Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[GoEthe.wiki]

 >We expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore our
>request.  To simply thank us for clarifying it, as you did, while secretly
>having no intention of complying with it in the first place is hardly
>something one does when negotiating in good faith.

Just to clarify this point, whenever the board of WMPT (which consists of
me, André and Ana [before Béria]) was unable to comply due to legal or
logistic reasons we have clearly informed AffCom, and we did not ever
failed to comply with your requests, even if we did not like them or felt
they were uncalled for.

We have limitations that we are aware of, and have no problem admiting to
them. But we have shown nothing but good faith throughout this process.

I also think that AffCom is acting of good faith, just so I am not
misinterpreted, and I understand why they have tried to remain neutral in
what, to them, seemed like an internal struggle for power.

For me it was nothing of that sort, but the board of WMPT is not interested
at this time to keep revisiting these issues, and once we have fulfilled
the last step, which is to present a plan for capacity building (currently
in draft at https://pt.wikimedia.org/wiki/Plano_de_capacitação_2018), we
expect to be treated as a fully functioning chapter up to date with their
obligations.

Regards,
Gonçalo Themudo

*Presidente*
*Wikimedia Portugal*
*Email: *goethe.w...@gmail.com
*Website: *http://pt.wikimedia.org 
*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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Dear Kirill,

Thank you, that was very informative indeed.

I forgot to mention in my previous message, those three false statements
about WMPT conduct were presented as part of the justification for the WMPT
suspension in the original notification, sent 15 July. Despite receiving
all clarifications about them as soon as 17 July, you never acknowledged
their falsity.

All the best,

Paulo




Kirill Lokshin  escreveu no dia quarta,
26/09/2018 à(s) 03:50:

> Paulo,
>
> You were provided ample details regarding these concerns, both in the
> original suspension letter and in response to the specific questions raised
> during the subsequent email discussion.
>
> If Wikimedia Portugal wants to publish the full text of the suspension
> letter and have a public discussion about it, that is entirely your
> prerogative.  In the meantime, I am not going to debate organizational
> governance practices with you based on an arbitrary and selective quoting
> of the document.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:34 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Kirill,
>>
>> Correction: The message sent to you stating we were not going to head
>> those specific requests due to its illegality was sent in 17 July, not 15.
>>
>> While we are at it, can you please explain why the AffCom has, in a
>> message dated 15 July, falsely accused WMPT of:
>>
>>- "*Not advising the Foundation of change in the bylaws or status of
>>the Chapter (Chapter Agreement, Section 7.2).*"  Note: no change was
>>made to the bylaws, and the new board elected in 15 April was immediately
>>reported to the AffCom and the WMF lists.
>>- "*The Chapter engaging in activity that might negatively impact the
>>work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia movement
>>(Chapter Agreement, Section 6.2)*"  Note: the members of the chapter
>>were being harassed by a single, rogue individual, I can't see how the
>>chapter may be blamed for a rogue individual actions, even more when they
>>were reported to the AffCom in a very timely and clear manner.
>>- "*Members of the Board of Wikimedia Portugal have been sending each
>>other legal threats, via e-mail and posted mail.*"  Note: Only the
>>already mentioned and reported rogue element, who was not effectively part
>>of any board since his mandate expired in 2017, and who, at the time, had
>>even resigned as interim president, was sending legal threats to the
>>members of WMPT. The members of the WMPT board were (and still are)
>>*receiving* legal and personal threats from that rogue element, not 
>> sending
>>them.
>>
>> All those accusations were false, but you never excused yourselves, never
>> retracted them, or even acknowledged their falsity. Can you please explain
>> it now?
>>
>> Paulo
>>
>>
>>
>> Paulo Santos Perneta  escreveu no dia quarta,
>> 26/09/2018 à(s) 02:44:
>>
>>> Kirill,
>>>
>>> I requested a clarification regarding WMPT activities, and Gonçalo asked
>>> a general clarification, also mentioning activities. In no way it implies
>>> that we have understood your request as applying only to activities - In
>>> fact, my understanding is everyone at WMPT understood it as a general
>>> prohibition of the board presenting itself and acting as a board. The fact
>>> that none of us has recalled to specifically mentioning the WMPT
>>> obligations to the Portuguese state on the message in no way implies that
>>> we have understood your initial message as relating only to activities.
>>> What came to mind immediately after that message was the activities, so
>>> that was what I asked about.
>>>
>>> I really fail to understand why you are accusing WMPT of acting
>>> clandestinely, saying you "*expect, however, to at least be told that
>>> you're planning to ignore our request*". You were clearly informed
>>> about that illegality, and that we were not going to head those specific
>>> requests, on a message we sent to you dated 15 July, which you acknowledged
>>> and answered in 8 August, saying, among other things, that you had no time
>>> to read the law. Don't you communicate between yourselves? Don't you read
>>> the cases you have at hands before coming into a public mailing list
>>> talking about them?
>>>
>>> Paulo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kirill Lokshin  escreveu no dia quarta,
>>> 26/09/2018 à(s) 02:29:
>>>
 Paulo,

 The request for clarification to which you refer was -- as I'm sure you
 recall -- in reference to carrying out planned activities, and had nothing
 to do with any legal matters, tax filings, or the like; the same was true
 of the committee's response:

 Olá Gonçalo,
>


> Yes, you can count on us to help solve the current situation!
>


> You understood correctly, we would like you not to introduce
> themselves as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT and carry on with
> your activities, since all of y

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Kirill Lokshin]

Paulo,

You were provided ample details regarding these concerns, both in the
original suspension letter and in response to the specific questions raised
during the subsequent email discussion.

If Wikimedia Portugal wants to publish the full text of the suspension
letter and have a public discussion about it, that is entirely your
prerogative.  In the meantime, I am not going to debate organizational
governance practices with you based on an arbitrary and selective quoting
of the document.

Regards,
Kirill

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:34 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kirill,
>
> Correction: The message sent to you stating we were not going to head
> those specific requests due to its illegality was sent in 17 July, not 15.
>
> While we are at it, can you please explain why the AffCom has, in a
> message dated 15 July, falsely accused WMPT of:
>
>- "*Not advising the Foundation of change in the bylaws or status of
>the Chapter (Chapter Agreement, Section 7.2).*"  Note: no change was
>made to the bylaws, and the new board elected in 15 April was immediately
>reported to the AffCom and the WMF lists.
>- "*The Chapter engaging in activity that might negatively impact the
>work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia movement
>(Chapter Agreement, Section 6.2)*"  Note: the members of the chapter
>were being harassed by a single, rogue individual, I can't see how the
>chapter may be blamed for a rogue individual actions, even more when they
>were reported to the AffCom in a very timely and clear manner.
>- "*Members of the Board of Wikimedia Portugal have been sending each
>other legal threats, via e-mail and posted mail.*"  Note: Only the
>already mentioned and reported rogue element, who was not effectively part
>of any board since his mandate expired in 2017, and who, at the time, had
>even resigned as interim president, was sending legal threats to the
>members of WMPT. The members of the WMPT board were (and still are)
>*receiving* legal and personal threats from that rogue element, not sending
>them.
>
> All those accusations were false, but you never excused yourselves, never
> retracted them, or even acknowledged their falsity. Can you please explain
> it now?
>
> Paulo
>
>
>
> Paulo Santos Perneta  escreveu no dia quarta,
> 26/09/2018 à(s) 02:44:
>
>> Kirill,
>>
>> I requested a clarification regarding WMPT activities, and Gonçalo asked
>> a general clarification, also mentioning activities. In no way it implies
>> that we have understood your request as applying only to activities - In
>> fact, my understanding is everyone at WMPT understood it as a general
>> prohibition of the board presenting itself and acting as a board. The fact
>> that none of us has recalled to specifically mentioning the WMPT
>> obligations to the Portuguese state on the message in no way implies that
>> we have understood your initial message as relating only to activities.
>> What came to mind immediately after that message was the activities, so
>> that was what I asked about.
>>
>> I really fail to understand why you are accusing WMPT of acting
>> clandestinely, saying you "*expect, however, to at least be told that
>> you're planning to ignore our request*". You were clearly informed about
>> that illegality, and that we were not going to head those specific
>> requests, on a message we sent to you dated 15 July, which you acknowledged
>> and answered in 8 August, saying, among other things, that you had no time
>> to read the law. Don't you communicate between yourselves? Don't you read
>> the cases you have at hands before coming into a public mailing list
>> talking about them?
>>
>> Paulo
>>
>>
>>
>> Kirill Lokshin  escreveu no dia quarta,
>> 26/09/2018 à(s) 02:29:
>>
>>> Paulo,
>>>
>>> The request for clarification to which you refer was -- as I'm sure you
>>> recall -- in reference to carrying out planned activities, and had nothing
>>> to do with any legal matters, tax filings, or the like; the same was true
>>> of the committee's response:
>>>
>>> Olá Gonçalo,

