>We expect, however, to at least be told that you're planning to ignore our
>request. To simply thank us for clarifying it, as you did, while secretly
>having no intention of complying with it in the first place is hardly
>something one does when negotiating in good faith.
Just to clarify this
Dear Kirill,
Thank you, that was very informative indeed.
I forgot to mention in my previous message, those three false statements
about WMPT conduct were presented as part of the justification for the WMPT
suspension in the original notification, sent 15 July. Despite receiving
all
Paulo,
You were provided ample details regarding these concerns, both in the
original suspension letter and in response to the specific questions raised
during the subsequent email discussion.
If Wikimedia Portugal wants to publish the full text of the suspension
letter and have a public
Kirill,
Correction: The message sent to you stating we were not going to head those
specific requests due to its illegality was sent in 17 July, not 15.
While we are at it, can you please explain why the AffCom has, in a message
dated 15 July, falsely accused WMPT of:
- "*Not advising the
Kirill,
I requested a clarification regarding WMPT activities, and Gonçalo asked a
general clarification, also mentioning activities. In no way it implies
that we have understood your request as applying only to activities - In
fact, my understanding is everyone at WMPT understood it as a general
Paulo,
The request for clarification to which you refer was -- as I'm sure you
recall -- in reference to carrying out planned activities, and had nothing
to do with any legal matters, tax filings, or the like; the same was true
of the committee's response:
Olá Gonçalo,
>
> Yes, you can count
Paulo,
The email that the Affiliations Committee sent to you -- among various
others -- on May 18 read as follows:
Dear members of Wikimedia Portugal,
>
> The recent developments in your chapter have been brought to our attention
> by a number of members of the chapter, as well as members of
It does not surprises me in the least the AffCom had forced other
affiliates to "negotiate" with reported harassers.
On the message sent to the associates of WMPT in 18 May, the AffCom
demanded "*all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this
conflict and to work to resolve
While I cannot speak to the legality of these actions, Affcom's demand that
we (Brazilian affiliates) meet with reported harassers was very troubling
to me. The fact that despite our agreement with that baffling condition no
actual mediation took place, Affcom refused to engage with
Two illegal requests, to be more precise.
Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15
April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese
law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly,
was the only valid board of the
I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or neglect
their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing
trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that AffCom
is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am
I concur with Teles that a conflict resolution body would be very helpful
to assist in the situations the AffCom has to deal. Though in the case of
Wikimedia Portugal the conflict was limited to a unique individual
harassing, stalking and sending legal and personal threats to several
members of
The way AffCom deals with certain situations is clearly not transparent
enough for the Wikimedia environment.
We have a situation in Brazil that remains unsolved and Affcom wouldn’t
even follow their own ways of dealing with it.
Here is a clearer example:
Anyway, getting back to the more abstract case.
I do not agree with total transparency to the "outside world" on
communications between AffCom and the affiliate. As Lodewijk mentioned, and
we felt on our skins over here, sometimes (most of the time?) it does more
harm than good, at least in an
Hi all,
As a daft question, why doesn’t affcom say to the affiliates something like "we
won’t publish this, but if you want to, then please go ahead and do so
yourself”? That way, it’s up to the affiliate to work out what works best in
their culture/country/community and to go with that,
Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they did or
didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been heading
in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar -
often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and
handled
I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my main
feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the public
interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or an
investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because it is
bad news or
Hi Kirill,
(changing the topic to reflect better the more abstract case: this is no
longer about WMPT, as I don't know enough about that specific instance)
I appreciate your concerns for embarrassing situations. This may be the
least painful approach in many of the cases. I also appreciate that
18 matches
Mail list logo
