[Wikimedia-l] Re: Fwd: Meta, WikiMedia, and the Hewlett Foundation partner with Africa No Filter

[Gnangarra]

Kaya Mike

I see the joke in

> So ... you're not involving https://meta.wikimedia.org/ in this project?

as some of us will also remember Meta Dioxin of Yes Minister fame from the
1980's
but the Meta involvement is Facebooks new alias or corporate brand not our
project   and that would have been at the centre of everyones mind when
reading that press release as FB had just made their announcement and would
also be one of the first announce by a third party using the new
name/branding

I agree with Flo here surely any WMF collaboration would have included WMF
legal getting to review and veto any press releases mentioning our
trademarks/community before they go public

Boodarwun

>
On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 at 02:01, Mike Peel  wrote:

> So ... you're not involving https://meta.wikimedia.org/ in this project?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 22/12/21 16:43:17, Florence Devouard wrote:
> > Hello Jorge
> >
> >
> > I really appreciate you took the time to send a public update before the
> > holiday season, as well as the private email with additional food for
> > thought. On Monday afternoon, I was gloomingly watching the mailing list
> > and thinking "still nothing in there". So I really appreciate the
> feedback.
> >
> > I'll get back to you in January on a couple of points that I think
> > deserve clarification. Before or after the diff depending.
> >
> > In the meanwhile, please enjoy the break.
> >
> > Florence
> >
> >
> > PS: by the way... I fully agree with Sj... it is a good idea to actually
> > discuss with partners to agree in advance on how respective brands will
> > be used. And to actually *require* that our brand not be used in certain
> > circonstances (such as in association with other brands) without prior
> > agreement.
> >
> > For those who forgot about this page :
> > https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Trademark_policy
> >
> > It reminds to all partners (which really ought to be, not only
> > individuals, loose groups, and wikimedia affiliates, BUT ALSO big
> > partners), what is automatically allowed, what requires notification,
> > and what requires authorization.
> >
> > Obviously, it is a big complicated to get a trademark policy with
> > details about what not to do (such as associating Wikimedia name with
> > Meta in a press release). This would be too detailed.
> > But if the trademark policy had been properly applied, it would have
> > required a legal review of the full project terms of agreement. And the
> > project terms of agreement could have included a provision regarding
> > communication does and don't and prevented our brand to be used in such
> > a unthoughtful manner.
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 21/12/2021 à 19:24, Jorge Vargas a écrit :
> >> Dear Florence,
> >>
> >> As promised, wanted to make sure we circled back before the holiday
> >> break after getting more information. Per my last communication, I
> >> want to reiterate we are indeed working on a project that is framed
> >> under a larger collaboration being discussed with the Africa Union.
> >> This collaboration was not initiated or directed specifically with
> >> Africa No Filter, which was only involved by the African Union as part
> >> of the process. Along the way, Africa No Filter has shown more
> >> interest in playing a more active role in the project, which we're
> >> still currently discussing if and how they partake. So far, our main
> >> focus has been identifying ways to work with the Africa Union to plug
> >> them into ongoing and future priorities and initiatives in the region,
> >> with this project being the first step towards that.
> >>
> >> Due to some WMF staff absences and a few logistical mishaps, we were
> >> not in a good position to fully coordinate on Africa No Filter’s
> >> announcement, which went live without final confirmation from them.
> >> That was not our intention, and we regret if this caught you or anyone
> >> else off guard. The goal remains to finalize a Diff post that will
> >> share the details of the project and was meant to be posted prior to
> >> any other announcements. In the interest of allowing everyone their
> >> holiday rest (and because this project is not really yet in motion),
> >> we will be communicating more about it in January 2022 in a Diff post
> >> and other channels. We also want to reiterate that this partnership
> >> has absolutely nothing to do with Meta or the Hewlett Foundation, and
> >> although we would have preferred not to be grouped together in a
> >> single announcement, we can't control the way a third party decides to
> >> share their information.
> >>
> >> Our work with the Africa Union has started in 2021 as part of the work
> >> the Foundation has done to listen to local initiatives, identify ways
> >> to engage, and support existing priorities in the region. Recognizing
> >> we can always do better, our teams are plugged into the field as much
> >> as possible, hearing needs and identifying synergies to what the
> >> movement is prioritizing locally

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Fwd: Meta, WikiMedia, and the Hewlett Foundation partner with Africa No Filter

[Mike Peel]

So ... you're not involving https://meta.wikimedia.org/ in this project?

Thanks,
Mike

On 22/12/21 16:43:17, Florence Devouard wrote:

Hello Jorge


I really appreciate you took the time to send a public update before the 
holiday season, as well as the private email with additional food for 
thought. On Monday afternoon, I was gloomingly watching the mailing list 
and thinking "still nothing in there". So I really appreciate the feedback.


I'll get back to you in January on a couple of points that I think 
deserve clarification. Before or after the diff depending.


In the meanwhile, please enjoy the break.

Florence


PS: by the way... I fully agree with Sj... it is a good idea to actually 
discuss with partners to agree in advance on how respective brands will 
be used. And to actually *require* that our brand not be used in certain 
circonstances (such as in association with other brands) without prior 
agreement.


For those who forgot about this page : 
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Trademark_policy


It reminds to all partners (which really ought to be, not only 
individuals, loose groups, and wikimedia affiliates, BUT ALSO big 
partners), what is automatically allowed, what requires notification, 
and what requires authorization.


Obviously, it is a big complicated to get a trademark policy with 
details about what not to do (such as associating Wikimedia name with 
Meta in a press release). This would be too detailed.
But if the trademark policy had been properly applied, it would have 
required a legal review of the full project terms of agreement. And the 
project terms of agreement could have included a provision regarding 
communication does and don't and prevented our brand to be used in such 
a unthoughtful manner.




