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

2017-02-05 Thread Gnangarra
​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 and sharing
of content available through the movement as a whole...​  Our agreement is
clear on that, we also dont have any editorial authority, specific
influence over nor responsibility for content...

this may be less obvious for some non-english language communities where
the line between the language version of Wikipedia and the Chapter is
blurred, especially in the smaller languages where there isnt a great
expanse of international speakers to draw upon as contributors.

On 6 February 2017 at 08:35, 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 because
> the Wikimedia Foundation has this exclusive right."
>
> The Wikimedia movement which is a combination of the WMF, chapters and
> thorgs, along with the communities represent Wikipedia. The WMF only
> exclusively represents the WMF.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:
>
> > 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
> > this movement, it is not perceived as any casual organization. The media
> > will at first contact the chapters of their region or country if there is
> > anything to be commented about the movement.
> >
> > As you said yourself. Chapters support the community, and from a very
> > unique position that differs them from user groups, because there is only
> > one chapter for the Netherlands, or Germany, etc. And this is the reason
> > why there is a higher requirement of reports and activity for the
> chapters.
> >
> > Greetings
> >
> > Ting
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 05.02.2017 um 18:48 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> >
> >> 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 movement and its
> >> projects in a country, it is important that this is in line with
> reality.
> >> The reality is that the Dutch chapter is in principle a society with
> >> members; it has as a mission to share the sum of all knowledge and in
> its
> >> activities it supports the Dutch Wikimedia community as much as it
> can/is
> >> allowed to as well.
> >>
> >> When a chapter exclusively represents the WMF. Let there be trust and
> >> given
> >> the way things are it does not show when you analyse things.
> >> Thanks,
> >> GerardM
> >>
> >> On 5 February 2017 at 11:05, Ting Chen  wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 in
> >>> that
> >>> region. The same function fulfills the Thematic Organizations for their
> >>> thematic area. This is why we lay a much higher standard of
> requirements
> >>> for these affiliates. Some chapters do not request funds by the FDC. We
> >>> also have user groups who request funds, and they need to provide the
> >>> same
> >>> reports as needed by the funds. For the AffCom money is not the topic
> >>> here.
> >>>
> >>> Take the example of chapters if a chapter is not working, there is no
> >>> activity at all, it still blocks other affiliate grow up and take their
> >>> place as long as they are there and occupies the regional exclusity.
> This
> >>> is just one of the problematics here.
> >>>
> >>> And the AffCom do also require the User Groups to report their
> activity,
> >>> although in a very easy to do manner.
> >>>
> >>> I hope this clarifies your concern.
> >>>
> >>> Greetings
> >>>
> >>> Ting
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 05.02.2017 um 10:22 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> >>>
> >>> 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
>  the
>  task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
> 

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

2017-02-05 Thread Yair Rand
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 against Internet censorship. The required steps include (among
other requirements) consultation with the Public Policy Advisory Group,
along with getting consensus in a broader RfC except where time does not
permit. I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical
and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall under
that section, the policy was yet again violated. Frankly, I don't believe
that an RfC would pass in the first place. If you've been following the
earlier thread, you may be aware that there is increasing alarm at the risk
of the movement being hijacked by political interests, and this new action
is not helping matters.

This was a unilateral political actions in a sensitive area without prior
discussion. The Guideline does say that the WMF may deviate from the policy
if specifically approved by the General Council, although I don't know why
deviating would be warranted here. Was this done here? Who was involved in
the decision? Was the Board consulted, as suggested by the guidelines
(although as an "Optional" step)? Or was it simply considered to not fall
under the policy at all? Is the guideline still in effect, or was it
eliminated or changed without the document on Meta being updated?

The amicus brief specifically challenges the refugee suspension, among
other areas. Is this topic considered to be within the WMF's goals, or was
bringing the WMF into an irrelevant political battle considered simply an
unavoidable side-effect in the effort to protect WMF operations by means of
national political intervention?

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_
Association_Guideline#Collaborative_Advocacy

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Michelle Paulson 
wrote:

> 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
> States on January 27, 2017, which establishes immigration and travel
> restrictions based on country of origin. Other signatories to the brief
> include Facebook, Levi Strauss & Co., Microsoft, Mozilla, and Paypal. The
> brief includes legal arguments against the order itself, and details the
> real and immediate impact these restrictions will have on the Wikimedia
> Foundation and other signatories’ staff, users, customers, and operations.
> We expect it to be filed in other current and future cases challenging the
> order, as appropriate.
>
> 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 behalf of the movement. Others approve, with concerns
> about the impact of this order on the practicalities and values of open
> collaboration and sharing. We would like to clarify our perspective on this
> important issue.
>
> From our perspective, the implications of this order - and the urgency of
> our response - are clear. Beyond the issue of the values of open
> collaboration, this order will also have serious, tangible effects on the
> Foundation and our ability to support the Wikimedia projects and
> communities.
>
> From an operational standpoint, orders such as these may substantially
> limit our ability to deliver on support for the global Wikimedia
> communities. Much of the Foundation's work involves travel across borders.
> We cross borders to develop and sustain strategic partnerships with
> Wikimedia affiliates and free knowledge advocates. We travel to gatherings
> and hackathons to support and collaborate with Wikimedians around the
> world. We represent Wikimedia research and methodologies at conferences
> with librarians and scientists from across the globe. We meet with
> community leaders and board members internationally to exercise corporate
> and community governance and execute strategic oversight.
>
> As the Foundation, we have an obligation to protect the Wikimedia projects
> and ensure that they thrive in perpetuity. We are not a political
> organization, but we are passionate about defending free knowledge, and the
> conditions for its flourishing. We believe that the immigration and travel
> restrictions posed by the executive order in question will have a
> detrimental impact on the Foundation's mission and operations, as people
> are unable to enter the United States or restricted from leaving because
> they may not be allowed to return home. 

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

2017-02-05 Thread Pete Forsyth

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 behalf of the movement. Others approve, with concerns
about the impact of this order on the practicalities and values of open
collaboration and sharing.

Michelle, thank you for this update and clarification.

