Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi all,

I checked in with Adele today, to ask about progress on the Amazon Echo
licensing issue, and whether she had a rough idea when she'd be able to
report back to us.

Adele was happy for me to pass on here that we're unlikely to hear anything
further about this until September, as Wikimania is looming, and she will
be off on a much-needed holiday after that.

Adele added that the timeline really depends on the Amazon staff they
contacted. While she will let us know as soon as she hears from them, the
call required for this type of outreach will probably only happen in
September.

Best,
Andreas

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Adele Vrana  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am Adele Vrana, Director of Strategic Partnerships at the Foundation.
>
> We have contacts at Amazon and will seek to clarify the questions raised on
> this thread. I will make sure to circle back with you once we have an
> update.
>
> All the best,
> Adele
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Am 27.07.2017 um 18:37 schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> > >
> > > Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden ...
> > >
> > > I will not spend an hour trying to identify the exact article version
> > that
> > > matches Alexa's output in that video best, but it's safe to assume that
> > > this inserted "Ed", too, came from Wikipedia, even though it had gone
> by
> > > the time the video was uploaded to YouTube.
> >
> > The current (full) answer is
> >
> > 'Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden, the American computer professional former
> > CIA employee, and government contractor who leaked classified
> > information from the U.S. National Security Agency in 2013.'
> >
> > Now obviously there could be -lots- going on behind the scenes, for
> > example long term caching of search results (difficult to believe that
> > Bing would allow that if it is really from them, but who knows) and so
> on.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Adele Vrana*
> *Strategic Partnerships - Global Reach*
> Wikimedia Foundation
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6773
> avr...@wikimedia.org
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate.
> *
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Devouard (gmail)]

Le 04/08/2017 à 18:17, Gabriel Thullen a écrit :

What is important here is that trust has to be rebuilt between the chapter
members on one hand and the board & senior staff on the other hand.

The way I understand the situation is that the board has expelled a few
vocal opponents, a few board members have resigned, one staffer was fired
for refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had their
membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join
the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I
may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it up.


It far from sum-it-up.

There is also *very* disrespectful behavior from staff and management, 
including
* non respect of "friendly space policy" and comments directed to a very 
involved member with autistic traits such as "it is you who should adapt 
and you need to grow up to become an adult"
* paternalistic behavior toward volunteers such as "you still have not 
understood what I was saying. Let's meet face to face and I will explain 
to you *again* so that you *really* get it"

* legal threats toward volunteers who ask questions
* referring to members in a very belittling way : "tartempion" or "pigiste"
* refusal to acknowledge authorship of action from volunteers (such as 
"no author name in wiki newsletter")
* emails sent to board by members to "report issues" are immediately 
forwarded to the management, making it impossible to safely and 
confidentially discuss issues
* there has been cases of doxing by the management, using member private 
data
* set up of a black list of members that should not receive support by 
staff in spite of being members.


There is staff suffering, upon which it is difficult to comment 
publicly, but is made quite obvious by the fact several staff members 
joined and created a trade-union branch to be able to *defend* themselves.


There are multiple rumors reported by members of quite "generous" 
expenses reimbursement. Yet unclear due to non access to financial data.


There are questions related to management using the resources and image 
of the association, as well as WMF brand, to look for funding for a 
mysterious entity no one knows anything about. Yet unanswered.


There are questions related to using resources of the association to 
gain a elected position.


And a bunch of other things. Those would count as "one or two minor 
details".




The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they are
related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with
fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us find
an issue to this crisis. (
http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)


Absolutely correct. Those were certifications (and done prior to most of 
our current issues). For example, a certification will check that there 
is a Conflict of Interest Policy in place. And yes there is one. So 
there is certification.


What good is a COI policy when people do not report COI or when the 
members of the committee do not have independance from those reporting 
COI... that is another story. And this is when a governance audit can help.


It may be that if WMF asks for a financial audit, only WMF will get the 
outcome.


Which is why we are currently voting so that the members get the RIGHT 
to vote to ASK for a financial audit during the next General Assembly.


But the amount of energy we have to spend to simply TRY to get answers 
is frankly just wrong.


