Would this action fall under "Collaborative advocacy" in the Foundation
Policy and Political Association Guideline? The section refers to
"collaborat[ing] with another organization to take action on a particular
policy or political question". The example given is signing a petition by
the EFF against Internet censorship. The required steps include (among
other requirements) consultation with the Public Policy Advisory Group,
along with getting consensus in a broader RfC except where time does not
permit. I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical
and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall under
that section, the policy was yet again violated. Frankly, I don't believe
that an RfC would pass in the first place. If you've been following the
earlier thread, you may be aware that there is increasing alarm at the risk
of the movement being hijacked by political interests, and this new action
is not helping matters.
This was a unilateral political actions in a sensitive area without prior
discussion. The Guideline does say that the WMF may deviate from the policy
if specifically approved by the General Council, although I don't know why
deviating would be warranted here. Was this done here? Who was involved in
the decision? Was the Board consulted, as suggested by the guidelines
(although as an "Optional" step)? Or was it simply considered to not fall
under the policy at all? Is the guideline still in effect, or was it
eliminated or changed without the document on Meta being updated?
The amicus brief specifically challenges the refugee suspension, among
other areas. Is this topic considered to be within the WMF's goals, or was
bringing the WMF into an irrelevant political battle considered simply an
unavoidable side-effect in the effort to protect WMF operations by means of
national political intervention?
[1]
Association_Guideline#Collaborative_Advocacy
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Michelle Paulson <mpaulson(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Dear All,
Today, the Wikimedia Foundation joined with more than 90 other
organizations in filing an amicus brief[1] in State of Washington v.
Trump[2]
currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States.
This case challenges the recent executive order[3] issued in the United
States on January 27, 2017, which establishes immigration and travel
restrictions based on country of origin. Other signatories to the brief
include Facebook, Levi Strauss & Co., Microsoft, Mozilla, and Paypal. The
brief includes legal arguments against the order itself, and details the
real and immediate impact these restrictions will have on the Wikimedia
Foundation and other signatories’ staff, users, customers, and operations.
We expect it to be filed in other current and future cases challenging the
order, as appropriate.
We know that the Foundation’s prior statement[4] on this executive order
has generated debate in the communities, on mailing lists and in other
forums. Some disapprove, with concern that the Foundation has taken a
political stance on behalf of the movement. Others approve, with concerns
about the impact of this order on the practicalities and values of open
collaboration and sharing. We would like to clarify our perspective on this
important issue.
From our perspective, the implications of this order - and the urgency of
our response - are clear. Beyond the issue of the values of open
collaboration, this order will also have serious, tangible effects on the
Foundation and our ability to support the Wikimedia projects and
communities.
From an operational standpoint, orders such as these may substantially
limit our ability to deliver on support for the global Wikimedia
communities. Much of the Foundation's work involves travel across borders.
We cross borders to develop and sustain strategic partnerships with
Wikimedia affiliates and free knowledge advocates. We travel to gatherings
and hackathons to support and collaborate with Wikimedians around the
world. We represent Wikimedia research and methodologies at conferences
with librarians and scientists from across the globe. We meet with
community leaders and board members internationally to exercise corporate
and community governance and execute strategic oversight.
As the Foundation, we have an obligation to protect the Wikimedia projects
and ensure that they thrive in perpetuity. We are not a political
organization, but we are passionate about defending free knowledge, and the
conditions for its flourishing. We believe that the immigration and travel
restrictions posed by the executive order in question will have a
detrimental impact on the Foundation's mission and operations, as people
are unable to enter the United States or restricted from leaving because
they may not be allowed to return home. Board and committee meetings,
conferences, conventions, hackathons, and more may be affected by the
executive order in its current form, as well by the threatened extension of
restrictions to additional countries.
It is our obligation to engage with issues that affect the Wikimedia
Foundation's capacity to support Foundation’s mission and the goals of the
Wikimedia movement. From freedom of expression to freedom of movement, we
will continue to do so, in service of our shared vision. You can read more
about the brief on the Foundation’s blog.[5]
Best,
Michelle Paulson
Interim General Counsel
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%
3AAmicus_curiae_brief_of_Tech_Companies_%26_Orgs%2C_
Washington_v._Trump.pdf&page=1
[2]
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
[4]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/
[5]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel-
restrictions/
_______________________________________________
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>