I've followed this discussion (and previous, similar discussions) with 
great interest. My personal views align strongly with the WMF's 
position, but I also found Yair Rand's argument compelling. There's an 
important distinction I haven't seen clearly articulated, that might be 
helpful:


The WMF has a clear interest in protecting *its own* operations, and on 
that level, I think it makes perfect sense for it to advocate -- along 
with companies like the partners listed -- against policies that may 
substantially impede its employees' travel.


But the arguments I have seen advanced by the WMF about what is in its 
*communities'* interest are not as clear-cut as it may seem. The core 
activities of Wikimedians involve online collaboration; and while it may 
be the case that research and qualitative experience supports the notion 
that travel can enhance that collaboration, there are -- and will always 
be -- highly productive Wikimedians who never meet fellow volunteer in 
person, and have no particular interest in doing so. The projects have 
been built by millions of volunteers, but I would guess that the number 
of volunteers who have crossed international borders to serve the 
project number in the thousands (and even fewer have crossed the U.S. 
border).


Perhaps in the future, things will go more smoothly if the WMF be very 
clear in its public statements when it is speaking on *its own behalf*, 
and when it is speaking *on behalf of its communities*. And when it's 
the latter, if public statements could only result from consultations 
that clearly establish a strong consensus within the communities.


-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

___
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] Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order

2017-02-05 Thread Michelle Paulson
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
States on January 27, 2017, which establishes immigration and travel
restrictions based on country of origin. Other signatories to the brief
include Facebook, Levi Strauss & Co., Microsoft, Mozilla, and Paypal. The
brief includes legal arguments against the order itself, and details the
real and immediate impact these restrictions will have on the Wikimedia
Foundation and other signatories’ staff, users, customers, and operations.
We expect it to be filed in other current and future cases challenging the
order, as appropriate.

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 behalf of the movement. Others approve, with concerns
about the impact of this order on the practicalities and values of open
collaboration and sharing. We would like to clarify our perspective on this
important issue.

From our perspective, the implications of this order - and the urgency of
our response - are clear. Beyond the issue of the values of open
collaboration, this order will also have serious, tangible effects on the
Foundation and our ability to support the Wikimedia projects and
communities.

From an operational standpoint, orders such as these may substantially
limit our ability to deliver on support for the global Wikimedia
communities. Much of the Foundation's work involves travel across borders.
We cross borders to develop and sustain strategic partnerships with
Wikimedia affiliates and free knowledge advocates. We travel to gatherings
and hackathons to support and collaborate with Wikimedians around the
world. We represent Wikimedia research and methodologies at conferences
with librarians and scientists from across the globe. We meet with
community leaders and board members internationally to exercise corporate
and community governance and execute strategic oversight.

As the Foundation, we have an obligation to protect the Wikimedia projects
and ensure that they thrive in perpetuity. We are not a political
organization, but we are passionate about defending free knowledge, and the
conditions for its flourishing. We believe that the immigration and travel
restrictions posed by the executive order in question will have a
detrimental impact on the Foundation's mission and operations, as people
are unable to enter the United States or restricted from leaving because
they may not be allowed to return home. Board and committee meetings,
conferences, conventions, hackathons, and more may be affected by the
executive order in its current form, as well by the threatened extension of
restrictions to additional countries.

It is our obligation to engage with issues that affect the Wikimedia
Foundation's capacity to support Foundation’s mission and the goals of the
Wikimedia movement. From freedom of expression to freedom of movement, we
will continue to do so, in service of our shared vision. You can read more
about the brief on the Foundation’s blog.[5]

Best,

Michelle Paulson
Interim General Counsel

[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAmicus_curiae_brief_of_Tech_Companies_%26_Orgs%2C_Washington_v._Trump.pdf=1


[2] https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=000860

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769

[4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/
[5]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/02/06/amicus-brief-immigration-travel-restrictions/
___
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] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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 because
> the Wikimedia Foundation has this exclusive right."
>
> The Wikimedia movement which is a combination of the WMF, chapters and
> thorgs, along with the communities represent Wikipedia. The WMF only
> exclusively represents the WMF.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:
>
> > 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
> > this movement, it is not perceived as any casual organization. The media
> > will at first contact the chapters of their region or country if there is
> > anything to be commented about the movement.
> >
> > As you said yourself. Chapters support the community, and from a very
> > unique position that differs them from user groups, because there is only
> > one chapter for the Netherlands, or Germany, etc. And this is the reason
> > why there is a higher requirement of reports and activity for the
> chapters.
> >
> > Greetings
> >
> > Ting
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 05.02.2017 um 18:48 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> >
> >> 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 movement and its
> >> projects in a country, it is important that this is in line with
> reality.
> >> The reality is that the Dutch chapter is in principle a society with
> >> members; it has as a mission to share the sum of all knowledge and in
> its
> >> activities it supports the Dutch Wikimedia community as much as it
> can/is
> >> allowed to as well.
> >>
> >> When a chapter exclusively represents the WMF. Let there be trust and
> >> given
> >> the way things are it does not show when you analyse things.
> >> Thanks,
> >> GerardM
> >>
> >> On 5 February 2017 at 11:05, Ting Chen  wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 in
> >>> that
> >>> region. The same function fulfills the Thematic Organizations for their
> >>> thematic area. This is why we lay a much higher standard of
> requirements
> >>> for these affiliates. Some chapters do not request funds by the FDC. We
> >>> also have user groups who request funds, and they need to provide the
> >>> same
> >>> reports as needed by the funds. For the AffCom money is not the topic
> >>> here.
> >>>
> >>> Take the example of chapters if a chapter is not working, there is no
> >>> activity at all, it still blocks other affiliate grow up and take their
> >>> place as long as they are there and occupies the regional exclusity.
> This
> >>> is just one of the problematics here.
> >>>
> >>> And the AffCom do also require the User Groups to report their
> activity,
> >>> although in a very easy to do manner.
> >>>
> >>> I hope this clarifies your concern.
> >>>
> >>> Greetings
> >>>
> >>> Ting
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 05.02.2017 um 10:22 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> >>>
> >>> 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
>  the
>  task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
>  Wikimedia board.
>  Thanks,
>  GerardM
> 
>  On 5 February 2017 at 00:06, Maor Malul  wrote:
> 
>  Dear all,
> 
> > Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic
> > organization,
> > or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to
> > officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission.
> > While
> > most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards
> set
> > forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol
> has
> > been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia
> > affiliate
> > does not meet 

