Hi Illario,
Apologies, I probably explained myself poorly. I never said that a chapter is a representative of the Wikimedia community, rather I was trying to explain that João’s claimed experience (emphasis on claimed) in management and conflict resolution was a major factor in him being elected to the Board. At the time, WMPT thought that that could be very valuable to the chapter. So, we agree, a heterogeneous board is absolutely an advantage, but in this case the issue was not one of diversity, but rather of competence and alignment to the movement goals and principles.
In practice, he did not contribute to the management of the chapter, and he was not prepared to an increase of the chapter activities. He very quickly started demonstrating uneasiness with any procedural decision he did not personally vet (which are imperative in volunteer-based, collaborative projects), and soon after, without any previous warning, started sending legal threats going as far as using a lawyer to intimidate one of our most active members on behalf of WMPT (without discussing it with anyone beforehand), and resigned.
We have no intention to expose João even more in this public mailing list, so we will not provide a comprehensive list of the problems we found with his term on the board. But to make it clear, when this whole issue began to be addressed, even though we did not ask him to stay on the Board, we did invite him to continue on the chapter, working with us, as AffCom can confirm. Just not in any role with legal responsibilities.
Cheers, Gonçalo Themudo
*Presidente* *Wikimedia Portugal* *Email: *goethe.wiki@gmail.com *Website: *http://pt.wikimedia.org https://sites.google.com/view/themudo *Imagine um mundo onde cada ser humano pode partilhar livremente a soma de todo o conhecimento, na sua própria língua.*
The pro forma statement bout what a chapter is is valuable, but I think many of us kinda got the idea that the problem was not the starting point (otherwise why electing him?) but came later. It's possible that someone else with more community experience would have never behaved such way, but that's speculation.
Statistically, in this scenario this lack of community view probably did not help. Whatever his skills in "management and conflict resolution" were, even assuming they were correctly stated based on previous expertise in other fields, they were not the best ones to handle the conflicts that later emerged. Also, considering the resolution we see now, which is not a great resolution. The point is that in all these disputes (I think about Brazil few months ago) it looks like the AffCom position sounds like "you are both wrong". Now, this is never a healthy long-term strategy. If it occurs again, it gives more and more the idea that whoever is in the less correct position can hold still because if the matter arrives to the AffCom everybody pays equally. I am sure the situation is more multifaceted, but let's try to grasp the general vibe here.
This is not wise. King Solomon solved the issue bluffing and spotting the real mother, he never actually cut the baby in two halves ... But wisdom comes also with experience. Il giovedì 11 ottobre 2018, 15:43:01 CEST, GoEthe.wiki goethe.wiki@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hi Illario,
Apologies, I probably explained myself poorly. I never said that a chapter is a representative of the Wikimedia community, rather I was trying to explain that João’s claimed experience (emphasis on claimed) in management and conflict resolution was a major factor in him being elected to the Board. At the time, WMPT thought that that could be very valuable to the chapter. So, we agree, a heterogeneous board is absolutely an advantage, but in this case the issue was not one of diversity, but rather of competence and alignment to the movement goals and principles.
In practice, he did not contribute to the management of the chapter, and he was not prepared to an increase of the chapter activities. He very quickly started demonstrating uneasiness with any procedural decision he did not personally vet (which are imperative in volunteer-based, collaborative projects), and soon after, without any previous warning, started sending legal threats going as far as using a lawyer to intimidate one of our most active members on behalf of WMPT (without discussing it with anyone beforehand), and resigned.
We have no intention to expose João even more in this public mailing list, so we will not provide a comprehensive list of the problems we found with his term on the board. But to make it clear, when this whole issue began to be addressed, even though we did not ask him to stay on the Board, we did invite him to continue on the chapter, working with us, as AffCom can confirm. Just not in any role with legal responsibilities.
Cheers, Gonçalo Themudo
*Presidente* *Wikimedia Portugal* *Email: *goethe.wiki@gmail.com *Website: *http://pt.wikimedia.org https://sites.google.com/view/themudo *Imagine um mundo onde cada ser humano pode partilhar livremente a soma de todo o conhecimento, na sua própria língua.* _______________________________________________ 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
Just a quick message to clarify that the only conflict that ever existed in Wikimedia Portugal, as far as I know, was with João Vasconcelos himself.
Paulo
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org escreveu no dia quinta, 11/10/2018 à(s) 15:38:
The pro forma statement bout what a chapter is is valuable, but I think many of us kinda got the idea that the problem was not the starting point (otherwise why electing him?) but came later. It's possible that someone else with more community experience would have never behaved such way, but that's speculation.
Statistically, in this scenario this lack of community view probably did not help. Whatever his skills in "management and conflict resolution" were, even assuming they were correctly stated based on previous expertise in other fields, they were not the best ones to handle the conflicts that later emerged. Also, considering the resolution we see now, which is not a great resolution. The point is that in all these disputes (I think about Brazil few months ago) it looks like the AffCom position sounds like "you are both wrong". Now, this is never a healthy long-term strategy. If it occurs again, it gives more and more the idea that whoever is in the less correct position can hold still because if the matter arrives to the AffCom everybody pays equally. I am sure the situation is more multifaceted, but let's try to grasp the general vibe here.
This is not wise. King Solomon solved the issue bluffing and spotting the real mother, he never actually cut the baby in two halves ... But wisdom comes also with experience. Il giovedì 11 ottobre 2018, 15:43:01 CEST, GoEthe.wiki < goethe.wiki@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Hi Illario,
Apologies, I probably explained myself poorly. I never said that a chapter is a representative of the Wikimedia community, rather I was trying to explain that João’s claimed experience (emphasis on claimed) in management and conflict resolution was a major factor in him being elected to the Board. At the time, WMPT thought that that could be very valuable to the chapter. So, we agree, a heterogeneous board is absolutely an advantage, but in this case the issue was not one of diversity, but rather of competence and alignment to the movement goals and principles.
