Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

A blanket ban sweeps in possible contributors and potential employees. A well-crafted policy, properly administered, generally, would not. Fred Bauder On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 04:15:33 -0500 Yair Rand wrote: When and how the Wikimedia Foundation should associate itself

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

Hoi, Yes we can. Lots of Wikimedians talked about this but do not ignore the fact that lots of Wikimedians had their reasons for not wanting to ask attention for Bassel. We did not have a banner and is this our best practice? It is extremely unlikely that Bassel is still alive and I am not saying

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Hi Nathan, The AffCom and the WMF have been in touch for many months with groups that are not-compliant in different areas, especially their activities [or lack of them]. So, a group that has been inactive for a long period of time has been contacted in regards to this. Some of these groups

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Hoi, It is in this same list. Thanks, GerardM On 5 February 2017 at 10:39, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi Gerard, > > I don't believe that the Language Committee is an affiliated organization - > so I'm not sure why affiliate requirements would apply. Or did I miss >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

Le 05/02/2017 à 10:45, Gerard Meijssen a écrit : Hoi, Yair you are wrong. When our director spoke up against the ukaze of Mr Trump about people visiting our office, the only office of the Wikimedia Foundation, it directly affected our work, our mission. We have WMF employees that cannot come to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] February 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#5)

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Oloruntoba Oyeyele < oloruntobaoyey...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for this update. Most especially, it's interesting to know the > renewed focus on the African community. It has been overdue and it is great we can work more in this exciting region! :) dj

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

When and how the Wikimedia Foundation should associate itself publicly on policy and political issues is not a new topic, and (as I have quite recently discovered) official guidelines have been around for nearly five years now. The Guidelines on Foundation Policy and Political Association [1],

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Hello Gerard, the chapters and thematic organizations are entrusted with certain functions and authorities. For example a chapter enjoys regional (or country wide) exclusivity in their operating region. They are perceived in the public as if they are official representatives of our movement

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Andrea Zanni wrote: > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Yair Rand wrote: > > > "Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. > It > > is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > I fail to see who you are targeting and on what basis. My impression is > that it only has to do with money.. I understand this. For other parts like > the language committee there are no reports except

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

Hoi, Yair you are wrong. When our director spoke up against the ukaze of Mr Trump about people visiting our office, the only office of the Wikimedia Foundation, it directly affected our work, our mission. We have WMF employees that cannot come to the office any longer. We have employees that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Hi Mike, It's certainly not all -- or even most -- of them; as we've mentioned, this affects affiliates that are both non-compliant *and* unwilling or unable to return to compliance. We are, I think, quite forgiving of occasional compliance issues, such as late reports, so long as an affiliate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Hi Gerard, I don't believe that the Language Committee is an affiliated organization - so I'm not sure why affiliate requirements would apply. Or did I miss something there? Lodewijk 2017-02-05 10:22 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen : > Hoi, > I fail to see who you are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

I'm really not sure we can say that we have let one of us die in prison! Especially that we did not care (lots of wikimedians talked about Bassel as soon as they learnt about his situation). https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/08/bassel-missing-syria/ 2017-02-05 10:45 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Hi Nathan, To expand a bit on Maor's reply: the Affiliations Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation continue to view affiliate de-recognition as a last resort for cases where an affiliate is not only in violation of affiliate requirements or agreements with the WMF, but is also unwilling or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Hi Maor/Kirill/AffCom, Which organisations are we talking about here? From the crosses on the reports page on Meta, it looks like it is: - Wikimedia Chile - Wikimedia Hong Kong - Wikimedia India - Wikimedia Macedonia - Wikimedia Macau - Wikimedia Mexico - Wikimedia Philippines - Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Hoi, I fail to see who you are targeting and on what basis. My impression is that it only has to do with money.. I understand this. For other parts like the language committee there are no reports except for the activity on its mailing list. I fail to see why it has to report to anyone. It is not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Yair Rand wrote: > "Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It > is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to > learn, to share our knowledge with others." > The point is, you are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Hi Nathan, I would say the reasons can change, but one of the most important are being inactive for a very long period of time, and repeated failure to provide a response and a plan to restart activities, despite offering advise and assistance. Another could be a serious violation of the