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

2017-02-05 Thread Pine W
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 that I made in my
> email from December 23rd.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Hi Christophe,
>>
>> Thank you for responding to my questions.
>>
>>
>>> First, the resolution and its context. "Supervising" the ED is indeed a
>>> board duty, but this supervision must not become micro-management. That
>>> resolution provides staff the liberty to do their work more efficiently.
>>> It
>>> doesn't remove our duty of oversight.
>>>
>>> I feel like you think delegating negates ones ability to provide
>>> supervision, I would tend to think otherwise as delegating free time and
>>> energy to focus on the core roles of a board.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps you could explain further how a resolution which says:
>>
>> *"*Resolved, the Board hereby delegates the authority to adopt, alter,
>> and
>> revoke policies to the Executive Director, who may further delegate such
>> authority to Wikimedia Foundation staff as they deem appropriate;
>>
>> "Resolved, the Board may continue to review and approve policies for the
>> Wikimedia
>> Foundation upon request to the Executive Director or as required by law."
>>
>> amounts to removing micro-management. To me this looks like a sweeping
>> delegation of authority. Under this resolution, policy changes that the
>> ED
>> and/or his or her delegates make are not subject to advance review by the
>> Board, the Legal Department, the community, or anyone else. This seems
>> highly inadvisable, and I feel that this opens up WMF to legal and
>> reputational risks that are of far greater concern than the value of
>> sparing
>> a few minutes of the Boards' time at meetings to review supposedly
>> minor changes to policies.
>>
>> I would expect the Executive Director to have the authority to execute
>> plans
>> and manage his/her staff as permitted by the policies and resolutions
>> adopted
>> by the Board and as allowed by law, and to create and modify managerial
>> policies for staff (for example, salary schedules and hiring procedures)
>> that are compatible with the Board's policies and resolutions and with
>> the law.
>> I wouldn't expect the Executive Director to have the authority to
>> unilaterally
>> change policies that were adopted by the Board, nor to have the authority
>> to
>> further delegate the authority to change policies that were adopted by
>> the Board.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Second, the requirements to answer the community. I'm sorry, here I
>>> answered quite spontaneously, you are right nothing forces us to.
>>>
>>> But, as I've said in my candidacy and in public some time I believe we
>>> have, as WMF board, a leadership duty. And I also believe you lead by
>>> example. I've always believed, in the movement, we are all partners. We
>>> need each other to push forward our mission. You treat partners the way
>>> yourself want to be treated by them. That is why I believe it is
>>> important
>>> to communicate. It doesn't mean we have to see eye to eye on everything
>>> but
>>> that when a question rise we should answer as much as we can. That's
>>> something I've said to nearly everyone who reached out to me in the past
>>> few month privately, my answer perhaps won't be the one you want, but at
>>> least there will be an answer and an explanation every time I can. Like
>>> right now actually :D
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your efforts to communicate and cooperate. You and Natalia
>> have
>> been helpful in improving communications between the community and the
>> Board in 2016. (I agree with Rob that Dariusz was admirably responsive
>> and
>> civil in public in 2015 in difficult circumstances, while others weren't.)
>>
>> I would like to see further developments in this area, such as
>> developments
>> that prevent the community from being surprised by Board resolutions such
>> as the one that we are discussing here.
>>
>> Also, I would like to see consideration of changing WMF to a membership
>> organization as a part of the upcoming strategy process.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Finally, regarding board governance review, Natalia, as chair of the BGC,
>>> published minutes of our meetings[1], and that is a key topic we address
>>> and not push aside. That being said it will be a board review, not one on
>>> that specific event. We will be able to provide more information on that
>>> topic soon I think :)
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, this looks like a promising start.
>>
>> Doing the governance review in parallel with the strategy process, while
>> continuing with regular annual work such as the Annual Plan process,
>> might be a heavy lift for the Board and Katherine, so I encourage careful
>> thinking about the timing of this review. My hunch is that it 

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

2017-02-05 Thread Pine W
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
people selling clothing with the Wikipedia globe logo and claiming that the
proceeds "go to Wikipedia" when they actually go to someone's private bank
account; another example of a problem would be someone who claims to
"represent Wikipedia" and then engages in large amounts of copyright
violations). However, there is always the prospect that WMF could use the
trademark, affiliate, and grant agreements to penalize affiliates whose
opinions differ from those of WMF. I'm not sure how we untangle this web of
keeping the good while reducing risk of the bad. The current system,
imperfect though it is, seems to me to be good enough for the moment. To
tie this into one of my other thoughts: I think that WMF should become a
membership organization, which would have the effect of increasing my
comfort level with the high concentration of risk, money, and legal
authority in WMF.

We are digressing from the original subject of the thread about
de-recognition, so please fork the trademarks discussion to a separate
thread if you'd like to respond.

Regards,

Pine


On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:35 PM, 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 because
> the Wikimedia Foundation has this exclusive right."
>
> The Wikimedia movement which is a combination of the WMF, chapters and
> thorgs, along with the communities represent Wikipedia. The WMF only
> exclusively represents the WMF.
>
> James
>
___
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] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-05 Thread James Heilman
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 communities represent Wikipedia. The WMF only
exclusively represents the WMF.