>>>
>>>
 Yes, you can count on us to help solve the current situation!

>>>
>>>
 You understood correctly, we would like you not to introduce themselves
 as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT and carry on with your
 activities, since all of you are full members of the chapter and can
 participate in different activities and events. Just for the sake of
 avoiding further confusion.

>>>
>>>
 @Paulo, please carry on with all the activities planned -just introduce
 yourself as member of the chapter is needed.
>>>
>>>
>>> To conclude, from this email, that the committee was somehow instructing
>>> you to violate Portuguese law is what I might charitably call a "creative"
>>> interpretation of our words.  But let's set that aside for the moment.
>>>
>>> You are correct in that it's not your respon

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Kirill,

Correction: The message sent to you stating we were not going to head those
specific requests due to its illegality was sent in 17 July, not 15.

While we are at it, can you please explain why the AffCom has, in a message
dated 15 July, falsely accused WMPT of:

   - "*Not advising the Foundation of change in the bylaws or status of the
   Chapter (Chapter Agreement, Section 7.2).*"  Note: no change was made to
   the bylaws, and the new board elected in 15 April was immediately reported
   to the AffCom and the WMF lists.
   - "*The Chapter engaging in activity that might negatively impact the
   work or image of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia movement
   (Chapter Agreement, Section 6.2)*"  Note: the members of the chapter
   were being harassed by a single, rogue individual, I can't see how the
   chapter may be blamed for a rogue individual actions, even more when they
   were reported to the AffCom in a very timely and clear manner.
   - "*Members of the Board of Wikimedia Portugal have been sending each
   other legal threats, via e-mail and posted mail.*"  Note: Only the
   already mentioned and reported rogue element, who was not effectively part
   of any board since his mandate expired in 2017, and who, at the time, had
   even resigned as interim president, was sending legal threats to the
   members of WMPT. The members of the WMPT board were (and still are)
   *receiving* legal and personal threats from that rogue element, not sending
   them.

All those accusations were false, but you never excused yourselves, never
retracted them, or even acknowledged their falsity. Can you please explain
it now?

Paulo



Paulo Santos Perneta  escreveu no dia quarta,
26/09/2018 à(s) 02:44:

> Kirill,
>
> I requested a clarification regarding WMPT activities, and Gonçalo asked a
> general clarification, also mentioning activities. In no way it implies
> that we have understood your request as applying only to activities - In
> fact, my understanding is everyone at WMPT understood it as a general
> prohibition of the board presenting itself and acting as a board. The fact
> that none of us has recalled to specifically mentioning the WMPT
> obligations to the Portuguese state on the message in no way implies that
> we have understood your initial message as relating only to activities.
> What came to mind immediately after that message was the activities, so
> that was what I asked about.
>
> I really fail to understand why you are accusing WMPT of acting
> clandestinely, saying you "*expect, however, to at least be told that
> you're planning to ignore our request*". You were clearly informed about
> that illegality, and that we were not going to head those specific
> requests, on a message we sent to you dated 15 July, which you acknowledged
> and answered in 8 August, saying, among other things, that you had no time
> to read the law. Don't you communicate between yourselves? Don't you read
> the cases you have at hands before coming into a public mailing list
> talking about them?
>
> Paulo
>
>
>
> Kirill Lokshin  escreveu no dia quarta,
> 26/09/2018 à(s) 02:29:
>
>> Paulo,
>>
>> The request for clarification to which you refer was -- as I'm sure you
>> recall -- in reference to carrying out planned activities, and had nothing
>> to do with any legal matters, tax filings, or the like; the same was true
>> of the committee's response:
>>
>> Olá Gonçalo,
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Yes, you can count on us to help solve the current situation!
>>>
>>
>>
>>> You understood correctly, we would like you not to introduce themselves
>>> as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT and carry on with your
>>> activities, since all of you are full members of the chapter and can
>>> participate in different activities and events. Just for the sake of
>>> avoiding further confusion.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> @Paulo, please carry on with all the activities planned -just introduce
>>> yourself as member of the chapter is needed.
>>
>>
>> To conclude, from this email, that the committee was somehow instructing
>> you to violate Portuguese law is what I might charitably call a "creative"
>> interpretation of our words.  But let's set that aside for the moment.
>>
>> You are correct in that it's not your responsibility to "lecture and
>> educate" the committee.  What *is* your responsibility, however, is to be
>> honest with the committee regarding your compliance -- or lack thereof --
>> with our requests.  If you decide, for whatever reason, that you cannot or
>> will not do as we've asked -- whether because you believe your national law
>> prohibits you from doing so, or because you and your colleagues want to do
>> something different, or simply because you think we're stupid and don't
>> feel like listening to us -- then that's your decision.
>>
>> We expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore
>> our request.  To simply thank us for clarifying it, as you did, while
>> secretly having no intention of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Chico Venancio]

I'm sorry Kirill, but I fail to see how that would be a display of bad
faith. If I remember correctly an Affcom member did send a notice to the
WMPT list and  members (including Paulo) did state that an impossibility to
act as representatives of Wikimedia Portugal would have terrible
consequences for the affiliate.

Regardless of what was stated or warned about the consequences of Affcom's
request, what is it you are stating now?

It is demonstrable Affcom requested all refrain to act in name of Wikimedia
Portugal.

Are you saying that request did not hold for legal fillings in name of
Wikimedia Portugal? And that Affcom unambiguously conveyed to Paulo and the
rest of Wikimedia Portugal that Wikimedia Portugal members were free to
represent it in legal fillings?

Without affirmative responses to both questions I fail how you could
possibly infer bad faith from Paulo.

Seeing the numerous false or contradictory statements and several failures
stemming from Affcom's actions or lack thereof we would be justified to
infer bad faith from its members, nonetheless we choose to see these as
errors from humans on a voluntary role acting in good faith.

