and the AFfCom itself, saw it as problematic.
I would also like to ask you to not make unfounded and unfair accusations against me, nor indulge in personal attacks, as you have done ("*a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith*"). It is not my responsibility to lecture and educate the AffCom on what they should do ("*an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time*"). As far as I know, it is the AffCom duty and responsibility to know the affiliate country law, at least to the degree of not commanding the affiliate do an illegal action, as you have done. It was my responsibility, as a member of WMPT, to denounce your requests as illegal, and I've done exactly that at the time. That's why your request for conveying a General Assembly through a "neutral party" was never headed.
Paulo
Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 00:51:
Paulo,
The email that the Affiliations Committee sent to you -- among various others -- on May 18 read as follows:
Dear members of Wikimedia Portugal,
The recent developments in your chapter have been brought to our attention by a number of members of the chapter, as well as members of the community. We are monitoring the situation and in the meantime, would like to request all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences. You may also officially request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more than happy to help with. In the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT, having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based on the the reports submitted.
In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list ( affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal communications channels. Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.
Do not hesitate contacting this committee if you have further questions.
The request concerning "presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal" was in reference to people stating that they were the official representatives of the chapter in meetings -- a fact of which you were doubtless well aware, seeing as it was your own complaint on the subject which prompted the committee's request in the first place.
At no time did you -- or any of your colleagues -- indicate that you were interpreting the request as having anything to do with the execution of the legal functions of the board, the filing of financial statements with tax authorities, or anything of the sort. Rather, you had responded with questions as to how you might present yourselves to your current and potential partners.
For you to now insist that the committee's request was a demand that you violate Portuguese law -- an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time -- is a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:42 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15 April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly, was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely the former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That too is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head of the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that conveys a General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would have been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had not any right to do that.
Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer knowledgeable of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere imposition of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its tax form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the association bank account.
Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) 22:01:
I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or
neglect
their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports,
misusing
trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that
AffCom
is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I
am
concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that
should
be addressed.
As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of
these
actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to
evaluate
AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread
give me
cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that
AffCom made
an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before
making
requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that
AffCom
has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF
Legal.
Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to
the end
of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I
think
that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good
and
bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error
in
sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain
the
situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to
discontinue
a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning
letter
was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a
temporary
setback from which the affiliate can recover.
I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and
people
can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and continuous self-improvement.
One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they
are
primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My
impression
is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and
dedication
from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in
general is an
interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts
about
how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are
generously
volunteering their limited time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
Paulo,
You were provided ample details regarding these concerns, both in the original suspension letter and in response to the specific questions raised during the subsequent email discussion.
If Wikimedia Portugal wants to publish the full text of the suspension letter and have a public discussion about it, that is entirely your prerogative. In the meantime, I am not going to debate organizational governance practices with you based on an arbitrary and selective quoting of the document.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:34 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Kirill,
Correction: The message sent to you stating we were not going to head those specific requests due to its illegality was sent in 17 July, not 15.
While we are at it, can you please explain why the AffCom has, in a message dated 15 July, falsely accused WMPT of:
- "*Not advising the Foundation of change in the bylaws or status of
the Chapter (Chapter Agreement, Section 7.2).*" Note: no change was made to the bylaws, and the new board elected in 15 April was immediately reported to the AffCom and the WMF lists.
- "*The Chapter engaging in activity that might negatively impact the
work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia movement (Chapter Agreement, Section 6.2)*" Note: the members of the chapter were being harassed by a single, rogue individual, I can't see how the chapter may be blamed for a rogue individual actions, even more when they were reported to the AffCom in a very timely and clear manner.
- "*Members of the Board of Wikimedia Portugal have been sending each
other legal threats, via e-mail and posted mail.*" Note: Only the already mentioned and reported rogue element, who was not effectively part of any board since his mandate expired in 2017, and who, at the time, had even resigned as interim president, was sending legal threats to the members of WMPT. The members of the WMPT board were (and still are) *receiving* legal and personal threats from that rogue element, not sending them.
All those accusations were false, but you never excused yourselves, never retracted them, or even acknowledged their falsity. Can you please explain it now?