James

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:

> 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
> this movement, it is not perceived as any casual organization. The media
> will at first contact the chapters of their region or country if there is
> anything to be commented about the movement.
>
> As you said yourself. Chapters support the community, and from a very
> unique position that differs them from user groups, because there is only
> one chapter for the Netherlands, or Germany, etc. And this is the reason
> why there is a higher requirement of reports and activity for the chapters.
>
> Greetings
>
> Ting
>
>
>
> Am 05.02.2017 um 18:48 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
>
>> 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 movement and its
>> projects in a country, it is important that this is in line with reality.
>> The reality is that the Dutch chapter is in principle a society with
>> members; it has as a mission to share the sum of all knowledge and in its
>> activities it supports the Dutch Wikimedia community as much as it can/is
>> allowed to as well.
>>
>> When a chapter exclusively represents the WMF. Let there be trust and
>> given
>> the way things are it does not show when you analyse things.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>> On 5 February 2017 at 11:05, Ting Chen  wrote:
>>
>> 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 in
>>> that
>>> region. The same function fulfills the Thematic Organizations for their
>>> thematic area. This is why we lay a much higher standard of requirements
>>> for these affiliates. Some chapters do not request funds by the FDC. We
>>> also have user groups who request funds, and they need to provide the
>>> same
>>> reports as needed by the funds. For the AffCom money is not the topic
>>> here.
>>>
>>> Take the example of chapters if a chapter is not working, there is no
>>> activity at all, it still blocks other affiliate grow up and take their
>>> place as long as they are there and occupies the regional exclusity. This
>>> is just one of the problematics here.
>>>
>>> And the AffCom do also require the User Groups to report their activity,
>>> although in a very easy to do manner.
>>>
>>> I hope this clarifies your concern.
>>>
>>> Greetings
>>>
>>> Ting
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 05.02.2017 um 10:22 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
>>>
>>> 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
 the
 task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
 Wikimedia board.
 Thanks,
 GerardM

 On 5 February 2017 at 00:06, Maor Malul  wrote:

 Dear all,

> Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic
> organization,
> or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to
> officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission.
> While
> most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set
> forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has
> been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia
> affiliate
> does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued
> recognition
> as
> a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement. This
> protocol is outlined at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_
> Wikimedia_movement_affiliates
>
> In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from
> Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Asaf Bartov
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
> some other kind of power.
>

Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!

WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does *not*
include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and
sufficient to contribute to the mission".

We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except indirectly
via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers to
billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to the
illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute, and we do
not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the awful
tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute.  The list goes on.


The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and
maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary
platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding for
*Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources and
mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the active
community, and a few other things.

Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying editors
to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has never been
close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered
appropriate.

Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop asking.

   A.
___
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] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread James Salsman
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 requirements for doing so, and further requiring that they "should
> protect and advance Wikimedia’s mission “to empower and engage people
> around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
> license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and
> globally.” Accordingly, we will not support causes unrelated to or
> inconsistent with that mission."


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 some
other kind of power.

>
The recent blog post says "We strongly urge the U.S. administration to
> withdraw the recent executive order ... closing the doors to many
> refugees." I have yet to hear any arguments regarding how that statement
> specifically protects and advances our mission.


Many people have described how interfering with the travel of existing
employees is substantially more disruptive than restricting the range of
possible employees who have not yet been hired.

I have, on the other hand, heard on this list many arguments by people
> explaining reasons ... that are not directly related to our mission.

That depends on what "empower" means. If our volunteers have less resources
or free time, is their any question that the movement suffers?

Sincerely,
Jim Salsman
___
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] Moderation duties

2017-02-05 Thread Richard Ames
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: 
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] banner proposals

2017-02-05 Thread Bill Takatoshi
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 messages, and he said they should be sent
to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post
yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent
me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various
alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to
the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:

http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-strike-protest-president-donald-trump/

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/

https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/

Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump

Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that
we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle
ground.

-Will

___
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] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-05 Thread Ting Chen

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 this movement, it is not perceived as any casual organization. 
The media will at first contact the chapters of their region or country 
if there is anything to be commented about the movement.


As you said yourself. Chapters support the community, and from a very 
unique position that differs them from user groups, because there is 
only one chapter for the Netherlands, or Germany, etc. And this is the 
reason why there is a higher requirement of reports and activity for the 
chapters.


Greetings

Ting


Am 05.02.2017 um 18:48 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:

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 movement and its
projects in a country, it is important that this is in line with reality.
The reality is that the Dutch chapter is in principle a society with
members; it has as a mission to share the sum of all knowledge and in its
activities it supports the Dutch Wikimedia community as much as it can/is
allowed to as well.

When a chapter exclusively represents the WMF. Let there be trust and given
the way things are it does not show when you analyse things.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 5 February 2017 at 11:05, Ting Chen  wrote:


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 in that
region. The same function fulfills the Thematic Organizations for their
thematic area. This is why we lay a much higher standard of requirements
for these affiliates. Some chapters do not request funds by the FDC. We
also have user groups who request funds, and they need to provide the same
reports as needed by the funds. For the AffCom money is not the topic here.

Take the example of chapters if a chapter is not working, there is no
activity at all, it still blocks other affiliate grow up and take their
place as long as they are there and occupies the regional exclusity. This
is just one of the problematics here.

And the AffCom do also require the User Groups to report their activity,
although in a very easy to do manner.

I hope this clarifies your concern.

Greetings

Ting



Am 05.02.2017 um 10:22 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:


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 the
task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
Wikimedia board.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 5 February 2017 at 00:06, Maor Malul  wrote:

Dear all,

Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization,
or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to
officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. While
most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set
forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has
been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia
affiliate
does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued recognition
as
a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement. This
protocol is outlined at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_
Wikimedia_movement_affiliates

In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from
Wikimedia
Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of
chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in the
coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been unable
to
return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not have
their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations
will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia
trademarks,
including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those
agreements.

For a list of affiliates and their compliance status, please consult the
reports page on Meta; there is also a page that lists formerly active
affiliates. If you have questions about what this means for community
members in the affected affiliates’ geographic area or language scope, we
have put together a very basic FAQ, which may be found 

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

2017-02-05 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
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
> . I know
> that many other things will need to happen to arrive at the state that you
> speak of, but thinking together at that scale is likely a good start in my
> mind.  It might even be a necessary but insufficient pre-requisite for the
> kind of collaboration you speak of.
>


Let us hope that it does what is both necessary and sufficient.

> The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical guidelines
> > is very much about a wise and benevolent Foundation steering its ideas
> > through a reluctant community.  That is frankly insufficient.
> >
>
> Would you direct me to those Technical guidelines? I don’t know the
> reference and I should.
>

They are at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration_Guidance
which is currently under discussion.  This appears to be a successor
project to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/WMF_product_development_
process/Communities which is described as stalled.