Best regards,
Chico Venancio

Em ter, 25 de set de 2018 20:51, Kirill Lokshin 
escreveu:

> Paulo,
>
> The email that the Affiliations Committee sent to you -- among various
> others -- on May 18 read as follows:
>
> Dear members of Wikimedia Portugal,
> >
>
>
> > The recent developments in your chapter have been brought to our
> attention
> > by a number of members of the chapter, as well as members of the
> community.
> > We are monitoring the situation and in the meantime, would like to
> request
> > all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and
> > to work to resolve differences. You may also officially request a
> > conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan,
> > which we are more than happy to help with. In the case of no interest in
> > resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may
> consider
> > the de-recognition of WMPT, having taken into account also the low
> activity
> > of the group, based on the the reports submitted.
> >
>
>
> > In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he
> > present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list (
> > aff...@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal communications
> > channels. Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative
> of
> > Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.
> >
>
>
> > Do not hesitate contacting this committee if you have further questions.
>
>
> The request concerning "presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia
> Portugal" was in reference to people stating that they were the official
> representatives of the chapter in meetings -- a fact of which you were
> doubtless well aware, seeing as it was your own complaint on the subject
> which prompted the committee's request in the first place.
>
> At no time did you -- or any of your colleagues -- indicate that you were
> interpreting the request as having anything to do with the execution of the
> legal functions of the board, the filing of financial statements with tax
> authorities, or anything of the sort.  Rather, you had responded with
> questions as to how you might present yourselves to your current and
> potential partners.
>
> For you to now insist that the committee's request was a demand that you
> violate Portuguese law -- an interpretation that you somehow neglected to
> mention to anyone at the time -- is a remarkable and brazen display of bad
> faith.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:42 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
> >
> > Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail)  that the recently elected (15
> > April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese
> > law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly,
> > was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to
> > fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they
> > doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking
> > decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
> >
> > Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General
> > Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely
> the
> > former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That
> too
> > is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally
> > elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head
> of
> > the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that
> conveys a
> > General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General
> > Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some
> > external body. If the WMPT had h

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Kirill,

I requested a clarification regarding WMPT activities, and Gonçalo asked a
general clarification, also mentioning activities. In no way it implies
that we have understood your request as applying only to activities - In
fact, my understanding is everyone at WMPT understood it as a general
prohibition of the board presenting itself and acting as a board. The fact
that none of us has recalled to specifically mentioning the WMPT
obligations to the Portuguese state on the message in no way implies that
we have understood your initial message as relating only to activities.
What came to mind immediately after that message was the activities, so
that was what I asked about.

I really fail to understand why you are accusing WMPT of acting
clandestinely, saying you "*expect, however, to at least be told that
you're planning to ignore our request*". You were clearly informed about
that illegality, and that we were not going to head those specific
requests, on a message we sent to you dated 15 July, which you acknowledged
and answered in 8 August, saying, among other things, that you had no time
to read the law. Don't you communicate between yourselves? Don't you read
the cases you have at hands before coming into a public mailing list
talking about them?

Paulo



Kirill Lokshin  escreveu no dia quarta,
26/09/2018 à(s) 02:29:

> Paulo,
>
> The request for clarification to which you refer was -- as I'm sure you
> recall -- in reference to carrying out planned activities, and had nothing
> to do with any legal matters, tax filings, or the like; the same was true
> of the committee's response:
>
> Olá Gonçalo,
>>
>
>
>> Yes, you can count on us to help solve the current situation!
>>
>
>
>> You understood correctly, we would like you not to introduce themselves
>> as WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT and carry on with your
>> activities, since all of you are full members of the chapter and can
>> participate in different activities and events. Just for the sake of
>> avoiding further confusion.
>>
>
>
>> @Paulo, please carry on with all the activities planned -just introduce
>> yourself as member of the chapter is needed.
>
>
> To conclude, from this email, that the committee was somehow instructing
> you to violate Portuguese law is what I might charitably call a "creative"
> interpretation of our words.  But let's set that aside for the moment.
>
> You are correct in that it's not your responsibility to "lecture and
> educate" the committee.  What *is* your responsibility, however, is to be
> honest with the committee regarding your compliance -- or lack thereof --
> with our requests.  If you decide, for whatever reason, that you cannot or
> will not do as we've asked -- whether because you believe your national law
> prohibits you from doing so, or because you and your colleagues want to do
> something different, or simply because you think we're stupid and don't
> feel like listening to us -- then that's your decision.
>
> We expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore our
> request.  To simply thank us for clarifying it, as you did, while secretly
> having no intention of complying with it in the first place is hardly
> something one does when negotiating in good faith.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Kirill,
>>
>> On the message the AffCom has sent on 20 May, addressed to the chair of
>> the WMPT board, answering to a request for clarification, you stated: "*we
>> would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as
>> members of WMPT*".
>>
>> It seems quite obvious to me that, had the board headed the AffCom
>> request, and not introduced themselves as such, the obligations of the
>> association towards the Portuguese state could not have been fulfilled.
>> Therefore I believe it is fair to say you were indeed requesting us to do
>> something out of the law.
>>
>> You also failed to address the second point, about the AffCom requesting
>> that a new General Assembly should be conveyed by some party of your
>> choice, something which is clearly against this country law, as mentioned.
>>
>> As for the validity of the General Assembly you were contesting, it
>> suffices to say it was and is recognized as perfectly valid by the
>> Portuguese state - the tax authority, namely - and by the biggest bank of
>> the country, Caixa Geral de Depósitos. Only the rogue guy that had been
>> reported to you for severe harassment and for sending very serious legal
>> and personal threats to a number of WMPT members, and the AFfCom itself,
>> saw it as problematic.
>>
>> I would also like to ask you to not make unfounded and unfair accusations
>> against me, nor indulge in personal attacks, as you have done ("*a
>> remarkable and brazen display of bad faith*"). It is not my
>> responsibility to lecture and educate the AffCom on what they should do ("*an
>> interpretation tha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Kirill Lokshin]

Paulo,

The request for clarification to which you refer was -- as I'm sure you
recall -- in reference to carrying out planned activities, and had nothing
to do with any legal matters, tax filings, or the like; the same was true
of the committee's response:

Olá Gonçalo,
>


> Yes, you can count on us to help solve the current situation!
>


> You understood correctly, we would like you not to introduce themselves as
> WMPT board members, but as members of WMPT and carry on with your
> activities, since all of you are full members of the chapter and can
> participate in different activities and events. Just for the sake of
> avoiding further confusion.
>


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


To conclude, from this email, that the committee was somehow instructing
you to violate Portuguese law is what I might charitably call a "creative"
interpretation of our words.  But let's set that aside for the moment.

You are correct in that it's not your responsibility to "lecture and
educate" the committee.  What *is* your responsibility, however, is to be
honest with the committee regarding your compliance -- or lack thereof --
with our requests.  If you decide, for whatever reason, that you cannot or
will not do as we've asked -- whether because you believe your national law
prohibits you from doing so, or because you and your colleagues want to do
something different, or simply because you think we're stupid and don't
feel like listening to us -- then that's your decision.

We expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore our
request.  To simply thank us for clarifying it, as you did, while secretly
having no intention of complying with it in the first place is hardly
something one does when negotiating in good faith.