Paulo
Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 02:44:
Kirill,
I requested a clarification regarding WMPT activities, and Gonçalo asked a general clarification, also mentioning activities. In no way it implies that we have understood your request as applying only to activities - In fact, my understanding is everyone at WMPT understood it as a general prohibition of the board presenting itself and acting as a board. The fact that none of us has recalled to specifically mentioning the WMPT obligations to the Portuguese state on the message in no way implies that we have understood your initial message as relating only to activities. What came to mind immediately after that message was the activities, so that was what I asked about.
I really fail to understand why you are accusing WMPT of acting clandestinely, saying you "*expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore our request*". You were clearly informed about that illegality, and that we were not going to head those specific requests, on a message we sent to you dated 15 July, which you acknowledged and answered in 8 August, saying, among other things, that you had no time to read the law. Don't you communicate between yourselves? Don't you read the cases you have at hands before coming into a public mailing list talking about them?
Paulo
Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 02:29:
Paulo,
The request for clarification to which you refer was -- as I'm sure you recall -- in reference to carrying out planned activities, and had nothing to do with any legal matters, tax filings, or the like; the same was true of the committee's response:
Olá Gonçalo,
Yes, you can count on us to help solve the current situation!
You understood correctly, we would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT and carry on with your activities, since all of you are full members of the chapter and can participate in different activities and events. Just for the sake of avoiding further confusion.
@Paulo, please carry on with all the activities planned -just introduce yourself as member of the chapter is needed.
To conclude, from this email, that the committee was somehow instructing you to violate Portuguese law is what I might charitably call a "creative" interpretation of our words. But let's set that aside for the moment.
You are correct in that it's not your responsibility to "lecture and educate" the committee. What *is* your responsibility, however, is to be honest with the committee regarding your compliance -- or lack thereof -- with our requests. If you decide, for whatever reason, that you cannot or will not do as we've asked -- whether because you believe your national law prohibits you from doing so, or because you and your colleagues want to do something different, or simply because you think we're stupid and don't feel like listening to us -- then that's your decision.
We expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore our request. To simply thank us for clarifying it, as you did, while secretly having no intention of complying with it in the first place is hardly something one does when negotiating in good faith.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Kirill,
On the message the AffCom has sent on 20 May, addressed to the chair of the WMPT board, answering to a request for clarification, you stated: "*we would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT*".
It seems quite obvious to me that, had the board headed the AffCom request, and not introduced themselves as such, the obligations of the association towards the Portuguese state could not have been fulfilled. Therefore I believe it is fair to say you were indeed requesting us to do something out of the law.
You also failed to address the second point, about the AffCom requesting that a new General Assembly should be conveyed by some party of your choice, something which is clearly against this country law, as mentioned.
As for the validity of the General Assembly you were contesting, it suffices to say it was and is recognized as perfectly valid by the Portuguese state - the tax authority, namely - and by the biggest bank of the country, Caixa Geral de Depósitos. Only the rogue guy that had been reported to you for severe harassment and for sending very serious legal and personal threats to a number of WMPT members, and the AFfCom itself, saw it as problematic.
I would also like to ask you to not make unfounded and unfair accusations against me, nor indulge in personal attacks, as you have done ("*a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith*"). It is not my responsibility to lecture and educate the AffCom on what they should do ("*an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time*"). As far as I know, it is the AffCom duty and responsibility to know the affiliate country law, at least to the degree of not commanding the affiliate do an illegal action, as you have done. It was my responsibility, as a member of WMPT, to denounce your requests as illegal, and I've done exactly that at the time. That's why your request for conveying a General Assembly through a "neutral party" was never headed.
Paulo
Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 00:51:
Paulo,
The email that the Affiliations Committee sent to you -- among various others -- on May 18 read as follows:
Dear members of Wikimedia Portugal,
The recent developments in your chapter have been brought to our attention by a number of members of the chapter, as well as members of the community. We are monitoring the situation and in the meantime, would like to request all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences. You may also officially request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more than happy to help with. In the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT, having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based on the the reports submitted.
In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list ( affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal communications channels. Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.
Do not hesitate contacting this committee if you have further questions.
The request concerning "presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal" was in reference to people stating that they were the official representatives of the chapter in meetings -- a fact of which you were doubtless well aware, seeing as it was your own complaint on the subject which prompted the committee's request in the first place.