In practice, he did not contribute to the management of the chapter, and he was not prepared to an increase of the chapter activities. He very quickly started demonstrating uneasiness with any procedural decision he did not personally vet (which are imperative in volunteer-based, collaborative projects), and soon after, without any previous warning, started sending legal threats going as far as using a lawyer to intimidate one of our most active members on behalf of WMPT (without discussing it with anyone beforehand), and resigned.
We have no intention to expose João even more in this public mailing list, so we will not provide a comprehensive list of the problems we found with his term on the board. But to make it clear, when this whole issue began to be addressed, even though we did not ask him to stay on the Board, we did invite him to continue on the chapter, working with us, as AffCom can confirm. Just not in any role with legal responsibilities.
Cheers, Gonçalo Themudo
*Presidente* *Wikimedia Portugal* *Email: *goethe.wiki@gmail.com *Website: *http://pt.wikimedia.org https://sites.google.com/view/themudo *Imagine um mundo onde cada ser humano pode partilhar livremente a soma de todo o conhecimento, na sua própria língua.* _______________________________________________ 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 think there's a question to think about, about how the movement handles this kind of situation where there are evidently serious governance problems affecting an affiliate.
There are some clear-cut situations (e.g. total inactivity) where the current de-recognition process can simply be followed by Affcom. And there are some situations where there is a large and prominent affiliate that has plenty of activity, but serious governance issues, where the WMF Grantmaking and/or Legal teams can get involved in some depth (thinking about Wikimedia UK in 2012 and Wikimedia France in 2017).
This is the only case that's "in the middle" that I am aware of - are there more that have been made public? Of course, it's possible that there may be other cases where a small/medium affiliate has been helped to have their governance problems resolved by one process or another (derecognition or something else) but it's happened silently in the background.
Chris On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:29 PM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
Just a quick message to clarify that the only conflict that ever existed in Wikimedia Portugal, as far as I know, was with João Vasconcelos himself.
Paulo
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org escreveu no dia quinta, 11/10/2018 à(s) 15:38:
The pro forma statement bout what a chapter is is valuable, but I think many of us kinda got the idea that the problem was not the starting point (otherwise why electing him?) but came later. It's possible that someone else with more community experience would have never behaved such way, but that's speculation.
Statistically, in this scenario this lack of community view probably did not help. Whatever his skills in "management and conflict resolution" were, even assuming they were correctly stated based on previous expertise in other fields, they were not the best ones to handle the conflicts that later emerged. Also, considering the resolution we see now, which is not a great resolution. The point is that in all these disputes (I think about Brazil few months ago) it looks like the AffCom position sounds like "you are both wrong". Now, this is never a healthy long-term strategy. If it occurs again, it gives more and more the idea that whoever is in the less correct position can hold still because if the matter arrives to the AffCom everybody pays equally. I am sure the situation is more multifaceted, but let's try to grasp the general vibe here.
This is not wise. King Solomon solved the issue bluffing and spotting the real mother, he never actually cut the baby in two halves ... But wisdom comes also with experience. Il giovedì 11 ottobre 2018, 15:43:01 CEST, GoEthe.wiki < goethe.wiki@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Hi Illario,
Apologies, I probably explained myself poorly. I never said that a chapter is a representative of the Wikimedia community, rather I was trying to explain that João’s claimed experience (emphasis on claimed) in management and conflict resolution was a major factor in him being elected to the Board. At the time, WMPT thought that that could be very valuable to the chapter. So, we agree, a heterogeneous board is absolutely an advantage, but in this case the issue was not one of diversity, but rather of competence and alignment to the movement goals and principles.
In practice, he did not contribute to the management of the chapter, and he was not prepared to an increase of the chapter activities. He very quickly started demonstrating uneasiness with any procedural decision he did not personally vet (which are imperative in volunteer-based, collaborative projects), and soon after, without any previous warning, started sending legal threats going as far as using a lawyer to intimidate one of our most active members on behalf of WMPT (without discussing it with anyone beforehand), and resigned.
We have no intention to expose João even more in this public mailing list, so we will not provide a comprehensive list of the problems we found with his term on the board. But to make it clear, when this whole issue began to be addressed, even though we did not ask him to stay on the Board, we did invite him to continue on the chapter, working with us, as AffCom can confirm. Just not in any role with legal responsibilities.
Cheers, Gonçalo Themudo
*Presidente* *Wikimedia Portugal* *Email: *goethe.wiki@gmail.com *Website: *http://pt.wikimedia.org https://sites.google.com/view/themudo *Imagine um mundo onde cada ser humano pode partilhar livremente a soma de todo o conhecimento, na sua própria língua.* _______________________________________________ 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 can't tell which part of this situation is the more sad; is it the events themselves, the total absence of any comment from AffCom, or the very limited interest evinced by the rest of the folks subscribed to this list?
It seems if we follow the AffCom model described here, we should take WMPT at its word as the complainant and decide that AffCom should perhaps be disbanded - maybe to be reconstituted by others at a later date.
Perhaps those others would feel themselves responsible to a constituency beyond themselves, at least to the minimal extent that they deign to offer a response of some sort in public.