Regards,
Kirill

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:24 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Kirill,
>
> On the message the AffCom has sent on 20 May, addressed to the chair of
> the WMPT board, answering to a request for clarification, you stated: "*we
> would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as
> members of WMPT*".
>
> It seems quite obvious to me that, had the board headed the AffCom
> request, and not introduced themselves as such, the obligations of the
> association towards the Portuguese state could not have been fulfilled.
> Therefore I believe it is fair to say you were indeed requesting us to do
> something out of the law.
>
> You also failed to address the second point, about the AffCom requesting
> that a new General Assembly should be conveyed by some party of your
> choice, something which is clearly against this country law, as mentioned.
>
> As for the validity of the General Assembly you were contesting, it
> suffices to say it was and is recognized as perfectly valid by the
> Portuguese state - the tax authority, namely - and by the biggest bank of
> the country, Caixa Geral de Depósitos. Only the rogue guy that had been
> reported to you for severe harassment and for sending very serious legal
> and personal threats to a number of WMPT members, and the AFfCom itself,
> saw it as problematic.
>
> I would also like to ask you to not make unfounded and unfair accusations
> against me, nor indulge in personal attacks, as you have done ("*a
> remarkable and brazen display of bad faith*"). It is not my
> responsibility to lecture and educate the AffCom on what they should do ("*an
> interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time*").
> As far as I know, it is the AffCom duty and responsibility to know the
> affiliate country law, at least to the degree of not commanding the
> affiliate do an illegal action, as you have done. It was my responsibility,
> as a member of WMPT, to denounce your requests as illegal, and I've done
> exactly that at the time. That's why your request for conveying a General
> Assembly through a "neutral party" was never headed.
>
> Paulo
>
> Kirill Lokshin  escreveu no dia quarta,
> 26/09/2018 à(s) 00:51:
>
>> Paulo,
>>
>> The email that the Affiliations Committee sent to you -- among various
>> others -- on May 18 read as follows:
>>
>> Dear members of Wikimedia Portugal,
>>>
>>
>>
>>> The recent developments in your chapter have been brought to our
>>> attention by a number of members of the chapter, as well as members of the
>>> community. We are monitoring the situation and in the meantime, would like
>>> to request all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this
>>> conflict and to work to resolve differences. You may also officially
>>> request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation
>>> plan, which we are more than happy to help with. In the case of no interest
>>> in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may
>>> consider the de-recognition of WMPT, having taken into account also the low
>>> activity of th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Hello Kirill,

On the message the AffCom has sent on 20 May, addressed to the chair of the
WMPT board, answering to a request for clarification, you stated: "*we
would like you not to introduce themselves as WMPT board members, but as
members of WMPT*".

It seems quite obvious to me that, had the board headed the AffCom request,
and not introduced themselves as such, the obligations of the association
towards the Portuguese state could not have been fulfilled. Therefore I
believe it is fair to say you were indeed requesting us to do something out
of the law.

You also failed to address the second point, about the AffCom requesting
that a new General Assembly should be conveyed by some party of your
choice, something which is clearly against this country law, as mentioned.

As for the validity of the General Assembly you were contesting, it
suffices to say it was and is recognized as perfectly valid by the
Portuguese state - the tax authority, namely - and by the biggest bank of
the country, Caixa Geral de Depósitos. Only the rogue guy that had been
reported to you for severe harassment and for sending very serious legal
and personal threats to a number of WMPT members, and the AFfCom itself,
saw it as problematic.

I would also like to ask you to not make unfounded and unfair accusations
against me, nor indulge in personal attacks, as you have done ("*a
remarkable and brazen display of bad faith*"). It is not my responsibility
to lecture and educate the AffCom on what they should do ("*an
interpretation that you somehow neglected to mention to anyone at the time*").
As far as I know, it is the AffCom duty and responsibility to know the
affiliate country law, at least to the degree of not commanding the
affiliate do an illegal action, as you have done. It was my responsibility,
as a member of WMPT, to denounce your requests as illegal, and I've done
exactly that at the time. That's why your request for conveying a General
Assembly through a "neutral party" was never headed.

Paulo

Kirill Lokshin  escreveu no dia quarta,
26/09/2018 à(s) 00:51:

> Paulo,
>
> The email that the Affiliations Committee sent to you -- among various
> others -- on May 18 read as follows:
>
> Dear members of Wikimedia Portugal,
>>
>
>
>> The recent developments in your chapter have been brought to our
>> attention by a number of members of the chapter, as well as members of the
>> community. We are monitoring the situation and in the meantime, would like
>> to request all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this
>> conflict and to work to resolve differences. You may also officially
>> request a conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation
>> plan, which we are more than happy to help with. In the case of no interest
>> in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may
>> consider the de-recognition of WMPT, having taken into account also the low
>> activity of the group, based on the the reports submitted.
>>
>
>
>> In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he
>> present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list (
>> aff...@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal communications
>> channels. Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative of
>> Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.
>>
>
>
>> Do not hesitate contacting this committee if you have further questions.
>
>
> The request concerning "presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia
> Portugal" was in reference to people stating that they were the official
> representatives of the chapter in meetings -- a fact of which you were
> doubtless well aware, seeing as it was your own complaint on the subject
> which prompted the committee's request in the first place.
>
> At no time did you -- or any of your colleagues -- indicate that you were
> interpreting the request as having anything to do with the execution of the
> legal functions of the board, the filing of financial statements with tax
> authorities, or anything of the sort.  Rather, you had responded with
> questions as to how you might present yourselves to your current and
> potential partners.
>
> For you to now insist that the committee's request was a demand that you
> violate Portuguese law -- an interpretation that you somehow neglected to
> mention to anyone at the time -- is a remarkable and brazen display of bad
> faith.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:42 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
>>
>> Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail)  that the recently elected (15
>> April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese
>> law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly,
>> was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to
>> fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they
>> doubted that, they

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Kirill Lokshin]

Paulo,

The email that the Affiliations Committee sent to you -- among various
others -- on May 18 read as follows:

Dear members of Wikimedia Portugal,
>


> The recent developments in your chapter have been brought to our attention
> by a number of members of the chapter, as well as members of the community.
> We are monitoring the situation and in the meantime, would like to request
> all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and
> to work to resolve differences. You may also officially request a
> conversation with this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan,
> which we are more than happy to help with. In the case of no interest in
> resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may consider
> the de-recognition of WMPT, having taken into account also the low activity
> of the group, based on the the reports submitted.
>


> In addition to this, we request that all communications regarding he
> present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion list (
> aff...@lists.wikimedia.org) rather than various personal communications
> channels. Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as representative of
> Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.
>


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


The request concerning "presenting oneself as representative of Wikimedia
Portugal" was in reference to people stating that they were the official
representatives of the chapter in meetings -- a fact of which you were
doubtless well aware, seeing as it was your own complaint on the subject
which prompted the committee's request in the first place.

At no time did you -- or any of your colleagues -- indicate that you were
interpreting the request as having anything to do with the execution of the
legal functions of the board, the filing of financial statements with tax
authorities, or anything of the sort.  Rather, you had responded with
questions as to how you might present yourselves to your current and
potential partners.

For you to now insist that the committee's request was a demand that you
violate Portuguese law -- an interpretation that you somehow neglected to
mention to anyone at the time -- is a remarkable and brazen display of bad
faith.

Regards,
Kirill

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:42 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
>
> Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail)  that the recently elected (15
> April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese
> law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly,
> was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to
> fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they
> doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking
> decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
>
> Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General
> Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely the
> former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That too
> is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally
> elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head of
> the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that conveys a
> General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General
> Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some
> external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent
> General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would have
> been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had not
> any right to do that.
>
> Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April
> General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer knowledgeable
> of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General
> Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere imposition
> of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its tax
> form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal
> representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade
> Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the
> association bank account.
>
> Paulo
>
>
>
>
> Pine W  escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) 22:01:
>
> >  I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or neglect
> > their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing
> > trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that
> AffCom
> > is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am
> > concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that should
> > be addressed.
> >
> > As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of these

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

It does not surprises me in the least the AffCom had forced other
affiliates to "negotiate" with reported harassers.

