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
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
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
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
I can't tell which part of this situation is the more sad; is it the events
themselves, the total absence of any comment from AffCom, or the very
limited interest evinced by the rest of the folks subscribed to this list?
It seems if we follow the AffCom model described here, we should take WMPT
Hello everyone,
The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, October
17, 2018 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJrJLWuNvXo
As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. You
can also watch our past research
I think there's a question to think about, about how the movement
handles this kind of situation where there are evidently serious
governance problems affecting an affiliate.
There are some clear-cut situations (e.g. total inactivity) where the
current de-recognition process can simply be
Just a quick message to clarify that the only conflict that ever existed in
Wikimedia Portugal, as far as I know, was with João Vasconcelos himself.
Paulo
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
escreveu no dia quinta, 11/10/2018 à(s) 15:38:
> The pro forma statement bout what a chapter is is
The pro forma statement bout what a chapter is is valuable, but I think many
of us kinda got the idea that the problem was not the starting point (otherwise
why electing him?) but came later. It's possible that someone else with more
community experience would have never behaved such way, but
Hi Illario,
Apologies, I probably explained myself poorly. I never said that a chapter
is a representative of the Wikimedia community, rather I was trying to
explain that João’s claimed experience (emphasis on claimed) in management
and conflict resolution was a major factor in him being elected
The best mistake you do is to consider the wikimedia chapter as a
representative of the Wikipedia community while this statement is basically
wrong.
When you say that Vasconcelos had no Wikipedia editing experience and
continue to support your position using this motivation, you probably have
no
11 matches
Mail list logo