If that sounds like an extreme and unfair outcome, I might even agree... but it's clear that AffCom itself sees some logic in that approach.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 1:02 PM Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's a question to think about, about how the movement handles this kind of situation where there are evidently serious governance problems affecting an affiliate.
There are some clear-cut situations (e.g. total inactivity) where the current de-recognition process can simply be followed by Affcom. And there are some situations where there is a large and prominent affiliate that has plenty of activity, but serious governance issues, where the WMF Grantmaking and/or Legal teams can get involved in some depth (thinking about Wikimedia UK in 2012 and Wikimedia France in 2017).
This is the only case that's "in the middle" that I am aware of - are there more that have been made public? Of course, it's possible that there may be other cases where a small/medium affiliate has been helped to have their governance problems resolved by one process or another (derecognition or something else) but it's happened silently in the background.
Chris On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:29 PM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
Just a quick message to clarify that the only conflict that ever existed
in
Wikimedia Portugal, as far as I know, was with João Vasconcelos himself.
Paulo
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org escreveu no dia quinta, 11/10/2018 à(s) 15:38:
The pro forma statement bout what a chapter is is valuable, but I
think
many of us kinda got the idea that the problem was not the starting
point
(otherwise why electing him?) but came later. It's possible that
someone
else with more community experience would have never behaved such way,
but
that's speculation.
Statistically, in this scenario this lack of community view probably
did
not help. Whatever his skills in "management and conflict resolution"
were,
even assuming they were correctly stated based on previous expertise in other fields, they were not the best ones to handle the conflicts that later emerged. Also, considering the resolution we see now, which is
not a
great resolution. The point is that in all these disputes (I think about Brazil few
months
ago) it looks like the AffCom position sounds like "you are both
wrong".
Now, this is never a healthy long-term strategy. If it occurs again, it gives more and more the idea that whoever is in the less correct
position
can hold still because if the matter arrives to the AffCom everybody
pays
equally. I am sure the situation is more multifaceted, but let's try to grasp the general vibe here.
This is not wise. King Solomon solved the issue bluffing and spotting
the
real mother, he never actually cut the baby in two halves ... But
wisdom
comes also with experience. Il giovedì 11 ottobre 2018, 15:43:01 CEST, GoEthe.wiki < goethe.wiki@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Hi Illario,
Apologies, I probably explained myself poorly. I never said that a
chapter
is a representative of the Wikimedia community, rather I was trying to explain that João’s claimed experience (emphasis on claimed) in
management
and conflict resolution was a major factor in him being elected to the Board. At the time, WMPT thought that that could be very valuable to
the
chapter. So, we agree, a heterogeneous board is absolutely an
advantage,
but in this case the issue was not one of diversity, but rather of competence and alignment to the movement goals and principles.
In practice, he did not contribute to the management of the chapter,
and he
was not prepared to an increase of the chapter activities. He very
quickly
started demonstrating uneasiness with any procedural decision he did
not
personally vet (which are imperative in volunteer-based, collaborative projects), and soon after, without any previous warning, started
sending
legal threats going as far as using a lawyer to intimidate one of our
most
active members on behalf of WMPT (without discussing it with anyone beforehand), and resigned.
We have no intention to expose João even more in this public mailing
list,
so we will not provide a comprehensive list of the problems we found
with
his term on the board. But to make it clear, when this whole issue
began to
be addressed, even though we did not ask him to stay on the Board, we
did
invite him to continue on the chapter, working with us, as AffCom can confirm. Just not in any role with legal responsibilities.
Cheers, Gonçalo Themudo
*Presidente* *Wikimedia Portugal* *Email: *goethe.wiki@gmail.com *Website: *http://pt.wikimedia.org <
https://sites.google.com/view/themudo%3E
*Imagine um mundo onde cada ser humano pode partilhar livremente a
soma de
todo o conhecimento, na sua própria língua.* _______________________________________________ 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
As I believe we mentioned the last time this particular topic came up, we are unlikely to resolve the intricacies of Portuguese nonprofit law by debating them on a mailing list.
Gonçalo and his colleagues have quite clearly expressed their position: they believe that the process by which they came to control Wikimedia Portugal complies with the applicable provisions of Portuguese law. At the same time, the other side in this conflict has expressed a contrary position: that the process in question does *not* comply with those provisions.
The Affiliations Committee has obviously been unable to make any real headway here, particularly as the dispute hinges in no small part on interpretations of case law rather than a plain reading of the applicable legal codes; consequently, we've solicited advice from actual Portuguese legal experts, which we hope to receive in the near future. Until that happens, however, we are not going to be able to bring this to closure, one way or the other.
Regards, Kirill
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 6:57 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I can't tell which part of this situation is the more sad; is it the events themselves, the total absence of any comment from AffCom, or the very limited interest evinced by the rest of the folks subscribed to this list?
It seems if we follow the AffCom model described here, we should take WMPT at its word as the complainant and decide that AffCom should perhaps be disbanded - maybe to be reconstituted by others at a later date.
Perhaps those others would feel themselves responsible to a constituency beyond themselves, at least to the minimal extent that they deign to offer a response of some sort in public.
If that sounds like an extreme and unfair outcome, I might even agree... but it's clear that AffCom itself sees some logic in that approach.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 1:02 PM Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's a question to think about, about how the movement handles this kind of situation where there are evidently serious governance problems affecting an affiliate.
There are some clear-cut situations (e.g. total inactivity) where the current de-recognition process can simply be followed by Affcom. And there are some situations where there is a large and prominent affiliate that has plenty of activity, but serious governance issues, where the WMF Grantmaking and/or Legal teams can get involved in some depth (thinking about Wikimedia UK in 2012 and Wikimedia France in 2017).