At no time did you -- or any of your colleagues -- indicate that you were interpreting the request as having anything to do with the execution of the legal functions of the board, the filing of financial statements with tax authorities, or anything of the sort. Rather, you had responded with questions as to how you might present yourselves to your current and potential partners.
For you to now insist that the committee's request was a demand that you violate Portuguese law -- an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time -- is a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:42 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15 April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly, was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely the former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That too is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head of the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that conveys a General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would have been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had not any right to do that.
Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer knowledgeable of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere imposition of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its tax form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the association bank account.
Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) 22:01:
> I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or neglect > their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing > trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that AffCom > is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am > concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that should > be addressed. > > As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of these > actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to evaluate > AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give me > cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom made > an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal > research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making > requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that AffCom > has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF Legal. > > Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the end > of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern > potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I think > that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good and > bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in > sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the > situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to discontinue > a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning letter > was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a temporary > setback from which the affiliate can recover. > > I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an > affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and people > can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and > continuous self-improvement. > > One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they are > primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My impression > is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and dedication > from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general is an > interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts about > how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are generously > volunteering their limited time. > > Pine > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Kirill,
Thank you, that was very informative indeed.
I forgot to mention in my previous message, those three false statements about WMPT conduct were presented as part of the justification for the WMPT suspension in the original notification, sent 15 July. Despite receiving all clarifications about them as soon as 17 July, you never acknowledged their falsity.
All the best,
Paulo
Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 03:50:
Paulo,
You were provided ample details regarding these concerns, both in the original suspension letter and in response to the specific questions raised during the subsequent email discussion.
If Wikimedia Portugal wants to publish the full text of the suspension letter and have a public discussion about it, that is entirely your prerogative. In the meantime, I am not going to debate organizational governance practices with you based on an arbitrary and selective quoting of the document.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:34 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Kirill,
Correction: The message sent to you stating we were not going to head those specific requests due to its illegality was sent in 17 July, not 15.
While we are at it, can you please explain why the AffCom has, in a message dated 15 July, falsely accused WMPT of:
- "*Not advising the Foundation of change in the bylaws or status of
the Chapter (Chapter Agreement, Section 7.2).*" Note: no change was made to the bylaws, and the new board elected in 15 April was immediately reported to the AffCom and the WMF lists.
- "*The Chapter engaging in activity that might negatively impact the
work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia movement (Chapter Agreement, Section 6.2)*" Note: the members of the chapter were being harassed by a single, rogue individual, I can't see how the chapter may be blamed for a rogue individual actions, even more when they were reported to the AffCom in a very timely and clear manner.
- "*Members of the Board of Wikimedia Portugal have been sending each
other legal threats, via e-mail and posted mail.*" Note: Only the already mentioned and reported rogue element, who was not effectively part of any board since his mandate expired in 2017, and who, at the time, had even resigned as interim president, was sending legal threats to the members of WMPT. The members of the WMPT board were (and still are) *receiving* legal and personal threats from that rogue element, not sending them.
All those accusations were false, but you never excused yourselves, never retracted them, or even acknowledged their falsity. Can you please explain it now?
Paulo
Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 02:44:
Kirill,
I requested a clarification regarding WMPT activities, and Gonçalo asked a general clarification, also mentioning activities. In no way it implies that we have understood your request as applying only to activities - In fact, my understanding is everyone at WMPT understood it as a general prohibition of the board presenting itself and acting as a board. The fact that none of us has recalled to specifically mentioning the WMPT obligations to the Portuguese state on the message in no way implies that we have understood your initial message as relating only to activities. What came to mind immediately after that message was the activities, so that was what I asked about.
I really fail to understand why you are accusing WMPT of acting clandestinely, saying you "*expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore our request*". You were clearly informed about that illegality, and that we were not going to head those specific requests, on a message we sent to you dated 15 July, which you acknowledged and answered in 8 August, saying, among other things, that you had no time to read the law. Don't you communicate between yourselves? Don't you read the cases you have at hands before coming into a public mailing list talking about them?