Florence



I remain convinced that WMFR needs an independent governance audit, and the
results should be made available to the chapter members and to the staff.
Something drastic needs to be done so that this chapter can continue to
function. I also think that the members who have been expelled should be
allowed to rejoin the French chapter unconditionally. That is a goodwill
gesture that the current board can easily make and it will go a long way
towards finding a solution to this ridiculous situation.

The French press is starting to talk about what is going on at the French
Wikimedia chapter, are we all waiting for CNN to come in as well? For sure
that will get the WMF moving...

Best regards
Gabe

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:


Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly
who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?

Kind regards


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Andreas Kolbe]

Ilario,

A statement[1] released at the time said,


"Over the past six months, a Wikimedia UK trustee led two Wikipedia-related
projects, Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia, in a way that seemed to some
observers to blur his roles as a Wikimedia UK trustee, a paid consultant
for the projects’ government partners, and an editor of the English
Wikipedia. This raised questions in the Wikimedia community about whether a
trustee was able to balance appropriately the interests of his clients with
his responsibilities to Wikimedia UK, the values and editorial policies of
Wikipedia, and whether any conflict of interest that arose as a result was
effectively managed.

"To better understand the facts and details of these allegations and to
ensure that governance arrangements commensurate with the standing of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia UK and the worldwide Wikimedia movement,
Wikimedia UK’s trustees and the Wikimedia Foundation will jointly appoint
an independent expert advisor to objectively review both Wikimedia UK’s
governance arrangements and its handling of the conflict of interest."


The present situation is not entirely dissimilar: questions about the
then-board's conduct (prior to Chris Keating's chairmanship), and
specifically its handling of conflicts of interest, first arose in the
community and then made their way into press reports.

It's worth remembering that the above WMF/WMUK statement only came about
ten days AFTER the press started picking up on this.

And while it's true that WMUK and WMF jointly commissioned the report, my
recollection is that WMUK did not have much choice in the matter.

The governance review eventually vindicated the community concerns, finding
that there had indeed been significant governance failings.[2]

It seems to me WMUK became a more mature organisation as a result of this
episode. A similar approach and outcome may well be possible for WMFR as
well.

Andreas

[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/28/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-
foundation-and-wikimedia-uk/
[2] http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-
overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly
> who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> On 04/08/2017 17:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> Ilario,
>>
>> A few years ago, WMUK was required to undergo an independent governance
>> review. The review was jointly commissioned by WMUK and WMF. The results
>> were public.[1] That option is available for WMFR today just as it was
>> available for WMUK a few years ago.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-gov
>> ernance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ilario Valdelli 
>> wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion there is a little bit confusion.
>>>
>>> The audit is required by someone (in this case the board) and the audit
>>> reports to the entity requiring it (the board).
>>>
>>> To communicate or not depends on the board. If the board required it to
>>> have a clearer picture to take a decision, the board can keep it private
>>> mainly if there are some personal questions involved in the audit.
>>>
>>> In this specific case if there is a problem between the staff and the
>>> community (as I understand) the audit cannot be managed nor by the staff
>>> neither by the community, because are the two conflictual parties and to
>>> communicate the results to both parties may revamp this conflict.
>>>
>>> But at the same time I understand that also the board is considered
>>> untrusted by the community, so I agree that any audit will be considered
>>> invalid by every parties. In computer science this may be called
>>> "starvation condition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
>>> /Starvation_(computer_science)).  A good governance, like a good
>>> algorithm, should avoid it.
>>>
>>> The biggest problem of starvation is not the condition itself, which can
>>> be blocked somehow, but the most strange solution that people would use
>>> to
>>> solve it. Someone would unplug the power and to reset the system, someone
>>> would burn the system and someone would simple wait that the system will
>>> solve the starvation by itself.
>>>
>>> At that point the FDC has taken the best decision, IMHO, like an external
>>> party, can unblock the starvation.
>>>
>>> Another solution is the General Assembly, but personally I think that the
>>> silent crowd will be the most representative party in this question and
>>> in
>>> general the silent crowd will take always the most moderate position. I
>>> don't see so much moderated position to attract more consent.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>>
>>> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione 

[Wikimedia-l] Strategy update - Wikimania schedule, draft direction, brand awareness research, salons and events (#23)

