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(a)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 On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 6:57 PM Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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_Ste… [2]- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps#Co… Em qui, 11 de out de 2018 às 21:17, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> escreveu: -- Steward for Wikimedia projects. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity. +55 (71) 99707 6409

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(a)gmail.com> escreveu:

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. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )