I really hope that the reason for de-recognition of any affiliate is not that “the other side expressed a contrary position”.
We have seen it in Brazil too, as others already started to link the dots. There where two groups in conflict. Instead of solving the problem, or even declaring itself unable to solve (which they are and would be understandable), AffCom de-recognized both of them with no warning. And we still keep asking why with no answer: [1] I don’t know why we keep asking (but I don’t plan to stop until I have an answer). Probably for being long-term volunteers and believing on the Wikimedia Movement, but after undergoing so many unfair and poor judgements, I don’t have the answer. And I am still willing to work on the improvements and not only pointing fingers. Reading the message from AffCom saying that “The Brazilian community is much broader that the contributors involved in these two former User Groups” and all the rest, it sounded like our work was disposable on their eyes, a perfect insult. [2] In my opinion, this lack of professionalism is a clear sign that the committee was not able to deal with the case and decided about it in the easiest way for them, with a terrible outcome for Brazil. But it’s okay... we have other people to do the job, don’t we? I can’t understand why did AffCom come up with a roadmap if they were not willing to respect the terms of it. If WMPT fulfilled the requirements on roadmap what we all expected is that AffCom would fulfill their part of the agreement. Just like the discussion I mentioned above on which AffCom creates a place to discuss and then disappears. WMPT was inactive for years. I never understood why AffCom allowed that, but never bothered to ask. We should all be grateful for the users that are trying to recompose the chapter and clearly willing to do it under the committee advice, but working with the rules of AffCom itself is not enough. Sounds like an impossible mission is defined and when it is not fulfilled, it is used as a reason for de-recognition. The lack of transparency, the poor judgement, irresponsible decisions, the apparent inactivity of their members should have an end. As I said, I am still willing to help like I bet others will, but keeping silent about your own problems won’t make AffCom better. Sorry for any possible emotional argument... it’s hard to hide it after a year of expectations and unsolved conflict. Teles [1]- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps#Lack_of_AffCom%E2%80%99s_participation [2]- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps#Communicating_Next_Steps_for_the_Brazil_Communities Em qui, 11 de out de 2018 às 21:17, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> escreveu: > Thank you for acknowledging the existence of this thread and the fact that > AffCom is still making some effort to bring the problem to a resolution. It > doesn't seem like it should be all that challenging, if one disputant is a > single individual and the other is a community of people led by those for > whom they have repeatedly expressed support. > > If, as described, AffCom laid out a procedure by which one side could > legitimize itself and then decided to revoke that procedure after much work > by those trying to follow it... AffCom could acknowledge an error and > apologize. That you have described your proposed next step is at least > progress in the right direction. > > In any case, I'm sure we all look forward to AffCom sharing the results of > its solicitation of advice with the Wikimedia public. > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Kirill Lokshin <kirill.loks...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > As I believe we mentioned the last time this particular topic came up, we > > are unlikely to resolve the intricacies of Portuguese nonprofit law by > > debating them on a mailing list. > > > > Gonçalo and his colleagues have quite clearly expressed their position: > > they believe that the process by which they came to control Wikimedia > > Portugal complies with the applicable provisions of Portuguese law. At > the > > same time, the other side in this conflict has expressed a contrary > > position: that the process in question does *not* comply with those > > provisions. > > > > The Affiliations Committee has obviously been unable to make any real > > headway here, particularly as the dispute hinges in no small part on > > interpretations of case law rather than a plain reading of the applicable > > legal codes; consequently, we've solicited advice from actual Portuguese > > legal experts, which we hope to receive in the near future. Until that > > happens, however, we are not going to be able to bring this to closure, > one > > way or the other. > > > > Regards, > > Kirill > _______________________________________________ > 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> -- Steward for Wikimedia projects. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity. +55 (71) 99707 6409 _______________________________________________ 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>