This is the only case that's "in the middle" that I am aware of - are there more that have been made public? Of course, it's possible that there may be other cases where a small/medium affiliate has been helped to have their governance problems resolved by one process or another (derecognition or something else) but it's happened silently in the background.
Chris On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:29 PM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
Just a quick message to clarify that the only conflict that ever
existed
in
Wikimedia Portugal, as far as I know, was with João Vasconcelos
himself.
Paulo
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org escreveu no dia quinta, 11/10/2018 à(s) 15:38:
The pro forma statement bout what a chapter is is valuable, but I
think
many of us kinda got the idea that the problem was not the starting
point
(otherwise why electing him?) but came later. It's possible that
someone
else with more community experience would have never behaved such
way,
but
that's speculation.
Statistically, in this scenario this lack of community view probably
did
not help. Whatever his skills in "management and conflict resolution"
were,
even assuming they were correctly stated based on previous expertise
in
other fields, they were not the best ones to handle the conflicts
that
later emerged. Also, considering the resolution we see now, which is
not a
great resolution. The point is that in all these disputes (I think about Brazil few
months
ago) it looks like the AffCom position sounds like "you are both
wrong".
Now, this is never a healthy long-term strategy. If it occurs again,
it
gives more and more the idea that whoever is in the less correct
position
can hold still because if the matter arrives to the AffCom everybody
pays
equally. I am sure the situation is more multifaceted, but let's try
to
grasp the general vibe here.
This is not wise. King Solomon solved the issue bluffing and
spotting
the
real mother, he never actually cut the baby in two halves ... But
wisdom
comes also with experience. Il giovedì 11 ottobre 2018, 15:43:01 CEST, GoEthe.wiki < goethe.wiki@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Hi Illario,
Apologies, I probably explained myself poorly. I never said that a
chapter
is a representative of the Wikimedia community, rather I was trying
to
explain that João’s claimed experience (emphasis on claimed) in
management
and conflict resolution was a major factor in him being elected to
the
Board. At the time, WMPT thought that that could be very valuable to
the
chapter. So, we agree, a heterogeneous board is absolutely an
advantage,
but in this case the issue was not one of diversity, but rather of competence and alignment to the movement goals and principles.
In practice, he did not contribute to the management of the chapter,
and he
was not prepared to an increase of the chapter activities. He very
quickly
started demonstrating uneasiness with any procedural decision he did
not
personally vet (which are imperative in volunteer-based,
collaborative
projects), and soon after, without any previous warning, started
sending
legal threats going as far as using a lawyer to intimidate one of our
most
active members on behalf of WMPT (without discussing it with anyone beforehand), and resigned.
We have no intention to expose João even more in this public mailing
list,
so we will not provide a comprehensive list of the problems we found
with
his term on the board. But to make it clear, when this whole issue
began to
be addressed, even though we did not ask him to stay on the Board, we
did
invite him to continue on the chapter, working with us, as AffCom can confirm. Just not in any role with legal responsibilities.
Cheers, Gonçalo Themudo
*Presidente* *Wikimedia Portugal* *Email: *goethe.wiki@gmail.com *Website: *http://pt.wikimedia.org <
https://sites.google.com/view/themudo%3E
*Imagine um mundo onde cada ser humano pode partilhar livremente a
soma de
todo o conhecimento, na sua própria língua.* _______________________________________________ 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
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
Thank you for acknowledging the existence of this thread and the fact that AffCom is still making some effort to bring the problem to a resolution. It doesn't seem like it should be all that challenging, if one disputant is a single individual and the other is a community of people led by those for whom they have repeatedly expressed support.
If, as described, AffCom laid out a procedure by which one side could legitimize itself and then decided to revoke that procedure after much work by those trying to follow it... AffCom could acknowledge an error and apologize. That you have described your proposed next step is at least progress in the right direction.
In any case, I'm sure we all look forward to AffCom sharing the results of its solicitation of advice with the Wikimedia public.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
As I believe we mentioned the last time this particular topic came up, we are unlikely to resolve the intricacies of Portuguese nonprofit law by debating them on a mailing list.
Gonçalo and his colleagues have quite clearly expressed their position: they believe that the process by which they came to control Wikimedia Portugal complies with the applicable provisions of Portuguese law. At the same time, the other side in this conflict has expressed a contrary position: that the process in question does *not* comply with those provisions.
The Affiliations Committee has obviously been unable to make any real headway here, particularly as the dispute hinges in no small part on interpretations of case law rather than a plain reading of the applicable legal codes; consequently, we've solicited advice from actual Portuguese legal experts, which we hope to receive in the near future. Until that happens, however, we are not going to be able to bring this to closure, one way or the other.
Regards, Kirill
I really hope that the reason for de-recognition of any affiliate is not that “the other side expressed a contrary position”.
We have seen it in Brazil too, as others already started to link the dots. There where two groups in conflict. Instead of solving the problem, or even declaring itself unable to solve (which they are and would be understandable), AffCom de-recognized both of them with no warning. And we still keep asking why with no answer: [1]
I don’t know why we keep asking (but I don’t plan to stop until I have an answer). Probably for being long-term volunteers and believing on the Wikimedia Movement, but after undergoing so many unfair and poor judgements, I don’t have the answer. And I am still willing to work on the improvements and not only pointing fingers. Reading the message from AffCom saying that “The Brazilian community is much broader that the contributors involved in these two former User Groups” and all the rest, it sounded like our work was disposable on their eyes, a perfect insult. [2] In my opinion, this lack of professionalism is a clear sign that the committee was not able to deal with the case and decided about it in the easiest way for them, with a terrible outcome for Brazil. But it’s okay... we have other people to do the job, don’t we?