Paulo
Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 02:29:
Paulo,
The request for clarification to which you refer was -- as I'm sure you recall -- in reference to carrying out planned activities, and had nothing to do with any legal matters, tax filings, or the like; the same was true of the committee's response:
Olá Gonçalo,
Yes, you can count on us to help solve the current situation!
You understood correctly, we would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT and carry on with your activities, since all of you are full members of the chapter and can participate in different activities and events. Just for the sake of avoiding further confusion.
@Paulo, please carry on with all the activities planned -just introduce yourself as member of the chapter is needed.
To conclude, from this email, that the committee was somehow instructing you to violate Portuguese law is what I might charitably call a "creative" interpretation of our words. But let's set that aside for the moment.
You are correct in that it's not your responsibility to "lecture and educate" the committee. What *is* your responsibility, however, is to be honest with the committee regarding your compliance -- or lack thereof -- with our requests. If you decide, for whatever reason, that you cannot or will not do as we've asked -- whether because you believe your national law prohibits you from doing so, or because you and your colleagues want to do something different, or simply because you think we're stupid and don't feel like listening to us -- then that's your decision.
We expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore our request. To simply thank us for clarifying it, as you did, while secretly having no intention of complying with it in the first place is hardly something one does when negotiating in good faith.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Kirill,
On the message the AffCom has sent on 20 May, addressed to the chair of the WMPT board, answering to a request for clarification, you stated: "*we would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT*".
It seems quite obvious to me that, had the board headed the AffCom request, and not introduced themselves as such, the obligations of the association towards the Portuguese state could not have been fulfilled. Therefore I believe it is fair to say you were indeed requesting us to do something out of the law.
You also failed to address the second point, about the AffCom requesting that a new General Assembly should be conveyed by some party of your choice, something which is clearly against this country law, as mentioned.
As for the validity of the General Assembly you were contesting, it suffices to say it was and is recognized as perfectly valid by the Portuguese state - the tax authority, namely - and by the biggest bank of the country, Caixa Geral de Depósitos. Only the rogue guy that had been reported to you for severe harassment and for sending very serious legal and personal threats to a number of WMPT members, and the AFfCom itself, saw it as problematic.
I would also like to ask you to not make unfounded and unfair accusations against me, nor indulge in personal attacks, as you have done ("*a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith*"). It is not my responsibility to lecture and educate the AffCom on what they should do ("*an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time*"). As far as I know, it is the AffCom duty and responsibility to know the affiliate country law, at least to the degree of not commanding the affiliate do an illegal action, as you have done. It was my responsibility, as a member of WMPT, to denounce your requests as illegal, and I've done exactly that at the time. That's why your request for conveying a General Assembly through a "neutral party" was never headed.
Paulo
Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 00:51:
Paulo,
The email that the Affiliations Committee sent to you -- among various others -- on May 18 read as follows:
Dear members of Wikimedia Portugal, >
> The recent developments in your chapter have been brought to our > attention by a number of members of the chapter, as well as members of the > community. We are monitoring the situation and in the meantime, would like > to request all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this > conflict and to work to resolve differences. You may also officially > request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation > plan, which we are more than happy to help with. In the case of no interest > in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may > consider the de-recognition of WMPT, having taken into account also the low > activity of the group, based on the the reports submitted. >
> In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he > present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list ( > affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal > communications channels. Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as > representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved. >
> Do not hesitate contacting this committee if you have further > questions.
The request concerning "presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal" was in reference to people stating that they were the official representatives of the chapter in meetings -- a fact of which you were doubtless well aware, seeing as it was your own complaint on the subject which prompted the committee's request in the first place.
At no time did you -- or any of your colleagues -- indicate that you were interpreting the request as having anything to do with the execution of the legal functions of the board, the filing of financial statements with tax authorities, or anything of the sort. Rather, you had responded with questions as to how you might present yourselves to your current and potential partners.