On the message sent to the associates of WMPT in 18 May, the AffCom
demanded "*all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this
conflict and to work to resolve differences*" with the reported individual
that was threatening, stalking and harassing them. They also offered "*to
discuss a potential mediation plan*" between the chapter and the harasser,
as if such a situation needed any "mediation" at all. Furthermore, they
threatened with de-recognition, in case the harasser was not appeased: "*In
the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward,
this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT*".

it's always worth recalling that this was a situation of an entire chapter
vs. a rogue individual, a non-Wikimedian, who was harassing, stalking and
threatening a number of its members.

Paulo

Chico Venancio  escreveu no dia quarta,
26/09/2018 à(s) 00:13:

> While I cannot speak to the legality of these actions, Affcom's demand that
> we (Brazilian affiliates) meet with reported harassers was very troubling
> to me. The fact that despite our agreement with that baffling condition no
> actual mediation took place, Affcom refused to engage with communications,
> and then issued false statements about this[1] is even more concerning.
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps
>
> Chico Venancio
>
> 2018-09-25 19:42 GMT-03:00 Paulo Santos Perneta :
>
> > Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
> >
> > Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail)  that the recently elected (15
> > April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese
> > law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly,
> > was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to
> > fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they
> > doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking
> > decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
> >
> > Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General
> > Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely
> the
> > former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That
> too
> > is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally
> > elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head
> of
> > the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that
> conveys a
> > General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General
> > Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some
> > external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent
> > General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would
> have
> > been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had
> not
> > any right to do that.
> >
> > Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April
> > General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer
> knowledgeable
> > of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General
> > Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere
> imposition
> > of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its
> tax
> > form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal
> > representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade
> > Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the
> > association bank account.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Pine W  escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s)
> 22:01:
> >
> > >  I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or
> neglect
> > > their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing
> > > trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that
> > AffCom
> > > is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am
> > > concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that
> should
> > > be addressed.
> > >
> > > As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of
> these
> > > actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to
> > evaluate
> > > AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give
> me
> > > cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom
> > made
> > > an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal
> > > research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making
> > > requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that
> AffCom
> > > has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF
> > Legal.
> > >
> > > Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the
> > end
> > > of an affiliate, I can understand how

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Chico Venancio]

While I cannot speak to the legality of these actions, Affcom's demand that
we (Brazilian affiliates) meet with reported harassers was very troubling
to me. The fact that despite our agreement with that baffling condition no
actual mediation took place, Affcom refused to engage with communications,
and then issued false statements about this[1] is even more concerning.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps

Chico Venancio

2018-09-25 19:42 GMT-03:00 Paulo Santos Perneta :

> Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
>
> Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail)  that the recently elected (15
> April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese
> law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly,
> was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to
> fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they
> doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking
> decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
>
> Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General
> Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely the
> former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That too
> is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally
> elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head of
> the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that conveys a
> General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General
> Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some
> external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent
> General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would have
> been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had not
> any right to do that.
>
> Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April
> General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer knowledgeable
> of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General
> Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere imposition
> of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its tax
> form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal
> representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade
> Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the
> association bank account.
>
> Paulo
>
>
>
>
> Pine W  escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) 22:01:
>
> >  I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or neglect
> > their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing
> > trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that
> AffCom
> > is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am
> > concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that should
> > be addressed.
> >
> > As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of these
> > actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to
> evaluate
> > AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give me
> > cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom
> made
> > an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal
> > research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making
> > requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that AffCom
> > has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF
> Legal.
> >
> > Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the
> end
> > of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern
> > potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I think
> > that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good and
> > bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in
> > sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the
> > situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to
> discontinue
> > a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning letter
> > was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a
> temporary
> > setback from which the affiliate can recover.
> >
> > I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an
> > affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and
> people
> > can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and
> > continuous self-improvement.
> >
> > One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they are
> > primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My
> impression
> > is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and
> dedication
> > from the participants. Improving the quality of governance 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Two illegal requests, to be more precise.

Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail)  that the recently elected (15
April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese
law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly,
was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to
fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they
doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking
decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.

Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General
Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely the
former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That too
is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally
elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head of
the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that conveys a
General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General
Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some
external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent
General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would have
been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had not
any right to do that.

Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April
General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer knowledgeable
of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General
Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere imposition
of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its tax
form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal
representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade
Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the
association bank account.

Paulo




Pine W  escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) 22:01:

>  I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or neglect
> their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing
> trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that AffCom
> is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am
> concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that should
> be addressed.
>
> As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of these
> actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to evaluate
> AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give me
> cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom made
> an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal
> research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making
> requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that AffCom
> has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF Legal.
>
> Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the end
> of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern
> potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I think
> that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good and
> bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in
> sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the
> situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to discontinue
> a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning letter
> was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a temporary
> setback from which the affiliate can recover.
>
> I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an
> affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and people
> can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and
> continuous self-improvement.
>
> One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they are
> primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My impression
> is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and dedication
> from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general is an
> interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts about
> how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are generously
> volunteering their limited time.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Pine W]

 I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or neglect
their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing
trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that AffCom
is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am
concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that should
be addressed.

As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of these
actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to evaluate
AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give me
cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom made
an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal
research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making
requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that AffCom
has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF Legal.

Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the end
of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern
potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I think
that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good and
bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in
sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the
situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to discontinue
a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning letter
was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a temporary
setback from which the affiliate can recover.

I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an
affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and people
can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and
continuous self-improvement.

One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they are
primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My impression
is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and dedication
from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general is an
interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts about
how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are generously
volunteering their limited time.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

I concur with Teles that a conflict resolution body would be very helpful
to assist in the situations the AffCom has to deal. Though in the case of
Wikimedia Portugal the conflict was limited to a unique individual
harassing, stalking and sending legal and personal threats to several
members of the chapter, such a body would probably have made the difference
in helping the AffCom understand and properly deal with that situation.

I would also like to suggest allocating enough resources to the AffCom, so
that they would be able to understand the law of the country where the
affiliate is located. Something, I understand, is essential to the AFfCom's
objective.

After WMPT sent the AffCom all the applicable legislation and
jurisprudence, to explain and fundament why a number of AffCom demands
where absurd, or outright illegal under the Portuguese law, the AffCom
replied that "*the AffCom does not have the resources to search through all
the Portuguese legislation to find a permissive court decision*."

I can even be sympathetic with the AffCom as a resourseless body of
volunteers struggling to do their mission, but it also seems evident that
such a body is very much unprepared to deal properly with any serious
situation that may arise with the affiliates, and therefore unable to
fulfill the mission they were created for.