[Katherine Maher]

Greetings —

Before I get to sharing the latest updates, I want thank each of you again
for your participation in the strategy process. You have helped us to shape
a draft direction that we hope truly reflects the needs of every community
in our movement. No matter where you plan to be in the world between August
9 and 13, I invite you to join us at Wikimania 2017 in person, by remote
attendance, and by using the #wikimania hashtag on social media.[1]

*Our Wikimania schedule*.[2] We will discuss the many insights we have
gathered through the movement strategy process, share and discuss the draft
direction, and work to further understand the future of the movement.
Please visit this page to see updates on the strategy session schedule.

*The working draft for the strategic direction*.[3] A draft of the
strategic direction for the movement is beginning to emerge on Meta. Like
many of you, we are eager to discuss the draft, so we have been drafting in
public as we go. The language is very early, so if you have feedback,
please focus on the substance! I plan to share a more detailed update about
the direction over the next few days.

*Wikipedia brand awareness, attitudes, and usage research.*[4] What do
people know about Wikipedia as a brand? We commissioned surveys in seven
countries to help inform the future of the movement, and shared a summary
of highlights at the most recent Metrics meeting.[5]

*Salons in New York, Washington DC, and Israel.*[6] [7] [8]  We are
continuing to host discussions with experts and community members around
the world about the needs and goals of the movement. We invite you to read
and discuss materials from our latest events.

*Global Voices meeting in Cochabamba, Bolivia.*[9] In collaboration between
the Bolivian Wikimedia working group and Global Voices, 30 representatives
from different indigenous communities gathered to review the inclusion of
indigenous languages and traditions in our projects.

Bien cordialement (French translation: best regards)

And à bientôt for those who will be at Wikimania!

Katherine

[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/07/19/wikimania-montreal-announcement/
[2] https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Brand_awareness,_attitudes,_and_usage_research_(July_2017)

[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities_meetings/2017-07
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/New_York_City,_NY_strategy_salon_with_media_experts_-_June_20,_2017

[7]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Washington,_DC,_strategy_salon_with_US_policy_experts_and_leaders_-_June_22,_2017

[8]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Wikimedia_Israel_Salon_Strategy_Dinner_-_July_17,_2017

[9]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2017_Wikimedia_movement_strategy_-_Wikimedia_Bolivia-Rising_Voices_expert_meeting

-- 
Katherine Maher

Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kma...@wikimedia.org
https://annual.wikimedia.org
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Natacha Rault]

Well thanks to Andreas for pointing this, I really believe that a movement 
advocating for the free sharing of knowledge can not afford to take royalist 
views on who is entitled or not to see the results of any audit and to reflect 
upon it. 

I want to reflect on Illario’s previous words . Well it is not often I agree 
with Ilario on governance issues, but in this case I agree that the FDC has 
taken the adequate decision, one that allows us members, to point out to the 
board that the situation has to change on the basis of the FDC recommendation. 
Of course I will be called a nasty troll by the WMFR board for writing that 
(but now I share the condition with Ilario, which is real comforting).  

Apart from this, it is not a 3 solution dilemna like exposed by Ilario 
previoulsy, because we are not solving a mathematical or computing problem, but 
initiating a negociation process with human beings embedded in a conflict who 
are feeling emotions. One cannot eradicate resentment by taking a computational 
approach to solve conflicts between humans, because humans first need to be 
heard before willing to collaborate : a mediation process always start by the 
presentation of each position. These positions usually move in the process, 
they are not rigid.  

To be successful each party (and there are obviously more than two parties 
there, there are a variety of different positions) has to let the other speak 
and express their point of vue, otherwise we might fall in a starvation case 
(but surely there are less radical solutions than just the 3 ones presented by 
you that allow to have hope and not fear of ”plug pulling”, ”burning” ect).

 If you have a look at this page 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale/septembre_2017#Point_de_l.27OJ_statutaire
 where a diversity of opinions and approaches are discussed to prepare the 
General Assembly, it will show you that we are not facing a minority showing 
extreme opinions: we are facing reasonable wikimedians, trying to find 
solutions and deeply concerned about the situation. 