For you to now insist that the committee's request was a demand that you violate Portuguese law -- an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time -- is a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:42 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Two illegal requests, to be more precise. > > Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently > elected (15 > April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the > Portuguese > law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General > Assembly, > was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible > to > fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If > they > doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of > taking > decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood. > > Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new > General > Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", > namely the > former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. > That too > is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally > elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the > head of > the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that > conveys a > General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A > General > Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by > some > external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent > General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) > would have > been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that > had not > any right to do that. > > Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 > April > General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer > knowledgeable > of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General > Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere > imposition > of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted > its tax > form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the > legal > representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services > (Autoridade > Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the > association bank account. > > Paulo > > > > > Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) > 22:01: > > > I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or > neglect > > their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, > misusing > > trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see > that AffCom > > is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, > I am > > concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that > should > > be addressed. > > > > As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some > of these > > actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to > evaluate > > AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread > give me > > cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that > AffCom made > > an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do > legal > > research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before > making > > requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that > AffCom > > has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from > WMF Legal. > > > > Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead > to the end > > of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could > concern > > potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems > I think > > that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, > good and > > bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an > error in > > sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain > the > > situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to > discontinue > > a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning > letter > > was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a > temporary > > setback from which the affiliate can recover. > > > > I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an > > affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations > and people > > can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning > and > > continuous self-improvement. > > > > One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that > they are > > primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My > impression > > is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and > dedication > > from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in > general is an > > interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' > thoughts about > > how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are > generously > > volunteering their limited time. > > > > Pine > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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> > _______________________________________________ > 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>
I'm sorry Kirill, but I fail to see how that would be a display of bad faith. If I remember correctly an Affcom member did send a notice to the WMPT list and members (including Paulo) did state that an impossibility to act as representatives of Wikimedia Portugal would have terrible consequences for the affiliate.
Regardless of what was stated or warned about the consequences of Affcom's request, what is it you are stating now?
It is demonstrable Affcom requested all refrain to act in name of Wikimedia Portugal.
Are you saying that request did not hold for legal fillings in name of Wikimedia Portugal? And that Affcom unambiguously conveyed to Paulo and the rest of Wikimedia Portugal that Wikimedia Portugal members were free to represent it in legal fillings?
Without affirmative responses to both questions I fail how you could possibly infer bad faith from Paulo.
Seeing the numerous false or contradictory statements and several failures stemming from Affcom's actions or lack thereof we would be justified to infer bad faith from its members, nonetheless we choose to see these as errors from humans on a voluntary role acting in good faith.
Best regards, Chico Venancio
Em ter, 25 de set de 2018 20:51, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu:
Paulo,
The email that the Affiliations Committee sent to you -- among various others -- on May 18 read as follows:
Dear members of Wikimedia Portugal,
The recent developments in your chapter have been brought to our
attention
by a number of members of the chapter, as well as members of the
community.
We are monitoring the situation and in the meantime, would like to
request
all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences. You may also officially request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more than happy to help with. In the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may
consider
the de-recognition of WMPT, having taken into account also the low
activity
of the group, based on the the reports submitted.
In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list ( affcom@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal communications channels. Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative
of
Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.
Do not hesitate contacting this committee if you have further questions.
The request concerning "presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia Portugal" was in reference to people stating that they were the official representatives of the chapter in meetings -- a fact of which you were doubtless well aware, seeing as it was your own complaint on the subject which prompted the committee's request in the first place.
At no time did you -- or any of your colleagues -- indicate that you were interpreting the request as having anything to do with the execution of the legal functions of the board, the filing of financial statements with tax authorities, or anything of the sort. Rather, you had responded with questions as to how you might present yourselves to your current and potential partners.
For you to now insist that the committee's request was a demand that you violate Portuguese law -- an interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time -- is a remarkable and brazen display of bad faith.
Regards, Kirill
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:42 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15 April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly, was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely
the
former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That
too
is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head
of
the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that
conveys a
General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would
have
been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had
not
any right to do that.
Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer
knowledgeable
of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere
imposition
of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its
tax
form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the association bank account.
Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s)
22:01:
I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or
neglect
their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that
AffCom
is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that
should
be addressed.
As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of
these
actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to
evaluate
AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give
me
cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom
made
an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that
AffCom
has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF
Legal.
Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the
end
of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I
think
that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good
and
bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to
discontinue
a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning
letter
was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a
temporary
setback from which the affiliate can recover.
I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and
people
can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and continuous self-improvement.
One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they
are
primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My
impression
is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and
dedication
from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general
is
an
interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts
about
how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are
generously
volunteering their limited time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org