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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