So it is not correct to adopt a binary approach to present the situation. I 
find it very positive to discover all these point of views, just I I loved 
reading all the different point of views in the strategic review process 
initiated a few months ago by the WMF. Reading all this changes my own 
opinions. Friction of ideas is the basis of our movement. I remember Katherine 
Maher saying in a speech that this confrontation with other ideas in Wikipedia 
helps contributors to become more tolerant, and this is a vision that truly 
appeals to me. We should not be afraid of diverging opinions, we should be 
afraid of  puritan and totalitarian pictures depicting everything as perfect. 

The positive thing is that the Board, whatever it does, will now have feedback 
and information. I work in human ressources: leaders need feedbacks to be 
efficient, in assessing leadership skills one will always look at the capacity 
of obtaining feedback, negociating, motivating and offering a vision for the 
future. 

I would also like to highlight I find this wording of yours problematic: 

"In some countries no profit association are linked to strict parameters and 
the governance is not an option. I don't know personally the system law of 
France, but I suppose that it's weaker than in other countries.”

I dont think it is adequate to assume that the French system of law is weaker 
than in other countries (and which countries please?). Especially since you 
start by saying you dont know… 

Kind regards, 

Natacha 
Le 4 août 2017 à 18:00, Chris Keating  a écrit :

> Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly who?
> Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
> 

By the Board.

The dynamics were different to the current situation with Wikimedia
France, in that the Wikimedia UK Board at the time was not engaged in
a big fight with its community.

Regards,

Chris
(chair of Wikimedia UK at that point in time!)

___
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, 


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Rogol Domedonfors]

James

If the WMF is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter as if that
chapter were a mere subsidiary, then it might inherit the responsibility
for any content creation that the chapter had made in the past, or indeed
might do in the future.  Mind you, I only say "might", because I am not a
lawyer, although I sat opposite one in the London Underground once.  I
merely suggest that someone who actually is a lawyer, preferably even
employed or retained by the Foundation, should consider the matter and give
the WMF a professional opinion.  If you happen to be qualified to advise
the Foundation on the matter, by all means do so.  If not, so that your
opinion on the matter is as authoritative as mine, which is to say, not at
all, then perhaps you may wish to desist from discussing the matter
further, as I propose to do.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:02 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Rogol,
>
> What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation
> be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards
> of a Chapter?
>
> Is there some French law that requires charities to be more
> independent of their international affiliates than would be under such
> a requirement?
>
> The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
> because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
> engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
> image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
> months notice.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
> > If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
> > the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
> > status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
> > of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation
> is
> > free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to
> control.
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Gabriel Thullen]

What is important here is that trust has to be rebuilt between the chapter
members on one hand and the board & senior staff on the other hand.

The way I understand the situation is that the board has expelled a few
vocal opponents, a few board members have resigned, one staffer was fired
for refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had their
membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join
the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I
may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it up.
The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they are
related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with
fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us find
an issue to this crisis. (
http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)

I remain convinced that WMFR needs an independent governance audit, and the
results should be made available to the chapter members and to the staff.
Something drastic needs to be done so that this chapter can continue to
function. I also think that the members who have been expelled should be
allowed to rejoin the French chapter unconditionally. That is a goodwill
gesture that the current board can easily make and it will go a long way
towards finding a solution to this ridiculous situation.

The French press is starting to talk about what is going on at the French
Wikimedia chapter, are we all waiting for CNN to come in as well? For sure
that will get the WMF moving...

