SJ, maybe I should explain my comments about involvement of legal counsel in more detail. My understanding of the situation, which is far from complete and may be wrong, is that AffCom decided to intervene in this situation (1) before they had undertaken an effort to gather facts "on the ground", and (2) with disregard for local laws that could apply to the situation. (I wouldn't accept an excuse that AffCom lacked the time to do legal research. It is my opinion that AffCom and WMF both should know better, and that WMF should ensure that AffCom has access to knowledgeable legal counsel when needed). If AffCom had taken the time to first gather the facts of the situation from someone who could investigate it "on the ground", and had taken the time to obtain knowledgeable legal counsel about local laws, I wonder whether a significant amount of volunteer time and stress could have been saved both for AffCom members and for WMPT members.
I don't mean to suggest that nothing is wrong at WMPT or that AffCom should have remained uninvolved, but my impression is that there are changes that should be made in AffCom regardless of whether there are problems with WMPT, starting with AffCom's lack of transparency in general. It's possible that what we're hearing from WMPT is entirely wrong and that AffCom did everything well, but even if that is true, I think that AffCom should be much more transparent. 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>