I can’t understand why did AffCom come up with a roadmap if they were not willing to respect the terms of it. If WMPT fulfilled the requirements on roadmap what we all expected is that AffCom would fulfill their part of the agreement. Just like the discussion I mentioned above on which AffCom creates a place to discuss and then disappears.
WMPT was inactive for years. I never understood why AffCom allowed that, but never bothered to ask. We should all be grateful for the users that are trying to recompose the chapter and clearly willing to do it under the committee advice, but working with the rules of AffCom itself is not enough. Sounds like an impossible mission is defined and when it is not fulfilled, it is used as a reason for de-recognition.
The lack of transparency, the poor judgement, irresponsible decisions, the apparent inactivity of their members should have an end. As I said, I am still willing to help like I bet others will, but keeping silent about your own problems won’t make AffCom better. Sorry for any possible emotional argument... it’s hard to hide it after a year of expectations and unsolved conflict.
Teles
[1]- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Step... [2]- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps#Com...
Em qui, 11 de out de 2018 às 21:17, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com escreveu:
Thank you for acknowledging the existence of this thread and the fact that AffCom is still making some effort to bring the problem to a resolution. It doesn't seem like it should be all that challenging, if one disputant is a single individual and the other is a community of people led by those for whom they have repeatedly expressed support.
If, as described, AffCom laid out a procedure by which one side could legitimize itself and then decided to revoke that procedure after much work by those trying to follow it... AffCom could acknowledge an error and apologize. That you have described your proposed next step is at least progress in the right direction.
In any case, I'm sure we all look forward to AffCom sharing the results of its solicitation of advice with the Wikimedia public.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
As I believe we mentioned the last time this particular topic came up, we are unlikely to resolve the intricacies of Portuguese nonprofit law by debating them on a mailing list.
Gonçalo and his colleagues have quite clearly expressed their position: they believe that the process by which they came to control Wikimedia Portugal complies with the applicable provisions of Portuguese law. At
the
same time, the other side in this conflict has expressed a contrary position: that the process in question does *not* comply with those provisions.
The Affiliations Committee has obviously been unable to make any real headway here, particularly as the dispute hinges in no small part on interpretations of case law rather than a plain reading of the applicable legal codes; consequently, we've solicited advice from actual Portuguese legal experts, which we hope to receive in the near future. Until that happens, however, we are not going to be able to bring this to closure,
one
way or the other.
Regards, Kirill
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 Affiliations Committee has no intention whatsoever of changing the process; rather, we are simply trying to determine whether the conditions that we originally set out have in fact been met.
It would, perhaps, have been easier for everyone if we could have done this without having to solicit specialized legal expertise, but the circumstances seem to have unfortunately precluded a procedure whose validity is obvious from a simple reading of the applicable rules.
Regards, Kirill
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:17 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for acknowledging the existence of this thread and the fact that AffCom is still making some effort to bring the problem to a resolution. It doesn't seem like it should be all that challenging, if one disputant is a single individual and the other is a community of people led by those for whom they have repeatedly expressed support.
If, as described, AffCom laid out a procedure by which one side could legitimize itself and then decided to revoke that procedure after much work by those trying to follow it... AffCom could acknowledge an error and apologize. That you have described your proposed next step is at least progress in the right direction.
In any case, I'm sure we all look forward to AffCom sharing the results of its solicitation of advice with the Wikimedia public.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
As I believe we mentioned the last time this particular topic came up, we are unlikely to resolve the intricacies of Portuguese nonprofit law by debating them on a mailing list.
Gonçalo and his colleagues have quite clearly expressed their position: they believe that the process by which they came to control Wikimedia Portugal complies with the applicable provisions of Portuguese law. At
the
same time, the other side in this conflict has expressed a contrary position: that the process in question does *not* comply with those provisions.
The Affiliations Committee has obviously been unable to make any real headway here, particularly as the dispute hinges in no small part on interpretations of case law rather than a plain reading of the applicable legal codes; consequently, we've solicited advice from actual Portuguese legal experts, which we hope to receive in the near future. Until that happens, however, we are not going to be able to bring this to closure,
one
way or the other.
Regards, Kirill
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
Since the first reports about Vasconcelos from WMPT to AffCom, before the 15 April General Assembly, we were asking AffCom for legal support to deal with the situation caused by Vasconcelos, as we are all volunteers and, unlike AffCom, we have no easy access to lawyers - or at least are unable to pay them. It was never provided. Instead, AffCom chose to put WMPT on the freezer for six months already, while continuously listening to the legal gibberish coming from the "other side", meaning Vasconcelos, a person that was repeatedly reported to AffCom for severe harassment against WMPT members. And during the whole process, AffCom was taking their own conclusions from that legal gibberish, and trying to reach a "middle point" between WMPT and Vasconcelos in a situation which is ruled by the law, like if that would ever be possible, or even advisable at all.
We had to do everything by ourselves with our limited resources, without any legal support facilitated by AffCom. We have extensively read the country law and many court cases dealing with associations General Assemblies, we have informally consulted lawyers and jurisconsults, we have done the best we could to appease AffCom without breaking any country laws. But, to me, everything would have been incredibly much easier, clearer and smoother if AffCom had since the beginning requested the legal expertise we were asking for.
But apparently, at last, after six months of this purgatory, we finally are on the right path.
Regards, Paulo
Em 12/10/2018 04:46, "Kirill Lokshin" kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu:
The Affiliations Committee has no intention whatsoever of changing the process; rather, we are simply trying to determine whether the conditions that we originally set out have in fact been met.