> >
> > >
> > > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency, I
> > > wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly. Let people know
> > that
> > > we are listening, that we believe in transparency… that’s why we all
> > fought
> > > for it.
> > >
> > > To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
> > > transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
> > >
> >
> > My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy
> at
> > lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful.
>
>
> That good? All jokes aside, I take this very seriously. I’d like to hear
> your notion of transparency, but first I’ll offer this one that I recently
> heard because I have the sense that it will resonate with you. We're in the
> final stages of an org-wide conversation on our values
> . We
> invited some current and former community-selected board members as well as
> volunteers beyond the board to these conversations.  I enjoyed them very
> much.
>
> Normally, I would attribute this quote, but these conversations were
> anonymized, so I don’t have permission to reveal my brilliant source. They
> talked about how transparency was likely not the right word for what they
> really wanted. They wanted a way to join in. They wanted to know where they
> could plug in. Is that a notion of “maybe more than transparency" that
> resonates with you?
>
> That’s the problem that I’m chewing on. And so your ideas around
> collaboration are interesting to me. So I’m thinking about them. What they
> would mean, how it could be done, the myriad of constraints that make it
> seem quite difficult to orchestrate.
>

The difference between Transparency and Engagement is indeed what I have
been concerned about.  But genuine engagement cannot take place on a basis
of asymmetric access to information.  So transparency seems to be the
prerequisite



>
>
> > What has changed in the last fortnight to make me expect that it will be
> > different this year?
> >
>
> Look, if there’s one thing I think I’ve learned throughout my career, it’s
> all of the things that could go wrong. Sometimes it feels like that’s all I
> have to offer: what not to do.
>
> I also don’t think grand pronouncements are the way to go. So I’d be happy
> to explain some of the things that I do think have changed, as long as you
> know I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m just legitimately
> answering your question from my partial point of view.
>
> Leadership has changed. I see more people internally looking to involve
> relevant stakeholders in their work (New Readers and ORES come to mind).
> I’m also hopeful about the movement strategy process. It looks like a good
> faith effort on everyone’s part to come together and discuss the future in
> open, inclusive, documented discourse
> .
>
> I see progress, not perfection.
>

I see confusion.  In the last fortnight was a reference to the ED's public
pronouncement that she thought it waste of her time to engage with people
like me directly on her Meta talk page.  Her predecessor had not thought
that.

> > > In the middle ground, there is the
> > > > issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery.  Perhaps an
> > > > indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise the
> > plan
> > > > that will have to be drawn up for executing the work that is left
> > hanging
> > > > by these events.
>  [...]
>

> I don’t have enough information.
>
> [...]
> >
> > Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
> >
>
> I do not know.
>

I want to 

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

2017-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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 movement and its
projects in a country, it is important that this is in line with reality.
The reality is that the Dutch chapter is in principle a society with
members; it has as a mission to share the sum of all knowledge and in its
activities it supports the Dutch Wikimedia community as much as it can/is
allowed to as well.

When a chapter exclusively represents the WMF. Let there be trust and given
the way things are it does not show when you analyse things.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 5 February 2017 at 11:05, Ting Chen  wrote:

> 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 in that
> region. The same function fulfills the Thematic Organizations for their
> thematic area. This is why we lay a much higher standard of requirements
> for these affiliates. Some chapters do not request funds by the FDC. We
> also have user groups who request funds, and they need to provide the same
> reports as needed by the funds. For the AffCom money is not the topic here.
>
> Take the example of chapters if a chapter is not working, there is no
> activity at all, it still blocks other affiliate grow up and take their
> place as long as they are there and occupies the regional exclusity. This
> is just one of the problematics here.
>
> And the AffCom do also require the User Groups to report their activity,
> although in a very easy to do manner.
>
> I hope this clarifies your concern.
>
> Greetings
>
> Ting
>
>
>
> Am 05.02.2017 um 10:22 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
>
>> 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 the
>> task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
>> Wikimedia board.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>> On 5 February 2017 at 00:06, Maor Malul  wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization,
>>> or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to
>>> officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. While
>>> most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set
>>> forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has
>>> been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia
>>> affiliate
>>> does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued recognition
>>> as
>>> a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement. This
>>> protocol is outlined at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>>> i/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_
>>> Wikimedia_movement_affiliates
>>>
>>> In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from
>>> Wikimedia
>>> Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of
>>> chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in the
>>> coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been unable
>>> to
>>> return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not have
>>> their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations
>>> will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia
>>> trademarks,
>>> including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those
>>> agreements.
>>>
>>> For a list of affiliates and their compliance status, please consult the
>>> reports page on Meta; there is also a page that lists formerly active
>>> affiliates. If you have questions about what this means for community
>>> members in the affected affiliates’ geographic area or language scope, we
>>> have put together a very basic FAQ, which may be found at
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliate
>>> s/Affiliate_derecognition_FAQ
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> M.
>>>
>>> --
>>> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
>>> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
>>> Maor Malul
>>> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
>>> www.wikimedia.org.ve
>>> 
>>> Member, Wikimedia Israel | www.wikimedia.org.il >> >
>>> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
>>> Phone: +972-52-4869915
>>> Twitter: @maor_x
>>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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 I find is that we do not care for arguments, only when they are
"our" own are they accepted. "Us" is only the small group "we" belong to.

For me the fact that some policy exists does not mean that it is the final
word on anything. When employees of the Wikimedia Foundation cannot come
and go to the place where their family is, it is the strongest possible
argument that there is a problem. A problem we cannot ignore, a problem we
should not ignore. I positively hate policies because they are used to stop
people from thinking.

You attribute "political positions" to me. That is ok except I am not part
of your USA political system. I cannot vote there but it does affect the
movement I dearly love. So my position is not based on the power plays that
happen in the USA. My position is based on the effect it has on our
movement. Our movement is based on objective facts, sources, equal play for
any position and equal representation of cultures and countries in our
encyclopedia. To be honest we should do better.

