A governance review to check where investments or interests "support the actions of the Russian government" is nothing similar to calling "The Russian people" an enemy. A Wikimedia Foundation review or independent assessment would sensibly take into account sanctions and recommendations that governments in the EU and USA have published for all their international trade with Russia, and confirm there are no ethical or compliance conflicts for the Wikimedia Foundation. Having a review is not "escalation", nor have I made any claim about money being "well spent". A review is the simplest way to ensure appropriate transparency. Please avoid making bad faith accusations of using a "page out of the playbook" of escalation when they have done no such thing. It is manipulative and unwelcome when you know nothing about who you are attacking. Lane On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 14:02, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hoi, > A reality check. With a Wikipedian in jail in Belarus, it is easy to grasp that Wikipedia is not the flavour of the month in either Belarus or in Russia by the "powers that be". > > When you compare Wikimedia projects to Facebook, the glaring difference between them is money. Our money has as a goal to educate and inform people. Our mission is to do this with a neutral point of view. When we consider the war waged by Russia, our neutral view is on offer and a view that we should provide as long as we can. > > The Russian people are not necessarily the enemy, arguably they are not. Our money spent in Russia supports our aim of informing and educating the Russian people, all the money spent is well spent. > > We do not have to borrow a page out of the playbook that is escalation. We should not because of what we stand for. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 11:27, Lane Chance <zinkloss(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Several organizations, including pension companies, have been >> withdrawing their investments that may indirectly support Russia's war >> in Ukraine. Similarly there have been several news reports of >> directors stepping down from companies where their personal interests >> and or past history is now seen to be in conflict with the ethical >> values of the organisation they represent. >> >> Has the board of the Wikimedia Foundation or the board of the >> Endowment Fund asked for a governance review for their connections of >> people (including trustees and advisers), received donations, outgoing >> funding or investment funds that may even indirectly or >> unintentionally support the actions of the Russian government? >> >> As an example, the founder of Cendana Capital, a global venture >> capital company, is an adviser for the Endowment Fund, but I can not >> find a specific governance report for Cendana Capital for financial >> interests connected Russia. Being "global", it's hard to imagine there >> is none or has never been any. >> >> References >> https://wikimediaendowment.org/#advisory-board >> https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board >> https://www.cendanacapital.com >> https://www.funds-europe.com/news/blackrock-suspends-purchase-of-russian-se… >> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/13/mps-pension-fund-drops-rus… >> >> Lane >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.orgwriting > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

"we do not support any government"? Nothing in my original email indicated or presumed the Wikimedia Foundation supported any government. A governance review would be for the Wikimedia Foundation to define the terms for. Taking into account legally binding sanctions and governmental guidelines would be in the interest of the Wikimedia Foundation. Ignoring sanctions from the US Government when your bank account is in the USA and you are subject to US law would be reckless, while ensuring that the Wikimedia Foundation understands how well they and their board members and advisers comply with the law is not a sign of "support" for a government. Your emails assert statements in my original email that were not there. Your reply made me appear to be attacking "the Russian people", which you have not withdrawn. That is bad faith, especially considering you do not know my connection to Russia. My original email is fine, please do not put words in my mouth to make an argument. That's neither informative nor civil, it's just a way to shut down a public question rather than allowing a healthy discussion of good financial governance and organisational transparency at the board level. Lane On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 09:51, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hoi, > As far as I am aware we do not support any government. We do not have interests or investments that support any and all governments. So it is wonderful that you are so happy for the WMF to spend effort on a hypothetical. > > As to taking offence, you apparently expect that you and your intentions are self evident and you do not need to reciprocate those sentiments. Wonderful, thank you for your interaction. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 10:02, Lane Chance <zinkloss(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> A governance review to check where investments or interests "support >> the actions of the Russian government" is nothing similar to calling >> "The Russian people" an enemy. >> >> A Wikimedia Foundation review or independent assessment would sensibly >> take into account sanctions and recommendations that governments in >> the EU and USA have published for all their international trade with >> Russia, and confirm there are no ethical or compliance conflicts for >> the Wikimedia Foundation. >> >> Having a review is not "escalation", nor have I made any claim about >> money being "well spent". A review is the simplest way to ensure >> appropriate transparency. >> >> Please avoid making bad faith accusations of using a "page out of the >> playbook" of escalation when they have done no such thing. It is >> manipulative and unwelcome when you know nothing about who you are >> attacking. >> >> Lane >> >> On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 14:02, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hoi, >> > A reality check. With a Wikipedian in jail in Belarus, it is easy to grasp that Wikipedia is not the flavour of the month in either Belarus or in Russia by the "powers that be". >> > >> > When you compare Wikimedia projects to Facebook, the glaring difference between them is money. Our money has as a goal to educate and inform people. Our mission is to do this with a neutral point of view. When we consider the war waged by Russia, our neutral view is on offer and a view that we should provide as long as we can. >> > >> > The Russian people are not necessarily the enemy, arguably they are not. Our money spent in Russia supports our aim of informing and educating the Russian people, all the money spent is well spent. >> > >> > We do not have to borrow a page out of the playbook that is escalation. We should not because of what we stand for. >> > Thanks, >> > GerardM >> > >> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2022 at 11:27, Lane Chance <zinkloss(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Several organizations, including pension companies, have been >> >> withdrawing their investments that may indirectly support Russia's war >> >> in Ukraine. Similarly there have been several news reports of >> >> directors stepping down from companies where their personal interests >> >> and or past history is now seen to be in conflict with the ethical >> >> values of the organisation they represent. >> >> >> >> Has the board of the Wikimedia Foundation or the board of the >> >> Endowment Fund asked for a governance review for their connections of >> >> people (including trustees and advisers), received donations, outgoing >> >> funding or investment funds that may even indirectly or >> >> unintentionally support the actions of the Russian government? >> >> >> >> As an example, the founder of Cendana Capital, a global venture >> >> capital company, is an adviser for the Endowment Fund, but I can not >> >> find a specific governance report for Cendana Capital for financial >> >> interests connected Russia. Being "global", it's hard to imagine there >> >> is none or has never been any. >> >> >> >> References >> >> https://wikimediaendowment.org/#advisory-board >> >> https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board >> >> https://www.cendanacapital.com >> >> https://www.funds-europe.com/news/blackrock-suspends-purchase-of-russian-se… >> >> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/13/mps-pension-fund-drops-rus… >> >> >> >> Lane >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> >> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.orgwriting >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

I would understand that the non-existing Wikimedia United Stated Chapter should need to check if they have investments in/from Russia. The Wikimedia Foundation receives donations worldwide, including Russian citizens. And we provide knowledge to everyone, including Russian citizens. Blocking ourselves when many wikimedians around Russia, Ukraine and many other countries are at risk, is not only bad for our mission, is also risky for our contributors. ________________________________ From: Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 4:26 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation governance and Russian finances I read the original e-mail as asking for something more than implementing recent sanctions. I hope and assume that the WMF has already taken the necessary steps to ensure that its activities are in compliance with applicable laws. I agree with Gerard that the WMF is different from Facebook, and its mission may make taking steps beyond those required by sanctions unnecessary or undesirable. I know there is a BDS-esque movement afoot against Russian interests, but "are you now or have you ever supported Russian interests" is in a category of questions that the WMF should very carefully consider before posing to any party. What may make sense for major corporations may not be appropriate for non-profits with an exclusively educational and explicitly global mission.