Paulo

Lucas Teles  escreveu no dia quinta, 20/09/2018 à(s)
19:12:

> The way AffCom deals with certain situations is clearly not transparent
> enough for the Wikimedia environment.
>
> We have a situation in Brazil that remains unsolved and Affcom wouldn’t
> even follow their own ways of dealing with it.
>
> Here is a clearer example:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps
>
> AffCom has created a page on Meta to discuss the issues, but it has been
> ignored by them. And it’s like they have no need to answer. Regardless of
> the many moments my group tried to solve the issues, even when being
> ignored about important complaints, we were punished with de-recognition
> with no warning. *No warning.*
>
> Is it really the proper way a group should be de-recognized? Despite being
> one of the most active groups in the World, we were trying to solve the
> problems. However, AffCom dealt with it in the easiest way, as if both
> involved groups had done the same and should be punished the same way,
> which is not correct.
>
> It is a matter of volunteer time? Being a volunteer body is not a reason
> for being absent. If the body is unable to solve an issue, it should
> declare itself unable and community can think of better ways of doing it. I
> see that the only actions on AffCom are cutting relations and transfering
> responsibilities to others when it comes to conflict resolution. Some
> should solve the problems, otherwise they will be punished.
>
> I have been asking a lot elsewhere. What is the best way to discuss this
> with community. Me and others trie to discuss with AffCom itself, but were
> ignored. So, I wonder if there are others interested in discussing it,
> because AffCom is not or don’t have the time, which is not that bad, but
> then we should be addressed to anyone that would act properly. Should we
> create a conflict resolution body to help AffCom? That may be the a good
> start in my opinion, but let’s not keep it the way it is, for the best of
> our community.
>
> Teles
>
>
>
>
> Em qui, 20 de set de 2018 às 08:55, Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> > Anyway, getting back to the more abstract case.
> >
> > I do not agree with total transparency to the "outside world" on
> > communications between AffCom and the affiliate. As Lodewijk mentioned,
> and
> > we felt on our skins over here, sometimes (most of the time?) it does
> more
> > harm than good, at least in an initial phase of the process.
> >
> > I also do not believe that raising the spectre of "de-recognition"
> before a
> > vast audience, especially one directly connected to the chapter -
> > especially before any communication has been attempted to the people in
> > charge of the chapter - is helpful at all. If anything, it is highly
> > counterproductive, sowing confusion and scaring partners and stakeholders
> > away, creating a whole new problem the affiliate has to deal with, and
> > actively contributing to the situation deterioration. I believe it should
> > only be done as a last resource, when the chapter has been irresponsive
> and
> > the situation has been deteriorating significantly.
> >
> > In a first moment, and if it is working, silent backchannels and
> backstage
> > acting should be the way to go. However, I don't believe the AffCom has
> any
> > legitimacy to impose a vote of silence on an affiliate about his own
> > situation, especially when misinformation and rumours about it are
> > circulating around wildly.
> >
> > I absolutely agree this is not a simple issue, and we cannot expect the
> > AffCom, who are a group of volu

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Lucas Teles]

The way AffCom deals with certain situations is clearly not transparent
enough for the Wikimedia environment.

We have a situation in Brazil that remains unsolved and Affcom wouldn’t
even follow their own ways of dealing with it.

Here is a clearer example:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps

AffCom has created a page on Meta to discuss the issues, but it has been
ignored by them. And it’s like they have no need to answer. Regardless of
the many moments my group tried to solve the issues, even when being
ignored about important complaints, we were punished with de-recognition
with no warning. *No warning.*

Is it really the proper way a group should be de-recognized? Despite being
one of the most active groups in the World, we were trying to solve the
problems. However, AffCom dealt with it in the easiest way, as if both
involved groups had done the same and should be punished the same way,
which is not correct.

It is a matter of volunteer time? Being a volunteer body is not a reason
for being absent. If the body is unable to solve an issue, it should
declare itself unable and community can think of better ways of doing it. I
see that the only actions on AffCom are cutting relations and transfering
responsibilities to others when it comes to conflict resolution. Some
should solve the problems, otherwise they will be punished.

I have been asking a lot elsewhere. What is the best way to discuss this
with community. Me and others trie to discuss with AffCom itself, but were
ignored. So, I wonder if there are others interested in discussing it,
because AffCom is not or don’t have the time, which is not that bad, but
then we should be addressed to anyone that would act properly. Should we
create a conflict resolution body to help AffCom? That may be the a good
start in my opinion, but let’s not keep it the way it is, for the best of
our community.

Teles




Em qui, 20 de set de 2018 às 08:55, Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Anyway, getting back to the more abstract case.
>
> I do not agree with total transparency to the "outside world" on
> communications between AffCom and the affiliate. As Lodewijk mentioned, and
> we felt on our skins over here, sometimes (most of the time?) it does more
> harm than good, at least in an initial phase of the process.
>
> I also do not believe that raising the spectre of "de-recognition" before a
> vast audience, especially one directly connected to the chapter -
> especially before any communication has been attempted to the people in
> charge of the chapter - is helpful at all. If anything, it is highly
> counterproductive, sowing confusion and scaring partners and stakeholders
> away, creating a whole new problem the affiliate has to deal with, and
> actively contributing to the situation deterioration. I believe it should
> only be done as a last resource, when the chapter has been irresponsive and
> the situation has been deteriorating significantly.
>
> In a first moment, and if it is working, silent backchannels and backstage
> acting should be the way to go. However, I don't believe the AffCom has any
> legitimacy to impose a vote of silence on an affiliate about his own
> situation, especially when misinformation and rumours about it are
> circulating around wildly.
>
> I absolutely agree this is not a simple issue, and we cannot expect the
> AffCom, who are a group of volunteers as many of us are, to know the
> answers to all of them, and to act perfectly. That's why a more public and
> broader discussion among the Movement is needed about this.
>
> Paulo
>
>
> Paulo Santos Perneta  escreveu no dia quinta,
> 20/09/2018 à(s) 00:56:
>
> > I completely agree with Lodewijk here: Publishing such warnings could
> very
> > well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make the warning moot.
> >
> > This was, however, very much what the AffCom has done to Wikimedia
> > Portugal. In 18 May the AffCom has sent a message to the WMPT general
> > mailing list, which is for general information and includes our partners
> > and people which are just interested in WMPT, not only associates.
> >
> > In that message the AffCom requested* "all members of the chapter to
> > cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve
> differences.*"
> > The so called "conflict" was nothing but a single individual sending
> legal
> > and personal threats against members of the chapter. this is the
> > information we had back then, this is what we had reported to teh AffCom
> -
> > it still is the same information we have today, it has not changed. So
> the
> > AffCom told those on the receiving end to "cease from taking part in this
> > conflict and to work to resolve differences".
> >
> > Then continued: "Y*ou may also officially request a conversation with
> > this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more
> > than happy to help with.*" - no conversation with any of the three
> > members

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Anyway, getting back to the more abstract case.

I do not agree with total transparency to the "outside world" on
communications between AffCom and the affiliate. As Lodewijk mentioned, and
we felt on our skins over here, sometimes (most of the time?) it does more
harm than good, at least in an initial phase of the process.

I also do not believe that raising the spectre of "de-recognition" before a
vast audience, especially one directly connected to the chapter -
especially before any communication has been attempted to the people in
charge of the chapter - is helpful at all. If anything, it is highly
counterproductive, sowing confusion and scaring partners and stakeholders
away, creating a whole new problem the affiliate has to deal with, and
actively contributing to the situation deterioration. I believe it should
only be done as a last resource, when the chapter has been irresponsive and
the situation has been deteriorating significantly.

In a first moment, and if it is working, silent backchannels and backstage
acting should be the way to go. However, I don't believe the AffCom has any
legitimacy to impose a vote of silence on an affiliate about his own
situation, especially when misinformation and rumours about it are
circulating around wildly.