PS we can not maintain that what we do has a neutral point of view when
much of the equalities mentioned fail to materialise.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 5 February 2017 at 12:27, Nathan  wrote:

> 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 go to think, to
> > > learn, to share our knowledge with others."
> > >
> >
> > The point is,
> > you are implicitly assuming that a public park or a library,
> > the right to have "a temple for the mind", "a place we can all go to
> think,
> > to learn,
> > to share our knowledge with others",
> > are thing that are not inherently political.
> >
> > You're simply wrong.
>
>
>
> No. As others have, you are attacking an argument that is not being made.
> Yair did not claim that the Wikimedia movement's goals are apolitical; he
> has simply asked that its political activity be restricted to its mission,
> as the WMF's own internal policy evidently requires. While permitting free
> travel for those with valid visas is certainly within that scope, it's
> unclear how free movement for refugees can be.
>
> GerardM claims that "we" have common values, and seems to be utterly
> convinced as to what those values are - and lucky for him, they perfectly
> match his own. I suppose that means there is no place in Wikimedia for
> anyone who would happily support the movement mission but disagrees with
> Gerard's other unrelated political positions. If the WMF's voice continues
> to be used to declare its position on this or that (and there will be many
> opportunities and entreaties to do so), that is the message some will draw.
> ___
> 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] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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 well deserved.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 5 February 2017 at 12:39, Mathias Damour  wrote:

> 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 the office any longer. We have employees
>> that
>> cannot visit their family when there are grave family situations.
>>
>
> I also agree with Mike's post. In another hand, I think that Gerard
> Meijssen's argument is not satisfactory.
> I mean, if one day a substantial carbon tax, which I personally wish for,
> would multiply the cost of plane travels by 2 or 4 times (say, not in a
> day), I hope the WMF would not protest against it (I don't tell about
> supporting it), even if it would "directly affect our work", or actually
> the way we use to work now, with much intercontinental flights for a few
> days of meeting.
>
> --
> Mathias Damour
> [[User:Astirmays]]
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-05 Thread MZMcBride
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, since I was curious, there's an index of (some?) chapter
agreements here: .
This page may be out of date, though.

There are a whole lot of chapter/affiliate-related pages on Meta-Wiki and
it's a bit difficult to keep track of them. These two templates are decent
attempts:  and
.

MZMcBride



___
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] February 2: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#5)

2017-02-05 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak
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
___
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] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-05 Thread Kirill Lokshin
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 is willing
to resolve the issue in some reasonable manner.

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.

We will be providing more details on the specific affiliates affected by
this over the next several months, as the deadlines for them to resolve
compliance issues pass.  Please note that any affiliates potentially facing
non-renewal that do successfully resolve their compliance issues will in
fact be renewed, so we can't provide a definitive list at this time.

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Vice-Chair, Affiliations Committee

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 7:32 AM Michael Peel  wrote:

> 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 Uruguay
> - New England Wikimedians
> - PhilWiki Community
> - Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan
> - Wikimedia Digitization User Group
> - Wikimedians of Iceland User Group
> - Wikimedians of Nepal
> - Wikimedians of Uzbekistan Community
>
> Is it all of those or a subset of them? Some of these seem to be active
> and/or have representatives going to the Wikimedia Conference.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 5 Feb 2017, at 10:13, Kirill Lokshin 
> wrote:
> >
> > 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 unable
> to
> > fix the problem when asked to do so.
> >
> > The underlying issue that causes an affiliate to be "non-compliant" will
> > usually be publicly visible (such as a lack of required reporting, for
> > example). The affiliate's inability or unwillingness to address it will
> > usually not be, as it's reflected in the affiliate's communications with
> > AffCom and the WMF (or lack thereof).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kirill Lokshin
> > Vice-Chair, Affiliations Committee
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 6:33 AM Nathan  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> >>>
> >> 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 for the activity on
> >> its
> >>> mailing list. I fail to see why it has to report to anyone. It is not
> the
> >>> task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
> >>> Wikimedia board.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>  GerardM
> >>
> >>
> >> You misread - evidently both the original message and my reply. I answer
> >> your question in my prior post, and hopefully subsequent posts by others
> >> have cleared up any other confusion.
> >>
> >> Maor - thank you for your explanation. Would it be fair to say that the
> >> criteria for considering denying renewal are informal, and that some
> >> factors (including communication with AffCom) may not be publicly
> available
> >> for review?
> >> ___
> >> 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] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-05 Thread Michael Peel
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 Uruguay
- New England Wikimedians
- PhilWiki Community
- Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan
- Wikimedia Digitization User Group
- Wikimedians of Iceland User Group
- Wikimedians of Nepal
- Wikimedians of Uzbekistan Community

Is it all of those or a subset of them? Some of these seem to be active and/or 
have representatives going to the Wikimedia Conference.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 5 Feb 2017, at 10:13, Kirill Lokshin  wrote:
> 
> 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 unable to
> fix the problem when asked to do so.
> 
> The underlying issue that causes an affiliate to be "non-compliant" will
> usually be publicly visible (such as a lack of required reporting, for
> example). The affiliate's inability or unwillingness to address it will
> usually not be, as it's reflected in the affiliate's communications with
> AffCom and the WMF (or lack thereof).
> 
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Vice-Chair, Affiliations Committee
> 
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 6:33 AM Nathan  wrote:
> 
>> 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 for the activity on
>> its
>>> mailing list. I fail to see why it has to report to anyone. It is not the
>>> task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
>>> Wikimedia board.
>>> Thanks,
>>>  GerardM
>> 
>> 
>> You misread - evidently both the original message and my reply. I answer
>> your question in my prior post, and hopefully subsequent posts by others
>> have cleared up any other confusion.
>> 
>> Maor - thank you for your explanation. Would it be fair to say that the
>> criteria for considering denying renewal are informal, and that some
>> factors (including communication with AffCom) may not be publicly available
>> for review?
>> ___
>> 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] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-05 Thread Maor Malul
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 chapters agreement, 
after repeated requests to normalize the situation. I do not want to mention a 
specific example for privacy reasons, but you can't expect to keep the 
recognition forever if your group doesn't organize any activities, and when 
inquired about the lack of these, fail to provide a response or accept help to 
restart the group. And again, the process is not automatic, the WMF has been 
monitoring the different affiliates constantly, and we assist in reaching out 
to them whenever there is no response. You may find a perhaps similar approach 
in the eligibility criteria for attending the WMCON.


M.