[Wikimedia-l] Moderation duties

I've decided to relieve myself of the moderator job. The current moderators are listed at the bottom of the listinfo page at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l Best wishes, Richard. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

[Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be appropriate to forward his

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Hoi, The Dutch chapter is well respected and it is why I can use it as an example. The Dutch chapter does not represent Wikipedia or any of the other projects. It cannot do this because the Wikimedia Foundation has this exclusive right. So when a chapter is said to represent the Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Hello Gerard, I didn't say that a chapter represent a project or the Foundation. I said it is perceived as a representative of the movement. For example, if the EU asks for opinion of the revision of the copy right law. The answers by the european chapters are perceived as the answer of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

Hoi, We do have values and my arguments are solid what I find lacking is any argument whereby you try to convince us what I am missing. Let me be blunt. I hate the way people abuse political sentiments and try to convince us that they are enough to not see the facts that are in front of us. What

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

Anna, > As you may have noticed, threaded discussions become difficult for me to > visually navigate after a while. Thus, the color. > Sorry, colour doesn't come through on the mailing list. > Call me naive, but I’m excited by the prospect of the movement strategy >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman wrote: > > The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact, is > whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain > the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

The second part of this IMO is not accurate "The Dutch chapter does not represent Wikipedia or any of the other projects. It cannot do this because the Wikimedia Foundation has this exclusive right." The Wikimedia movement which is a combination of the WMF, chapters and thorgs, along with the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:15 AM Yair Rand wrote: > The Guidelines on Foundation Policy and Political Association > established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring up the > issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies, listing > several

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order

Would this action fall under "Collaborative advocacy" in the Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline? The section refers to "collaborat[ing] with another organization to take action on a particular policy or political question". The example given is signing a petition by the EFF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

​In response to James comment​ > The Wikimedia movement which is a combination of the WMF, chapters and > thorgs, along with the communities represent Wikipedia. ​The Chapters dont represent Wikipedia we support the contributors to Wikipedia and the other projects as well as promote the reuse

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Kirill Lokshin wrote: >It's also worth noting, incidentally, that the table on the reports page >only tracks compliance with annual activity and financial reporting >requirements, and not any other requirements that affiliates may be >subject to under their agreements with the WMF. For reference,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

Hoi, When we finally have to pay carbon tax on aviation fuel, it will be non discriminatory. It may affect us but it is only money. Really your argument is not about the same thing. When I indicate that our reputation suffers because of us using dirty data centres, it is our reputation and it is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Hi James, I'd like to agree with you, but in practice because WMF controls both the trademark agreements and affiliate agreements, in practice WMF has wide latitude in determining who other than them an claim to "represent Wikipedia". There are some good things about this (e.g. we don't want

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

Christophe, Would you provide us an update on this topic, please? Pine On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Pine W wrote: > Hi Christophe, > > Now that the end-of-Western-year holidays are behind us, I'm bumping this > thread in the hope that you'll respond to the points

[Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order

Dear All, Today, the Wikimedia Foundation joined with more than 90 other organizations in filing an amicus brief[1] in State of Washington v. Trump[2] currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. This case challenges the recent executive order[3] issued in the United

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

Hoi, Sorry that is not how it is under Dutch regulations. Thanks, GerardM On 6 February 2017 at 01:35, James Heilman wrote: > The second part of this IMO is not accurate "The Dutch chapter does not > represent Wikipedia or any of the other projects. It cannot do this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order

On 02/05/2017 10:10 PM, Michelle Paulson wrote: Dear All, We know that the Foundation’s prior statement[4] on this executive order has generated debate in the communities, on mailing lists and in other forums. Some disapprove, with concern that the Foundation has taken a political stance on