Le 21/12/2021 à 19:24, Jorge Vargas a écrit :

Dear Florence,

As promised, wanted to make sure we circled back before the holiday 
break after getting more information. Per my last communication, I 
want to reiterate we are indeed working on a project that is framed 
under a larger collaboration being discussed with the Africa Union. 
This collaboration was not initiated or directed specifically with 
Africa No Filter, which was only involved by the African Union as part 
of the process. Along the way, Africa No Filter has shown more 
interest in playing a more active role in the project, which we're 
still currently discussing if and how they partake. So far, our main 
focus has been identifying ways to work with the Africa Union to plug 
them into ongoing and future priorities and initiatives in the region, 
with this project being the first step towards that.


Due to some WMF staff absences and a few logistical mishaps, we were 
not in a good position to fully coordinate on Africa No Filter’s 
announcement, which went live without final confirmation from them. 
That was not our intention, and we regret if this caught you or anyone 
else off guard. The goal remains to finalize a Diff post that will 
share the details of the project and was meant to be posted prior to 
any other announcements. In the interest of allowing everyone their 
holiday rest (and because this project is not really yet in motion), 
we will be communicating more about it in January 2022 in a Diff post 
and other channels. We also want to reiterate that this partnership 
has absolutely nothing to do with Meta or the Hewlett Foundation, and 
although we would have preferred not to be grouped together in a 
single announcement, we can't control the way a third party decides to 
share their information.


Our work with the Africa Union has started in 2021 as part of the work 
the Foundation has done to listen to local initiatives, identify ways 
to engage, and support existing priorities in the region. Recognizing 
we can always do better, our teams are plugged into the field as much 
as possible, hearing needs and identifying synergies to what the 
movement is prioritizing locally. We strongly believe this project is 
aligned and follows the line of other projects we've been supporting 
in the region. This or any other project is also not coming from staff 
or stakeholders outside of Africa, and it's our critical intention 
that relevant work for the region and our movement there is led and 
supported regionally. We can also assure you that the project will 
continue to have plenty of room for feedback and discussion, as it's 
meant to be implemented within the movement priorities in 2022. We 
expect to have those interested partake and get involved!


Your email does flag something relevant that we take to heart, which 
is how we can find ways to make sure relevant stakeholders locally can 
have better participation and due diligence earlier in these 
processes. Our intention will never be to create competing priorities, 
yet we don't think it's also feasible to consult each and every 
opportunity at hand, creating even extra work for volunteers. We 
believe there's a delicate balance

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

Greetings!

As Maggie said, the Global Advocacy/Public Policy team will be sharing more
detailed answers to many questions about the Human Rights Policy in
January. In the meantime, I thought I'd offer a bit more context that might
be helpful.

I joined

the WMF in late September as VP for Global Advocacy and am responsible for
the final version of the Human Rights Policy approved by the Board of
Trustees, building on a great deal of earlier work led by the WMF's
Director of Public Policy (who reports to me) and the WMF's Human Rights
Lead who reports to Maggie.

The exact timing of the Human Rights Policy's depended on the Board of
Trustees meeting schedule. They had a meeting in early December. The next
meeting after that will not be until March. While approving the policy
right before the holidays was indeed sub-optimal for reasons many have
noted, waiting until March to enact it would be too late for WMF's annual
planning cycle. Given that implementation of the policy has implications
for how budget is allocated in the coming fiscal year, the consequences of
delay beyond the December Board of Trustees meeting would be non-trivial
for WMF's ability to anticipate, mitigate, and respond to threats to
individuals as well as policy threats to the movement.

Maggie has written about sensitivities surrounding threats to individuals.
Regarding policy threats to the movement, our response to those is not
intended to be secret. The policy threats include regulatory and other
threats by governments that the WMF has a long history of taking stands
against, including censorship (an attack on freedom of expression as a
human right) and surveillance (an attack on privacy as a human right).
The Wikimedia
Public Policy portal   contains information
about stances that WMF has taken, and will continue to take. That said, I
would like to make an appeal for patience as we ramp up our team and build
capacity to engage with the movement, and improve how we communicate about
our work.

As many on this list know much better than I do, in 2019 Global Advocacy

was made a priority in the Medium-term plan

for
implementing the 2030 Movement Strategy ratified by the community. As of
August 2021 the WMF Public Policy Team had only three people who were
making solid progress on policy analysis, development, and engagement on
policy issues such as those listed in the Public Policy portal. However, in
order to be able to fulfill our objectives of engaging with the community
and other stakeholders on our advocacy work, the team badly needed further
staff capacity and strategic leadership. Now the team has grown to seven
people, but for most of the past three months we have been swamped with
onboarding, hiring more people so that we can actually execute on our
goals, responding to time-sensitive policy developments in Europe
,
Asia
,
and Latin America
,
and showing up in various international fora to defend the interests of our
community including on copyright, intermediary liability protections, and
net neutrality. All of these things affect the community's ability to
access and share free knowledge, which is itself a human right. All of the
policy positions taken by our global advocacy team are intended to defend
the digital rights  (a subset
of human rights, per the excellent Wikipedia article on the subject) of our
community members.

Frustratingly, our systems for publishing and communicating about our
global advocacy work, and building processes for communicating and
collaborating with the the broader community, are either stalled or
non-existent as of today. But my job, and that of some new colleagues who
are even newer me, and others not yet hired, is to change that as soon as
humanly feasible with available resources. My priority for the next couple
months is to put people and processes in place so that we can start to
publish regularly updated information about our work on the website. We
need to create a regular newsletter about what we are doing. We need to
share more information on Meta, update it regularly and participate in
discussions about it there. We need to establish channels and a productive
process to figure out how WMF staff and people across the broader movement
can all work t