Sent from my HTC

- Reply message -
From: "Nathan" 
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing 
Non-Compliance
Date: Sun, Feb 5, 2017 1:33 PM

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 for the activity on its
> mailing list. I fail to see why it has to report to anyone. It is not the
> task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
> Wikimedia board.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM


You misread - evidently both the original message and my reply. I answer
your question in my prior post, and hopefully subsequent posts by others
have cleared up any other confusion.

Maor - thank you for your explanation. Would it be fair to say that the
criteria for considering denying renewal are informal, and that some
factors (including communication with AffCom) may not be publicly available
for review?
___
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] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-05 Thread Kirill Lokshin
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 unable to
fix the problem when asked to do so.

The underlying issue that causes an affiliate to be "non-compliant" will
usually be publicly visible (such as a lack of required reporting, for
example). The affiliate's inability or unwillingness to address it will
usually not be, as it's reflected in the affiliate's communications with
AffCom and the WMF (or lack thereof).

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Vice-Chair, Affiliations Committee

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 6:33 AM Nathan  wrote:

> 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 for the activity on
> its
> > mailing list. I fail to see why it has to report to anyone. It is not the
> > task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
> > Wikimedia board.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
>
>
> You misread - evidently both the original message and my reply. I answer
> your question in my prior post, and hopefully subsequent posts by others
> have cleared up any other confusion.
>
> Maor - thank you for your explanation. Would it be fair to say that the
> criteria for considering denying renewal are informal, and that some
> factors (including communication with AffCom) may not be publicly available
> for review?
> ___
> 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] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Mathias Damour

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 the office any longer. We have employees that
cannot visit their family when there are grave family situations.


I also agree with Mike's post. In another hand, I think that Gerard 
Meijssen's argument is not satisfactory.
I mean, if one day a substantial carbon tax, which I personally wish 
for, would multiply the cost of plane travels by 2 or 4 times (say, not 
in a day), I hope the WMF would not protest against it (I don't tell 
about supporting it), even if it would "directly affect our work", or 
actually the way we use to work now, with much intercontinental flights 
for a few days of meeting.


--
Mathias Damour
[[User:Astirmays]]


___
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] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-05 Thread Nathan
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 for the activity on its
> mailing list. I fail to see why it has to report to anyone. It is not the
> task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
> Wikimedia board.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM


You misread - evidently both the original message and my reply. I answer
your question in my prior post, and hopefully subsequent posts by others
have cleared up any other confusion.

Maor - thank you for your explanation. Would it be fair to say that the
criteria for considering denying renewal are informal, and that some
factors (including communication with AffCom) may not be publicly available
for review?
___
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] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Nathan
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 go to think, to
> > learn, to share our knowledge with others."
> >
>
> The point is,
> you are implicitly assuming that a public park or a library,
> the right to have "a temple for the mind", "a place we can all go to think,
> to learn,
> to share our knowledge with others",
> are thing that are not inherently political.
>
> You're simply wrong.



No. As others have, you are attacking an argument that is not being made.
Yair did not claim that the Wikimedia movement's goals are apolitical; he
has simply asked that its political activity be restricted to its mission,
as the WMF's own internal policy evidently requires. While permitting free
travel for those with valid visas is certainly within that scope, it's
unclear how free movement for refugees can be.

GerardM claims that "we" have common values, and seems to be utterly
convinced as to what those values are - and lucky for him, they perfectly
match his own. I suppose that means there is no place in Wikimedia for
anyone who would happily support the movement mission but disagrees with
Gerard's other unrelated political positions. If the WMF's voice continues
to be used to declare its position on this or that (and there will be many
opportunities and entreaties to do so), that is the message some will draw.
___
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] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Andrea Zanni
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 implicitly assuming that a public park or a library,
the right to have "a temple for the mind", "a place we can all go to think,
to learn,
to share our knowledge with others",
are thing that are not inherently political.

You're simply wrong.
A public library is a very political entity, and it's modern one for
several reason: access to knowledge for everyone is something
governments/elites did not want for a very long time.
A true policy of the commons is the same thing.
If you want to bet, we could wait for a year or two and see what the Trump
administrations
will do with federal funds for public libraries and public parks...
Reactionary governments often defund public commons, because reactionary
policy is to privatize (I'm cutting things with the axe here, please bear
with me).

Also, "we can go all to think, learn and share".
Think about that word, *all*: it's not granted, and it's there for a reason.
I often think about Dorothy Counts [1], and how much did it take for her,
at 15, to go to school
and getting harassed by her whole community for days. Just for going to a
white school.

And this is just one of the countless examples in which
humans (thus, politics) didn't believe in a place where "we can go all to
think, learn and share".

I just believe that thinking our values and mission are apolitical is at
best naive,
at worst wrong and dangerous.

Aubrey

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Counts. See also
https://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/1957/world-press-photo-year/douglas-martin
___
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] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-05 Thread Maor Malul

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 have 
not responded to multiple attempts to contact them by both the AffCom 
and the WMF, or have failed to provide reports of any activity 
whatsoever. Other situations that have caught our attention is engaging 
in activities that are against what is stated in the chapter agreement. 
Most of the groups contacted have responded in a timely manner and 
provided the information required or a plan to correct the situation.


M.


El 05/02/2017 a las 07:45 a.m., Nathan escribió:

It looks like there are many chapters and orgs at risk of being denied a
renewal. I'm curious about how you decided who to label non-compliant and
who you did not.

I notice that WM Armenia appears to have had no reports or activity (other
than 2015 wrap up information) in 2016. Are they considered up to date
because they provided a report for activities the year before last? Not to
pick on Amernia, it's just the first example I encountered. The chapter
provided consistent monthly reports from 2013 to 2015, but not one since.
They also posted a financial statement and an auditor's report for 2015,
which link to the same 3 page PDF. The brief financial statement, which is
not finely detailed, suggests that travel expenses account for nearly all
expenditures.

Maor, if you have a link to a document or page which explains the standards
being applied to chapters and orgs, and which might illuminate why WM AM is
in compliance but others are not, I would appreciate it!

Thanks,
Nathan
___
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, 



--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua 
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."