Best regards
Gabe

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly
> who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> On 04/08/2017 17:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> Ilario,
>>
>> A few years ago, WMUK was required to undergo an independent governance
>> review. The review was jointly commissioned by WMUK and WMF. The results
>> were public.[1] That option is available for WMFR today just as it was
>> available for WMUK a few years ago.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-gov
>> ernance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ilario Valdelli 
>> wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion there is a little bit confusion.
>>>
>>> The audit is required by someone (in this case the board) and the audit
>>> reports to the entity requiring it (the board).
>>>
>>> To communicate or not depends on the board. If the board required it to
>>> have a clearer picture to take a decision, the board can keep it private
>>> mainly if there are some personal questions involved in the audit.
>>>
>>> In this specific case if there is a problem between the staff and the
>>> community (as I understand) the audit cannot be managed nor by the staff
>>> neither by the community, because are the two conflictual parties and to
>>> communicate the results to both parties may revamp this conflict.
>>>
>>> But at the same time I understand that also the board is considered
>>> untrusted by the community, so I agree that any audit will be considered
>>> invalid by every parties. In computer science this may be called
>>> "starvation condition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
>>> /Starvation_(computer_science)).  A good governance, like a good
>>> algorithm, should avoid it.
>>>
>>> The biggest problem of starvation is not the condition itself, which can
>>> be blocked somehow, but the most strange solution that people would use
>>> to
>>> solve it. Someone would unplug the power and to reset the system, someone
>>> would burn the system and someone would simple wait that the system will
>>> solve the starvation by itself.
>>>
>>> At that point the FDC has taken the best decision, IMHO, like an external
>>> party, can unblock the starvation.
>>>
>>> Another solution is the General Assembly, but personally I think that the
>>> silent crowd will be the most representative party in this question and
>>> in
>>> general the silent crowd will take always the most moderate position. I
>>> don't see so much moderated position to attract more consent.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/08/2017 12:03, Gilles Chagnon wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.

 However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no
 report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations
 and a
 series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was
 shared
 outside of the board/the direction. I can understand that some points
 may
 be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been
 shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write their
 conclusion in a suitable way.

  G. Chagnon

 Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Chris Keating]

> Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly who?
> Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
>

By the Board.

The dynamics were different to the current situation with Wikimedia
France, in that the Wikimedia UK Board at the time was not engaged in
a big fight with its community.

Regards,

Chris
(chair of Wikimedia UK at that point in time!)

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Andreas Kolbe]

Ilario,

A few years ago, WMUK was required to undergo an independent governance
review. The review was jointly commissioned by WMUK and WMF. The results
were public.[1] That option is available for WMFR today just as it was
available for WMUK a few years ago.

Andreas

[1]
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> In my opinion there is a little bit confusion.
>
> The audit is required by someone (in this case the board) and the audit
> reports to the entity requiring it (the board).
>
> To communicate or not depends on the board. If the board required it to
> have a clearer picture to take a decision, the board can keep it private
> mainly if there are some personal questions involved in the audit.
>
> In this specific case if there is a problem between the staff and the
> community (as I understand) the audit cannot be managed nor by the staff
> neither by the community, because are the two conflictual parties and to
> communicate the results to both parties may revamp this conflict.
>
> But at the same time I understand that also the board is considered
> untrusted by the community, so I agree that any audit will be considered
> invalid by every parties. In computer science this may be called
> "starvation condition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
> /Starvation_(computer_science)).  A good governance, like a good
> algorithm, should avoid it.
>
> The biggest problem of starvation is not the condition itself, which can
> be blocked somehow, but the most strange solution that people would use to
> solve it. Someone would unplug the power and to reset the system, someone
> would burn the system and someone would simple wait that the system will
> solve the starvation by itself.
>
> At that point the FDC has taken the best decision, IMHO, like an external
> party, can unblock the starvation.
>
> Another solution is the General Assembly, but personally I think that the
> silent crowd will be the most representative party in this question and in
> general the silent crowd will take always the most moderate position. I
> don't see so much moderated position to attract more consent.
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> On 04/08/2017 12:03, Gilles Chagnon wrote:
>
>> I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.
>>
>> However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no
>> report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and a
>> series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was shared
>> outside of the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may
>> be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been
>> shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write their
>> conclusion in a suitable way.
>>
>> G. Chagnon
>>
>> Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
>>
>>> Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the
>>> most appropriate solution.
>>>
>>> It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be
>>> interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and another
>>> by the FDC.
>>>
>>> The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too,
>>> defining the auditing entity.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>>
> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>
>
> ---
> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast
> antivirus.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Natacha Rault]

In any case now what we would like is an independent audit, addressing very 
precise questions pushed by the community of members  To go through an audit to 
get an IDEAS label is not the same as going through an audit resulting from a 
governance crisis, The evaluation processes are not the same, the context is 
usually not the same. 
Ideally it would be much better if the community got involved more in what is 
happening in chapters, as chapters spend the money derived from the notoriety 
of their work as contributors, thus getting also the media attention. 