I absolutely agree this is not a simple issue, and we cannot expect the
AffCom, who are a group of volunteers as many of us are, to know the
answers to all of them, and to act perfectly. That's why a more public and
broader discussion among the Movement is needed about this.

Paulo


Paulo Santos Perneta  escreveu no dia quinta,
20/09/2018 à(s) 00:56:

> I completely agree with Lodewijk here: Publishing such warnings could very
> well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make the warning moot.
>
> This was, however, very much what the AffCom has done to Wikimedia
> Portugal. In 18 May the AffCom has sent a message to the WMPT general
> mailing list, which is for general information and includes our partners
> and people which are just interested in WMPT, not only associates.
>
> In that message the AffCom requested* "all members of the chapter to
> cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences.*"
> The so called "conflict" was nothing but a single individual sending legal
> and personal threats against members of the chapter. this is the
> information we had back then, this is what we had reported to teh AffCom -
> it still is the same information we have today, it has not changed. So the
> AffCom told those on the receiving end to "cease from taking part in this
> conflict and to work to resolve differences".
>
> Then continued: "Y*ou may also officially request a conversation with
> this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more
> than happy to help with.*" - no conversation with any of the three
> members of the elected board took place before this message. So much for
> "hearing all parts".
>
> And continued: "*In the case of no interest in resolving your differences
> and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT*"
> - Apparently we in the chapter should refrain from receiving menaces and
> threats from the single individual that was harassing us, or else the
> chapter would be derecognized. How this would make any sense, I don't know.
>
> "*having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based on
> the the reports submitted.*" - this bit is fair. Wikimedia Portugal was
> kind of comatose for many years - basically since the individual who is now
> harassing us - a non Wikimedian - became president. What is not fair is
> that all this pressure comes precisely after we finished taking all the
> necessary steps to fix that mess that had been forming since 2014 at least.
> We had just fixed our stuff, and the missing report was about to be sent -
> and the AffCom knew it perfectly, I personally told them that in Berlin -
> when this message was sent.
>
> It then demanded what what seems to be a vote of silence about this
> matter, reducing discussions about it to the AffCom list, which was now
> apparently lifted by Kirill: "*In addition to this, we request that all
> communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the
> AffCom discussion list (aff...@lists.wikimedia.org
> ) rather than various personal communications
> channels.*"
>
> And they finally ended with a demand which was plainly illegal under the
> Portuguese law: "*Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as
> representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.*"
> Wikimedia Portugal by then was - as it is now - a registered Association of
> full right in Portugal, with an elected board validated according to the
> law, and that board cannot "refrain to present itself as such" on the
> course of it's obligations to the state and the law (tax records,
> registration updates, etc.)
>
> I recall, this was sent by the AffCom to the general list of Wikimedia
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

I completely agree with Lodewijk here: Publishing such warnings could very
well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make the warning moot.

This was, however, very much what the AffCom has done to Wikimedia
Portugal. In 18 May the AffCom has sent a message to the WMPT general
mailing list, which is for general information and includes our partners
and people which are just interested in WMPT, not only associates.

In that message the AffCom requested* "all members of the chapter to cease
from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences.*" The
so called "conflict" was nothing but a single individual sending legal and
personal threats against members of the chapter. this is the information we
had back then, this is what we had reported to teh AffCom - it still is the
same information we have today, it has not changed. So the AffCom told
those on the receiving end to "cease from taking part in this conflict and
to work to resolve differences".

Then continued: "Y*ou may also officially request a conversation with this
committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more than
happy to help with.*" - no conversation with any of the three members of
the elected board took place before this message. So much for "hearing all
parts".

And continued: "*In the case of no interest in resolving your differences
and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT*"
- Apparently we in the chapter should refrain from receiving menaces and
threats from the single individual that was harassing us, or else the
chapter would be derecognized. How this would make any sense, I don't know.

"*having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based on
the the reports submitted.*" - this bit is fair. Wikimedia Portugal was
kind of comatose for many years - basically since the individual who is now
harassing us - a non Wikimedian - became president. What is not fair is
that all this pressure comes precisely after we finished taking all the
necessary steps to fix that mess that had been forming since 2014 at least.
We had just fixed our stuff, and the missing report was about to be sent -
and the AffCom knew it perfectly, I personally told them that in Berlin -
when this message was sent.

It then demanded what what seems to be a vote of silence about this matter,
reducing discussions about it to the AffCom list, which was now apparently
lifted by Kirill: "*In addition to this, we request that all communications
regarding he present situation be routed directly to the AffCom discussion
list (aff...@lists.wikimedia.org ) rather than
various personal communications channels.*"

And they finally ended with a demand which was plainly illegal under the
Portuguese law: "*Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as
representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is resolved.*"
Wikimedia Portugal by then was - as it is now - a registered Association of
full right in Portugal, with an elected board validated according to the
law, and that board cannot "refrain to present itself as such" on the
course of it's obligations to the state and the law (tax records,
registration updates, etc.)

I recall, this was sent by the AffCom to the general list of Wikimedia
Portugal, without any previous warning or contact that would hint about
such a thing, generating surprise, questions and apprehension among the
people in that list.

I don't believe this is OK. I don't believe the AffCom was correct in doing
this this way.

Paulo

(This is only my personal opinion, I'm not writing in the name of WMPT, but
merely as a member of the chapter who has passed through all that)



effe iets anders  escreveu no dia quarta,
19/09/2018 à(s) 22:28:

> As always, it is complicated. While there are benefits to extreme
> transparency, there are also very real downsides. Depending on the culture
> in the country, being overly public in the 'warning phase' can have the
> result that partners will pull out of agreements, donations will be held
> back and volunteers good name get damaged (and withdraw from the
> organization). Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill off
> the affiliate, and make the warning moot. Another side effect of going
> public with such warnings is that people get real defensive. This is
> already sensitive when you involve all members, but this gets even worse
> when you involve the whole world.
>
> Efforts of AffCom should not focus (imho) on sanctions or punishing, but
> rather on adjusting the processes and practices of the organization to
> align with movement values and directions. Diplomacy often requires some
> silence - and as long as AffCom still sees hope that the organization can
> adjust and repair - I'm all for it that they use silent backchannels.
> Admitting to the problem is required to start fixing it - and such
> admission is usually easier achieved in private.
>
>  A community that tried to get maximum effective affiliates needs to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Michael Peel]