It would, perhaps, have been easier for everyone if we could have done this without having to solicit specialized legal expertise, but the circumstances seem to have unfortunately precluded a procedure whose validity is obvious from a simple reading of the applicable rules.
Regards, Kirill
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:17 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for acknowledging the existence of this thread and the fact
that
AffCom is still making some effort to bring the problem to a resolution.
It
doesn't seem like it should be all that challenging, if one disputant is
a
single individual and the other is a community of people led by those for whom they have repeatedly expressed support.
If, as described, AffCom laid out a procedure by which one side could legitimize itself and then decided to revoke that procedure after much
work
by those trying to follow it... AffCom could acknowledge an error and apologize. That you have described your proposed next step is at least progress in the right direction.
In any case, I'm sure we all look forward to AffCom sharing the results
of
its solicitation of advice with the Wikimedia public.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com
wrote:
As I believe we mentioned the last time this particular topic came up,
we
are unlikely to resolve the intricacies of Portuguese nonprofit law by debating them on a mailing list.
Gonçalo and his colleagues have quite clearly expressed their position: they believe that the process by which they came to control Wikimedia Portugal complies with the applicable provisions of Portuguese law. At
the
same time, the other side in this conflict has expressed a contrary position: that the process in question does *not* comply with those provisions.
The Affiliations Committee has obviously been unable to make any real headway here, particularly as the dispute hinges in no small part on interpretations of case law rather than a plain reading of the
applicable
legal codes; consequently, we've solicited advice from actual
Portuguese
legal experts, which we hope to receive in the near future. Until that happens, however, we are not going to be able to bring this to closure,
one
way or the other.
Regards, Kirill
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 am not surprised by the lack of follow through by Affcom. In the Brazilian case we were told a few times we met all requisites for chapter recognition, but the existence of another user group in the country was something they felt was enough to disqualify us until they figured out their rules. Upon us insisting on a formal evaluation of our request we had a promise of a site visit to make an evaluation, another promise that was never fulfilled.
When I and others decided to report harassment the result was very much worse. Affcom demanded, on less than a week notice, that an onperson meeting with the reported harrasser and a few of the reported harassed. Upon resistance to that plan, Affcom held separate meetings with each group. Nonetheless did nothing to actually evaluate the matter and maintained the position that we would not achieve chapter status despite meeting the requirements. WMF trust and safety then had the brilliant idea of pushing the harassment matter to Affcom, which did absolutely nothing despite promising mediation and now stating a mediation has taken place.[1] In fact, when we managed to secure a community led mediation, Affcom and WMF managed to quickly torpedo it after the first meeting.
To be honest, I have very little hope for WMPT at this point, it is an obviously manufactured crisis with sides that have acted in very different ways but Affcom and WMF do not care. As Brazil did, Portugal is rocking the boat, and Affcom does not tolerate boat rocking.
Chico Venancio
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps Em sex, 12 de out de 2018 05:56, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> escreveu:
Since the first reports about Vasconcelos from WMPT to AffCom, before the 15 April General Assembly, we were asking AffCom for legal support to deal with the situation caused by Vasconcelos, as we are all volunteers and, unlike AffCom, we have no easy access to lawyers - or at least are unable to pay them. It was never provided. Instead, AffCom chose to put WMPT on the freezer for six months already, while continuously listening to the legal gibberish coming from the "other side", meaning Vasconcelos, a person that was repeatedly reported to AffCom for severe harassment against WMPT members. And during the whole process, AffCom was taking their own conclusions from that legal gibberish, and trying to reach a "middle point" between WMPT and Vasconcelos in a situation which is ruled by the law, like if that would ever be possible, or even advisable at all.
We had to do everything by ourselves with our limited resources, without any legal support facilitated by AffCom. We have extensively read the country law and many court cases dealing with associations General Assemblies, we have informally consulted lawyers and jurisconsults, we have done the best we could to appease AffCom without breaking any country laws. But, to me, everything would have been incredibly much easier, clearer and smoother if AffCom had since the beginning requested the legal expertise we were asking for.
But apparently, at last, after six months of this purgatory, we finally are on the right path.
Regards, Paulo
Em 12/10/2018 04:46, "Kirill Lokshin" kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu:
The Affiliations Committee has no intention whatsoever of changing the process; rather, we are simply trying to determine whether the conditions that we originally set out have in fact been met.
It would, perhaps, have been easier for everyone if we could have done this without having to solicit specialized legal expertise, but the circumstances seem to have unfortunately precluded a procedure whose validity is obvious from a simple reading of the applicable rules.
Regards, Kirill
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:17 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for acknowledging the existence of this thread and the fact
that
AffCom is still making some effort to bring the problem to a
resolution. It
doesn't seem like it should be all that challenging, if one disputant
is a
single individual and the other is a community of people led by those
for
whom they have repeatedly expressed support.
If, as described, AffCom laid out a procedure by which one side could legitimize itself and then decided to revoke that procedure after much
work
by those trying to follow it... AffCom could acknowledge an error and apologize. That you have described your proposed next step is at least progress in the right direction.
In any case, I'm sure we all look forward to AffCom sharing the results
of
its solicitation of advice with the Wikimedia public.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Kirill Lokshin <
kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
wrote:
As I believe we mentioned the last time this particular topic came
up, we
are unlikely to resolve the intricacies of Portuguese nonprofit law by debating them on a mailing list.
Gonçalo and his colleagues have quite clearly expressed their
position:
they believe that the process by which they came to control Wikimedia Portugal complies with the applicable provisions of Portuguese law.
