Hi Yair, Yes board was informed in the process.
Plus when situation started a few days ago, board expressed full support stepping up against that specific EO. Christophe HENNER Chair of the board of trustees chen...@wikimedia.org +33650664739 twitter *@schiste* skype *christophe_henner* On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Yair Rand <yyairr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Would this action fall under "Collaborative advocacy" in the Foundation > Policy and Political Association Guideline? The section refers to > "collaborat[ing] with another organization to take action on a particular > policy or political question". The example given is signing a petition by > the EFF against Internet censorship. The required steps include (among > other requirements) consultation with the Public Policy Advisory Group, > along with getting consensus in a broader RfC except where time does not > permit. I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical > and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall under > that section, the policy was yet again violated. Frankly, I don't believe > that an RfC would pass in the first place. If you've been following the > earlier thread, you may be aware that there is increasing alarm at the risk > of the movement being hijacked by political interests, and this new action > is not helping matters. > > This was a unilateral political actions in a sensitive area without prior > discussion. The Guideline does say that the WMF may deviate from the policy > if specifically approved by the General Council, although I don't know why > deviating would be warranted here. Was this done here? Who was involved in > the decision? Was the Board consulted, as suggested by the guidelines > (although as an "Optional" step)? Or was it simply considered to not fall > under the policy at all? Is the guideline still in effect, or was it > eliminated or changed without the document on Meta being updated? > > The amicus brief specifically challenges the refugee suspension, among > other areas. Is this topic considered to be within the WMF's goals, or was > bringing the WMF into an irrelevant political battle considered simply an > unavoidable side-effect in the effort to protect WMF operations by means of > national political intervention? > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_ > Association_Guideline#Collaborative_Advocacy > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Michelle Paulson <mpaul...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > Today, the Wikimedia Foundation joined with more than 90 other > > organizations in filing an amicus brief[1] in State of Washington v. > > Trump[2] > > currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. > > This case challenges the recent executive order[3] issued in the United > > States on January 27, 2017, which establishes immigration and travel > > restrictions based on country of origin. Other signatories to the brief > > include Facebook, Levi Strauss & Co., Microsoft, Mozilla, and Paypal. The > > brief includes legal arguments against the order itself, and details the > > real and immediate impact these restrictions will have on the Wikimedia > > Foundation and other signatories’ staff, users, customers, and > operations. > > We expect it to be filed in other current and future cases challenging > the > > order, as appropriate. > > > > We know that the Foundation’s prior statement[4] on this executive order > > has generated debate in the communities, on mailing lists and in other > > forums. Some disapprove, with concern that the Foundation has taken a > > political stance on behalf of the movement. Others approve, with concerns > > about the impact of this order on the practicalities and values of open > > collaboration and sharing. We would like to clarify our perspective on > this > > important issue. > > > > From our perspective, the implications of this order - and the urgency of > > our response - are clear. Beyond the issue of the values of open > > collaboration, this order will also have serious, tangible effects on the > > Foundation and our ability to support the Wikimedia projects and > > communities. > > > > From an operational standpoint, orders such as these may substantially > > limit our ability to deliver on support for the global Wikimedia > > communities. Much of the Foundation's work involves travel across > borders. > > We cross borders to develop and sustain strategic partnerships with > > Wikimedia affiliates and free knowledge advocates. We travel to > gatherings > > and hackathons to support and collaborate with Wikimedians around the > > world. We represent Wikimedia research and methodologies at conferences > > with librarians and scientists from across the globe. We meet with > > community leaders and board members internationally to exercise corporate > > and community governance and execute strategic oversight. > > > > As the Foundation, we have an obligation to protect the Wikimedia > projects > > and ensure that they thrive in perpetuity. We are not a political > > organization, but we are passionate about defending free knowledge, and > the > > conditions for its flourishing. We believe that the immigration and > travel > > restrictions posed by the executive order in question will have a > > detrimental impact on the Foundation's mission and operations, as people > > are unable to enter the United States or restricted from leaving because > > they may not be allowed to return home. Board and committee meetings, > > conferences, conventions, hackathons, and more may be affected by the > > executive order in its current form, as well by the threatened extension > of > > restrictions to additional countries. > > > > It is our obligation to engage with issues that affect the Wikimedia > > Foundation's capacity to support Foundation’s mission and the goals of > the > > Wikimedia movement. From freedom of expression to freedom of movement, we > > will continue to do so, in service of our shared vision. You can read > more > > about the brief on the Foundation’s blog.[5] > > > > Best, > > > > Michelle Paulson > > Interim General Counsel > > > > [1] > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File% > > 3AAmicus_curiae_brief_of_Tech_Companies_%26_Orgs%2C_ > > Washington_v._Trump.pdf&page=1 > > > > > > [2] https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000860 > > > > [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769 > > > > [4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/ > > [5] > > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel- > > restrictions/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
