I am not surprised by the lack of follow through by Affcom. In the Brazilian case we were told a few times we met all requisites for chapter recognition, but the existence of another user group in the country was something they felt was enough to disqualify us until they figured out their rules. Upon us insisting on a formal evaluation of our request we had a promise of a site visit to make an evaluation, another promise that was never fulfilled.
When I and others decided to report harassment the result was very much worse. Affcom demanded, on less than a week notice, that an onperson meeting with the reported harrasser and a few of the reported harassed. Upon resistance to that plan, Affcom held separate meetings with each group. Nonetheless did nothing to actually evaluate the matter and maintained the position that we would not achieve chapter status despite meeting the requirements. WMF trust and safety then had the brilliant idea of pushing the harassment matter to Affcom, which did absolutely nothing despite promising mediation and now stating a mediation has taken place.[1] In fact, when we managed to secure a community led mediation, Affcom and WMF managed to quickly torpedo it after the first meeting. To be honest, I have very little hope for WMPT at this point, it is an obviously manufactured crisis with sides that have acted in very different ways but Affcom and WMF do not care. As Brazil did, Portugal is rocking the boat, and Affcom does not tolerate boat rocking. Chico Venancio [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps Em sex, 12 de out de 2018 05:56, Paulo Santos Perneta < paulospern...@gmail.com> escreveu: > Since the first reports about Vasconcelos from WMPT to AffCom, before the > 15 April General Assembly, we were asking AffCom for legal support to deal > with the situation caused by Vasconcelos, as we are all volunteers and, > unlike AffCom, we have no easy access to lawyers - or at least are unable > to pay them. It was never provided. Instead, AffCom chose to put WMPT on > the freezer for six months already, while continuously listening to the > legal gibberish coming from the "other side", meaning Vasconcelos, a person > that was repeatedly reported to AffCom for severe harassment against WMPT > members. And during the whole process, AffCom was taking their own > conclusions from that legal gibberish, and trying to reach a "middle point" > between WMPT and Vasconcelos in a situation which is ruled by the law, like > if that would ever be possible, or even advisable at all. > > We had to do everything by ourselves with our limited resources, without > any legal support facilitated by AffCom. We have extensively read the > country law and many court cases dealing with associations General > Assemblies, we have informally consulted lawyers and jurisconsults, we have > done the best we could to appease AffCom without breaking any country laws. > But, to me, everything would have been incredibly much easier, clearer and > smoother if AffCom had since the beginning requested the legal expertise we > were asking for. > > But apparently, at last, after six months of this purgatory, we finally > are on the right path. > > Regards, > Paulo > > Em 12/10/2018 04:46, "Kirill Lokshin" <kirill.loks...@gmail.com> escreveu: > >> The Affiliations Committee has no intention whatsoever of changing the >> process; rather, we are simply trying to determine whether the conditions >> that we originally set out have in fact been met. >> >> It would, perhaps, have been easier for everyone if we could have done >> this >> without having to solicit specialized legal expertise, but the >> circumstances seem to have unfortunately precluded a procedure whose >> validity is obvious from a simple reading of the applicable rules. >> >> Regards, >> Kirill >> >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:17 PM Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > 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> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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> > > _______________________________________________ > Affiliates mailing list > affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates > _______________________________________________ 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>