At
the
same time, the other side in this conflict has expressed a contrary position: that the process in question does *not* comply with those provisions.
The Affiliations Committee has obviously been unable to make any real headway here, particularly as the dispute hinges in no small part on interpretations of case law rather than a plain reading of the
applicable
legal codes; consequently, we've solicited advice from actual
Portuguese
legal experts, which we hope to receive in the near future. Until
that
happens, however, we are not going to be able to bring this to
closure,
one
way or the other.
Regards, Kirill
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
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
I'm making some general comments, which I plan will be my last in this thread for awhile:
* I think that a certain amount of compliance verification for WMF trademark agreements and affiliate agreements is understandable, and AffCom is one body that can participate in that verification.
* WMF's purpose, as I see it, is to support good-faith content contributors on Wikimedia sites and the use of the content that they contribute to those sites. WMF's purpose does not extend to micro-managing affiliates or attempting to resolve every internal affiliate dispute with the time of WMF staff and AffCom volunteers. It would be best for WMF and AffCom to be modest in their involvement in affiliates' internal governance. I generally think that WMF's job should be to support the affiliates rather than to manage them.
* I think that it will be difficult for anyone who sits on AffCom, even with the best of intentions and infinite time, to insert themselves competently into a dispute that is internal to an affiliate, especially an affiliate in a culture that is not their own and in which the AffCom member does not communicate in the same language as the members of the affiliate. It seems to me that internal disputes are best handled by the affiliate's own board members, members of affiliates' general assemblies, and applicable government officials like national charity regulators. The extent of the involvement of WMF and AffCom is, I think, best limited to (1) verifying that decisions that an affiliate makes are compliant with affiliate, grant, trademark, and other agreements with WMF, including verifying that funds that were already granted or donated to the affiliate are used in a manner that is generally compatible with the purposes of those grants and donations, and (2) taking steps to prevent funds that were donated to WMF from being imprudently spent on legal expenses on behalf of an affiliate, affiliate staff, or any parties to an internal affiliate dispute. While a certain amount of affiliate legal representation may be reasonable for WMF to fund, there is a point at which I think that WMF should cut off funding for continuation of an affiliate's dispute with another party, and if the result of that loss of funds is the loss of an affiliate organization then that is unfortunate but it may be the least bad option.
* In general, I would encourage WMF and AffCom to avoid becoming parties to an internal dispute in an affiliate. I am concerned about the possibility that certain kinds of involvement could create a legal and financial liability to WMF and to the AffCom volunteers, and also about the possibilities of WMF and AffCom being manipulated as political tools in internal affiliate disputes.
* If and when AffCom and/or WMF choose to get involved in an internal affiliate dispute, my guess is that attempting to gather evidence "on the ground" with appropriately licensed and credentialed investigators, such as attorneys or accountants who practice in the jurisdiction of the affiliate, is likely to produce a generally reliable set of evidence on which AffCom and WMF could base decisions. Attempting to gather reliable evidence remotely seems likely to be difficult, and deciding to intervene based on unreliable evidence is risky.
* Cross-affiliate disputes are a place where I think that AffCom's involvement would be beneficial, particularly with regard to taking measures to limit the possibility of disputes from occurring.
* I hope that the composition and charter of AffCom will be reviewed during the WMF strategy process, particularly with regards to transparency, with regards to what AffCom's role should be in the event of various kinds of affiliate disputes, and with regards to how AffCom members are appointed and re-appointed.
* Because of the complex and international nature of the matters in which AffCom seems to be involved, I think that requiring formal onboarding and ongoing training for AffCom members on relevant subjects would be a good idea, and I would likely be in favor of WMF spending a modest amount of funding for that training.
I don't think there is little hope neither for WMPT, not for AffCom.
WMPT is, by all accounts, an healthy chapter - or at least in frank recovery - which, for about one year is having intermittent problems with a single associate, in what can be well described as a growing pain. Since the long dormancy period was broken early this year, we have already successfully realized two well participated General Assemblies, both of them successfully reported and validated to the Portuguese state tax authority. Since we have been dedicatedly and actively following the mission and objectives of the Wikimedia Movement, I don't believe there's any rational reason to fear AffCom concerning the legality and compliance of the chapter.
Due to all the obscurity surrounding AffCom procedures, only they can know for sure the reasons that led them to act in such a bizarre way during all this time. My impression is AffCom initially attempted to play a "moderation process" on the WMPT case similar to those generally used in editorial conflicts, where both parts are assumed to have some reason, and then consensus is attempted to reach between them, usually by mutual concessions. However, this was all but an "editorial"-like conflict. It's quite hard to imagine how a negotiation could be envisaged with an individual who kept presenting himself as chair of the Portuguese chapter "in representation of the Wikimedia Foundation" (sic), sending legal and personal threats left and right, and constantly claiming everything done by the WMPT associates at the General Assemblies was illegal. What would WMPT have to "negotiate" with him? How could the chapter appease this person? I can't see.
Anyway, I believe that with all goodwill AffCom may have had dealing with this case, since the beginning it was impossible to solve without requesting specialized legal advice, as what was in question was exactly a judicial dispute, or the threat of that happening. Either request legal advice, or ignore the threatening party would be options. Try to decide on legal maters using common sense - the proverbial IANAL - seems to be not advisable at all. I'm very glad that, at last, AffCom seems to have recognized that, so we finally may move on, and see some way out of this conundrum we have unwillingly be stuck in for the last six months.