Hi all,

As a daft question, why doesn’t affcom say to the affiliates something like "we 
won’t publish this, but if you want to, then please go ahead and do so 
yourself”? That way, it’s up to the affiliate to work out what works best in 
their culture/country/community and to go with that, rather than a 
one-size-fits-all approach.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 19 Sep 2018, at 18:27, effe iets anders  wrote:
> 
> As always, it is complicated. While there are benefits to extreme
> transparency, there are also very real downsides. Depending on the culture
> in the country, being overly public in the 'warning phase' can have the
> result that partners will pull out of agreements, donations will be held
> back and volunteers good name get damaged (and withdraw from the
> organization). Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill off
> the affiliate, and make the warning moot. Another side effect of going
> public with such warnings is that people get real defensive. This is
> already sensitive when you involve all members, but this gets even worse
> when you involve the whole world.
> 
> Efforts of AffCom should not focus (imho) on sanctions or punishing, but
> rather on adjusting the processes and practices of the organization to
> align with movement values and directions. Diplomacy often requires some
> silence - and as long as AffCom still sees hope that the organization can
> adjust and repair - I'm all for it that they use silent backchannels.
> Admitting to the problem is required to start fixing it - and such
> admission is usually easier achieved in private.
> 
> A community that tried to get maximum effective affiliates needs to find a
> healthy balance between transparency and diplomacy. Where exactly that
> balance is to be found, it a complicated question though.
> 
> Lodewijk
> 
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:15 AM Isarra Yos  wrote:
> 
>> Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they did or
>> didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been heading
>> in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar -
>> often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and
>> handled consistently, there need not be shame in it.
>> 
>> On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote:
>>> I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my main
>>> feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the public
>>> interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or an
>>> investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because it is
>>> bad news or embarrassing news.
>>> 
>>> There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such as
>>> preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying information
>>> that has not been made public. The potential for negative publicity if
>>> information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate, isn't
>>> sufficient justification for keeping information private.
>>> 
>>> Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept
>> private.
>>> One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be public
>> is
>>> that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in this
>>> case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against favoritism,
>>> negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in
>> general.
>>> I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions of
>>> affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom to set
>>> an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good or bad.
>>> 
>>> Pine
>>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[effe iets anders]

As always, it is complicated. While there are benefits to extreme
transparency, there are also very real downsides. Depending on the culture
in the country, being overly public in the 'warning phase' can have the
result that partners will pull out of agreements, donations will be held
back and volunteers good name get damaged (and withdraw from the
organization). Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill off
the affiliate, and make the warning moot. Another side effect of going
public with such warnings is that people get real defensive. This is
already sensitive when you involve all members, but this gets even worse
when you involve the whole world.

Efforts of AffCom should not focus (imho) on sanctions or punishing, but
rather on adjusting the processes and practices of the organization to
align with movement values and directions. Diplomacy often requires some
silence - and as long as AffCom still sees hope that the organization can
adjust and repair - I'm all for it that they use silent backchannels.
Admitting to the problem is required to start fixing it - and such
admission is usually easier achieved in private.

 A community that tried to get maximum effective affiliates needs to find a
healthy balance between transparency and diplomacy. Where exactly that
balance is to be found, it a complicated question though.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:15 AM Isarra Yos  wrote:

> Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they did or
> didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been heading
> in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar -
> often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and
> handled consistently, there need not be shame in it.
>
> On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote:
> > I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my main
> > feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the public
> > interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or an
> > investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because it is
> > bad news or embarrassing news.
> >
> > There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such as
> > preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying information
> > that has not been made public. The potential for negative publicity if
> > information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate, isn't
> > sufficient justification for keeping information private.
> >
> > Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept
> private.
> > One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be public
> is
> > that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in this
> > case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against favoritism,
> > negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in
> general.
> > I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions of
> > affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom to set
> > an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good or bad.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Isarra Yos]

Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they did or 
didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been heading 
in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar - 
often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and 
handled consistently, there need not be shame in it.


On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote:

I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my main
feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the public
interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or an
investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because it is
bad news or embarrassing news.

There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such as
preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying information
that has not been made public. The potential for negative publicity if
information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate, isn't
sufficient justification for keeping information private.

Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept private.
One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be public is
that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in this
case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against favoritism,
negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in general.
I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions of
affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom to set
an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good or bad.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[Pine W]

I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my main
feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the public
interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or an
investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because it is
bad news or embarrassing news.

There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such as
preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying information
that has not been made public. The potential for negative publicity if
information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate, isn't
sufficient justification for keeping information private.

Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept private.
One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be public is
that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in this
case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against favoritism,
negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in general.
I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions of
affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom to set
an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good or bad.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Suspensions of affiliates

[effe iets anders]

Hi Kirill,

(changing the topic to reflect better the more abstract case: this is no
longer about WMPT, as I don't know enough about that specific instance)

I appreciate your concerns for embarrassing situations. This may be the
least painful approach in many of the cases. I also appreciate that the
Committee is between a rock and a hard place here: if such a situation
arises, there is no approach that makes everyone happy.

However, I think there's another complicating factor, which I'm not sure
whether it is currently considered sufficiently. The system of affiliates
has been designed so that there is always some level of 'democratic'
control: chapters and thematic organizations are required to have a
membership, and also user groups are required to have more participants
than just the liaisons. At least in the case of Thematic organizations and
Chapters, these membership bodies are also legally the highest authority of
the organization. (the user groups are more fuzzy, and I'll focus on
Chapters and Thematic Organizations for now)

If an organization gets suspended, that can be generally for two reasons.
First, there could be a simple misunderstanding. In that case, the board
can probably resolve this quickly, and a public announcement would
definitely do much more good than harm. But there is also the second
possibility: that there is a real problem. In that scenario, the democratic
control that we require, may be needed to manage the problem. Sure, it may
result in some messy questions to the board, and some embarrassment, but it
may also result in more actual resolutions. As a member, I would definitely
not appreciate it to only learn about the problems when there is no way
back (revocation of status).

Affiliation with the Wikimedia Movement is a core 'asset' for the Wikimedia
affiliates, and should not be revoked lightly - as I'm sure the Committee
will agree.

I would suggest that the AffCom reviews its approach here, and considers a
middle way, where the membership (or the whole community, if there is no
way to contact the membership) is informed. Whether that is through the
board or directly, whether publicly or privately will depend on the case.
The most important thing is that the membership can exercise their
responsibility and potentially decide that the board should be replaced, or
instructed to act in a certain manner.

I can imagine an approach where the board is given a week to respond to the
charges to resolve misunderstandings before the step is taken to inform the
membership (while leaving the board full discretion to contact the
membership earlier than that).

Chapters and Thematic Organizations have often a history going back many
years in our movement. They are larger than their boards, and if the
current board is unable or unwilling to resolve an issue, the membership is
at task to interfere.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 7:39 PM Kirill Lokshin 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The Affiliations Committee would like to provide some clarification around
> the privacy of affiliate suspension notices, particularly in the context of
> ongoing conflict mediation within and between affiliates.
>
> When we conduct investigations into the behavior of individual editors, we
> strive to maintain privacy for the individual as to the specific concerns
> under investigation.  In the case of affiliate compliance investigations,
> we similarly treat the specific concerns and the details of any
> intermediate measures (including possible suspensions) with an appropriate
> degree of privacy.  This is to avoid undue public embarrassment or ridicule
> for the individuals involved in the conflict mediation process, and to
> ensure that people are able to work with us in good faith to resolve issues
> without feeling that they will be subjected to public shaming during the
> process.
>
> Basic reporting compliance is documented in the reporting table on the
> [[m:Reports]] page, where you can see those groups which have fallen behind
> on compliance [1].  The suspension-remediation-derecognition process is
> also publicly documented on Meta [2].
>
> It is 100% at the discretion of the suspended organization whether and how
> to communicate publicly about their suspension or the details of their
> non-compliance.  Only upon revocation of recognition does the committee
> communicate publicly about the issue; even then, private details are not
> shared except as required to correct misinformation.
>
> As for ways this could be more transparent without causing undue
> embarrassment, perhaps suspension status could be indicated on the reports
> page on Meta; however, even this seems appropriate only if done at the
> discretion of those who have been suspended.  We would be interested in
> hearing more thoughts about this from those who have been through the
> process.  For anyone who wants to share their views without public
> disclosure, please feel free to message the private AffCom mailing list
> w