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 <paulospern...@gmail.com> 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 > <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 <effeietsand...@gmail.com> 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 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 <zhoris...@gmail.com> 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 >> , >> > <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> > > _______________________________________________ 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>