Natacha Rault / Nattes à chat


> Le 4 août 2017 à 12:03, Gilles Chagnon  a écrit :
> 
> I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.
> 
> However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no report 
> to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and a series of 
> good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was shared outside of 
> the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be 
> confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared, 
> provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a 
> suitable way.
> 
>   G. Chag
> 
> Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
>> Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the most 
>> appropriate solution.
>> It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be interesting 
>> to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and another by the FDC.
>> The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too, defining 
>> the auditing entity.
>> Kind regards
>> On 04/08/2017 11:27, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:
>>> Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of 
>>> Ilario Valdelli 
>>> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM
>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
>>> 
>>> The power of WMF, defined in the agreement, is basically limited to
>>> revoke the chapters agreement.
>>> 
>>> There is no mention in the Chapters agreement that WMF can take a
>>> control of a chapter and to manage a General Assembly.
>>> 
>>> You forget that the legal pilaster of a chapter is the bylaws.
>>> 
>>> On 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:
 Rogol,
 
 What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation
 be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards
 of a Chapter?
 
 Is there some French law that requires charities to be more
 independent of their international affiliates than would be under such
 a requirement?
 
 The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
 because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
 engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
 image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
 months notice.
 
 
 On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors  
 wrote:
> If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
> the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
> status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
> of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation is
> free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to 
> control.
> ___
> 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, 
> 
 ___
 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, 
 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Ilario Valdelli
>>> Wikimedia CH
>>> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
>>> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
>>> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
>>> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
>>> Tel: +41764821371
>>> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Chris Keating]

A few weeks ago I think I found a copy of WMFR's chapter agreement on
a Wiki somewhere. I had the impression (maybe wrongly) that it renewed
each January, and had to be cancelled by either party 3 months in
advance if they did not wish to renew it.

That puts the WMF's decision point somewhere in late September or early October.

I believe that if there is no change in WMFR's position then the WMF
owes a duty to the wider movement to withdraw the Chapter Agreement at
that point. (And if I were on the WMF Board, which of course I'm not,
this is what I would be saying). I don't know if WMF is officially
thinking along these lines, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have a
plan for a worst case scenario

The special GA is the only opportunity WMFR has to demonstrate it's
changing before the WMF has to make up its mind. So if WMFR Board
manipulates the special GA to prevent criticism or change, then I
imagine that will not be helping their position at all.

Regards,

Chris



On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Gilles Chagnon  wrote:
> I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.
>
> However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no report
> to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and a series
> of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was shared outside
> of the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be
> confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared,
> provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a
> suitable way.
>
> G. Chagnon
>
>
> Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
>>
>> Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the most
>> appropriate solution.
>>
>> It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be interesting
>> to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and another by the FDC.
>>
>> The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too,
>> defining the auditing entity.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> On 04/08/2017 11:27, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:
>>>
>>> Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws
>>>
>>> 
>>> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
>>> Ilario Valdelli 
>>> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM
>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
>>>
>>> The power of WMF, defined in the agreement, is basically limited to
>>> revoke the chapters agreement.
>>>
>>> There is no mention in the Chapters agreement that WMF can take a
>>> control of a chapter and to manage a General Assembly.
>>>
>>> You forget that the legal pilaster of a chapter is the bylaws.
>>>
>>> On 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:

 Rogol,

 What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation
 be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards
 of a Chapter?

 Is there some French law that requires charities to be more
 independent of their international affiliates than would be under such
 a requirement?

 The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
 because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
 engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
 image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
 months notice.


 On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors
  wrote:
>
> If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter
> at
> the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the
> legal
> status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status)
> and
> of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation
> is
> free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to
> control.
> ___
> 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,
> 

 ___
 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,
 
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ilario Valdelli
>>> Wikimedia CH
>>> Verein zur Förderung 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Gilles Chagnon]

I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.

However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no 
report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and 
a series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was 
shared outside of the board/the direction. I can understand that some 
points may be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could 
have been shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write 
their conclusion in a suitable way.


G. Chagnon

Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the 
most appropriate solution.