Despite the AffCom decision about WMPT, which I'm confident will be favorable, I frankly do hope that productive and constructive public discussion on AffCom continues, as it is happening now. I'm a member of my local chapter, but also a member of the movement, and I fully recognize the very positive role that a well prepared and functional AffCom has for the movement. From this experience, as well as other situations like the one Teles described, it seems probable that AffCom would gain a lot if it would became more professional. I concur with Pine that the movement would gain a lot if some money is spent by the Foundation with the preparation of AffCom. It's basically an investment, as it would work with efficiency in preventing crisis that end up both wasting precious Foundation resources, but also potentially damaging the fundraising potential on the region the crisis is happening.
I also concur and fully agree that AffCom role should be essentially for interaffilliate relations, and very limited on internal affiliate intervention. My personal understanding is that this WMPT case, for instance, should have gone directly to the legal department of the Foundation, as we were dealing with a person that was (is?) constantly misrepresenting himself both locally and abroad not only as chair of the chapter, but also as a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation itself. I've never understood why we had to deal with AffCom, when this seemed something for the legal department.
Regards, Paulo
Chico Venancio chicocvenancio@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 12/10/2018 à(s) 13:24:
I am not surprised by the lack of follow through by Affcom. In the Brazilian case we were told a few times we met all requisites for chapter recognition, but the existence of another user group in the country was something they felt was enough to disqualify us until they figured out their rules. Upon us insisting on a formal evaluation of our request we had a promise of a site visit to make an evaluation, another promise that was never fulfilled.
When I and others decided to report harassment the result was very much worse. Affcom demanded, on less than a week notice, that an onperson meeting with the reported harrasser and a few of the reported harassed. Upon resistance to that plan, Affcom held separate meetings with each group. Nonetheless did nothing to actually evaluate the matter and maintained the position that we would not achieve chapter status despite meeting the requirements. WMF trust and safety then had the brilliant idea of pushing the harassment matter to Affcom, which did absolutely nothing despite promising mediation and now stating a mediation has taken place.[1] In fact, when we managed to secure a community led mediation, Affcom and WMF managed to quickly torpedo it after the first meeting.
To be honest, I have very little hope for WMPT at this point, it is an obviously manufactured crisis with sides that have acted in very different ways but Affcom and WMF do not care. As Brazil did, Portugal is rocking the boat, and Affcom does not tolerate boat rocking.
Chico Venancio
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps Em sex, 12 de out de 2018 05:56, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> escreveu:
Since the first reports about Vasconcelos from WMPT to AffCom, before the 15 April General Assembly, we were asking AffCom for legal support to deal with the situation caused by Vasconcelos, as we are all volunteers and, unlike AffCom, we have no easy access to lawyers - or at least are unable to pay them. It was never provided. Instead, AffCom chose to put WMPT on the freezer for six months already, while continuously listening to the legal gibberish coming from the "other side", meaning Vasconcelos, a person that was repeatedly reported to AffCom for severe harassment against WMPT members. And during the whole process, AffCom was taking their own conclusions from that legal gibberish, and trying to reach a "middle point" between WMPT and Vasconcelos in a situation which is ruled by the law, like if that would ever be possible, or even advisable at all.
We had to do everything by ourselves with our limited resources, without any legal support facilitated by AffCom. We have extensively read the country law and many court cases dealing with associations General Assemblies, we have informally consulted lawyers and jurisconsults, we have done the best we could to appease AffCom without breaking any country laws. But, to me, everything would have been incredibly much easier, clearer and smoother if AffCom had since the beginning requested the legal expertise we were asking for.
But apparently, at last, after six months of this purgatory, we finally are on the right path.
Regards, Paulo
Em 12/10/2018 04:46, "Kirill Lokshin" kirill.lokshin@gmail.com escreveu:
The Affiliations Committee has no intention whatsoever of changing the process; rather, we are simply trying to determine whether the conditions that we originally set out have in fact been met.
It would, perhaps, have been easier for everyone if we could have done this without having to solicit specialized legal expertise, but the circumstances seem to have unfortunately precluded a procedure whose validity is obvious from a simple reading of the applicable rules.
Regards, Kirill
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:17 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for acknowledging the existence of this thread and the fact
that
AffCom is still making some effort to bring the problem to a
resolution. It
doesn't seem like it should be all that challenging, if one disputant
is a
single individual and the other is a community of people led by those
for
whom they have repeatedly expressed support.
If, as described, AffCom laid out a procedure by which one side could legitimize itself and then decided to revoke that procedure after much
work
by those trying to follow it... AffCom could acknowledge an error and apologize. That you have described your proposed next step is at least progress in the right direction.
In any case, I'm sure we all look forward to AffCom sharing the
results of
its solicitation of advice with the Wikimedia public.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Kirill Lokshin <
kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
wrote:
As I believe we mentioned the last time this particular topic came
up, we
are unlikely to resolve the intricacies of Portuguese nonprofit law
by
debating them on a mailing list.
Gonçalo and his colleagues have quite clearly expressed their
position:
they believe that the process by which they came to control Wikimedia Portugal complies with the applicable provisions of Portuguese law.
At
the
same time, the other side in this conflict has expressed a contrary position: that the process in question does *not* comply with those provisions.
The Affiliations Committee has obviously been unable to make any real headway here, particularly as the dispute hinges in no small part on interpretations of case law rather than a plain reading of the
applicable
legal codes; consequently, we've solicited advice from actual
Portuguese
legal experts, which we hope to receive in the near future. Until
that
happens, however, we are not going to be able to bring this to
closure,
one
way or the other.
Regards, Kirill
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
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
Affiliates mailing list Affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org