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: private. is general. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;zhorishna(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: is information set bad. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt; escreveu no dia quinta, 20/09/2018 à(s) 00:56: very differences.*" legal - the WMPT*" know. now least. - communications of culture off can find or main an if this favoritism, to https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l , _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) 22:01: AffCom evaluate made Legal. end discontinue temporary people impression dedication an about _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Do not hesitate contacting this committee if you have further questions.

@Paulo, please carry on with all the activities planned -just introduce yourself as member of the chapter is needed.

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 &lt;kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> > Unsubscribe: >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >>> >>>

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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;wiki.pine(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> > Unsubscribe: >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> ?subject=unsubscribe> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> Unsubscribe: >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto: >>>>>> wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe&gt; >>>>> >>>>>