It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be 
interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and 
another by the FDC.


The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too, 
defining the auditing entity.


Kind regards

On 04/08/2017 11:27, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:

Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws


From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf 
of Ilario Valdelli 

Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

The power of WMF, defined in the agreement, is basically limited to
revoke the chapters agreement.

There is no mention in the Chapters agreement that WMF can take a
control of a chapter and to manage a General Assembly.

You forget that the legal pilaster of a chapter is the bylaws.

On 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:

Rogol,

What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation
be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards
of a Chapter?

Is there some French law that requires charities to be more
independent of their international affiliates than would be under such
a requirement?

The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
months notice.


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
 wrote:
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a 
chapter at
the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the 
legal
status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour 
status) and
of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The 
Foundation is
free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to 
control.

___
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, 


___
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, 



--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast 
antivirus.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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, 


___
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, 







___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Ilario Valdelli]

Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the 
most appropriate solution.


It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be 
interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and 
another by the FDC.


The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too, 
defining the auditing entity.


Kind regards

On 04/08/2017 11:27, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:

Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws


From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of Ilario 
Valdelli 
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

The power of WMF, defined in the agreement, is basically limited to
revoke the chapters agreement.

There is no mention in the Chapters agreement that WMF can take a
control of a chapter and to manage a General Assembly.

You forget that the legal pilaster of a chapter is the bylaws.

On 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:

Rogol,

What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation
be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards
of a Chapter?

Is there some French law that requires charities to be more
independent of their international affiliates than would be under such
a requirement?

The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
months notice.


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation is
free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to control.
___
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, 


___
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, 



--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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, 

___
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, 




--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Ilario Valdelli]

The power of WMF, defined in the agreement, is basically limited to 
revoke the chapters agreement.


There is no mention in the Chapters agreement that WMF can take a 
control of a chapter and to manage a General Assembly.


You forget that the legal pilaster of a chapter is the bylaws.

On 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:

Rogol,

What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation
be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards
of a Chapter?

Is there some French law that requires charities to be more
independent of their international affiliates than would be under such
a requirement?

The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
months notice.


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation is
free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to control.
___
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, 


___
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, 




--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Ilario Valdelli]

The comment is a little bit partial.

The governance is partially connected with the local system law. In some 
countries no profit association are linked to strict parameters and the 
governance is not an option. I don't know personally the system law of 
France, but I suppose that it's weaker than in other countries.


The last point is connected with the point of privileges which are, at 
the opposite, balanced by stricter parameters than user groups.


Chapters have some obligations compensated by few privileges, and 
honestly the state of User Group is at the moment the easiest way to get 
an official recognition by WMF.


It's sufficient to check how many user groups have been created recently 
and how many chapters to define clearly if there is a "marginalization 
of alternatives".


Kind regards

On 04/08/2017 09:55, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:

The current situation (further) demonstrates a huge weakness in the current 
system of the governance of local communities. The problems being discussed 
here are far from unique to Wikimedia France and can be seen not only in other 
affiliates, but also in the long-festering problems of the administration of 
Wikimedia projects. As Rogol and others note... the Foundation has it hands 
tied to a large degree because of both legal and ideological concerns. But this 
means that individuals and small groups of people are able to work the system 
to their advantage, with little to no accountability to either their local 
communities or to the overall movement.


As for the idea of forming alternate organizations, that is easier said than 
done. I speak from my experience with Wiki Learning Tec de Monterrey. It took 
us almost 2 years to get approval from AffCom as a user group among other 
struggles. The privileges that chapters have in particular allow for 
marginalization of alternatives.



From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of Rogol 
Domedonfors 
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 11:38:01 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation is
free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to control.



--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[James Salsman]

Rogol,

What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation
be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards
of a Chapter?

Is there some French law that requires charities to be more
independent of their international affiliates than would be under such
a requirement?

The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
months notice.


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
> If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
> the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
> status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
> of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation is
> free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to control.
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] RfC regarding the Meta CU Policy

[James Heilman]

Have started a RfC on clarifying the CU policy on meta

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_comment/Clarification_to_CU_policy#Discuss

Best
-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
___
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,