Maor Malul
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | 
www.wikimedia.org.ve 

Member, Wikimedia Israel | www.wikimedia.org.il 
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
___
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] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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
that a banner would have made a difference but I do know why we do not know
this.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 5 February 2017 at 11:00, Pierre-Selim  wrote:

> 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 :
>
> > 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
> > cannot visit their family when there are grave family situations.
> >
> > The question is very much in what you call politics and the extend you
> want
> > to excuse politics. When lawyers including the person responsible for
> > prosecuting the law opine that an ukaze is illegal, it loses much of the
> > excuse. There are things we stand for as an organisation; we stand for
> > making our gender gap less. That is also very much political given that
> Mr
> > Trump has it that women should dress like women.. Yair, you can not
> defend
> > the inexcusable. We have values and when these values are threatened,
> when
> > they become political, they are still our values.
> >
> > We have let one of us die in prison [1]. The same argument. I will be
> > honest; I hate this. I have trouble believing that people can argue this
> > way. This was one of us and apparently we do not care.
> >
> > Our reputation is in tatters [2] because of the way our servers are
> > energised. This may be politics for you but it is not to me. I do live
> > below sea level as it is. It is easy to compensate for this; we have the
> > money and when the WMF invests money in green energy and allows people to
> > invest with it to make our foot print smaller and help our readers, I
> will
> > invest from the little that I have.
> >
> > We seek to share the sum of all knowledge and for various reasons we
> could
> > do much better. But to do better we have to want to do better and my
> > experience is that we are not capable to do what is good for us because
> of
> > politics. Internal politics.
> >
> > Everyone may say what they want but politics affect us, they often affect
> > us negatively and for us the one thing that should guide us is how we
> > optimise our mission. When "politics" are required and have us say why
> what
> > a government does negatively impact us, we should and we do. We did so in
> > the past, we did so with China and now we need to do this with the USA,
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/missingbassel-wikidata-as-
> > tool.html
> > [2] https://rankabrand.org/websites/Wikipedia
> >
> > On 5 February 2017 at 10:15, Yair Rand  wrote:
> >
> > > 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], established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring up
> the
> > > issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies,
> listing
> > > several requirements for doing so, and further requiring that they
> > "should
> > > protect and advance Wikimedia’s mission “to empower and engage people
> > > around the world to collect and develop educational content under a
> free
> > > license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and
> > > globally.” Accordingly, we will not support causes unrelated to or
> > > inconsistent with that mission." The document goes on to list several
> > > examples such as anti-war activism and animal rights.
> > >
> > > I think this is an excellent and necessary policy.
> > >
> > > The recent blog post says "We strongly urge the U.S. administration to
> > > withdraw the recent executive order ... closing the doors to many
> > > refugees." I have yet to hear any arguments regarding how that
> statement
> > > specifically protects and advances our mission.
> > >
> > > I have, on the other hand, heard on this list many arguments by people
> > > explaining reasons why they feel very strongly that actions must be
> taken
> > > against a certain country's administration, about how they expect that
> > 

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

2017-02-05 Thread Ting Chen

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 in 
that region. The same function fulfills the Thematic Organizations for 
their thematic area. This is why we lay a much higher standard of 
requirements for these affiliates. Some chapters do not request funds by 
the FDC. We also have user groups who request funds, and they need to 
provide the same reports as needed by the funds. For the AffCom money is 
not the topic here.


Take the example of chapters if a chapter is not working, there is no 
activity at all, it still blocks other affiliate grow up and take their 
place as long as they are there and occupies the regional exclusity. 
This is just one of the problematics here.


And the AffCom do also require the User Groups to report their activity, 
although in a very easy to do manner.


I hope this clarifies your concern.

Greetings

Ting


Am 05.02.2017 um 10:22 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:

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 the
task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
Wikimedia board.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 5 February 2017 at 00:06, Maor Malul  wrote:


Dear all,

Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization,
or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to
officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. While
most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set
forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has
been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia affiliate
does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued recognition as
a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement. This
protocol is outlined at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_
Wikimedia_movement_affiliates

In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from Wikimedia
Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of
chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in the
coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been unable to
return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not have
their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations
will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia trademarks,
including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those agreements.

For a list of affiliates and their compliance status, please consult the
reports page on Meta; there is also a page that lists formerly active
affiliates. If you have questions about what this means for community
members in the affected affiliates’ geographic area or language scope, we
have put together a very basic FAQ, which may be found at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliate
s/Affiliate_derecognition_FAQ

Regards,
M.

--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Maor Malul
Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve

Member, Wikimedia Israel | www.wikimedia.org.il 
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
___
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, 




___
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] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Pierre-Selim
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 :

> 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
> cannot visit their family when there are grave family situations.
>
> The question is very much in what you call politics and the extend you want
> to excuse politics. When lawyers including the person responsible for
> prosecuting the law opine that an ukaze is illegal, it loses much of the
> excuse. There are things we stand for as an organisation; we stand for
> making our gender gap less. That is also very much political given that Mr
> Trump has it that women should dress like women.. Yair, you can not defend
> the inexcusable. We have values and when these values are threatened, when
> they become political, they are still our values.
>
> We have let one of us die in prison [1]. The same argument. I will be
> honest; I hate this. I have trouble believing that people can argue this
> way. This was one of us and apparently we do not care.
>
> Our reputation is in tatters [2] because of the way our servers are
> energised. This may be politics for you but it is not to me. I do live
> below sea level as it is. It is easy to compensate for this; we have the
> money and when the WMF invests money in green energy and allows people to
> invest with it to make our foot print smaller and help our readers, I will
> invest from the little that I have.
>
> We seek to share the sum of all knowledge and for various reasons we could
> do much better. But to do better we have to want to do better and my
> experience is that we are not capable to do what is good for us because of
> politics. Internal politics.
>
> Everyone may say what they want but politics affect us, they often affect
> us negatively and for us the one thing that should guide us is how we
> optimise our mission. When "politics" are required and have us say why what
> a government does negatively impact us, we should and we do. We did so in
> the past, we did so with China and now we need to do this with the USA,
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> [1]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/missingbassel-wikidata-as-
> tool.html
> [2] https://rankabrand.org/websites/Wikipedia
>
> On 5 February 2017 at 10:15, Yair Rand  wrote:
>
> > 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], established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring up the
> > issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies, listing
> > several requirements for doing so, and further requiring that they
> "should
> > protect and advance Wikimedia’s mission “to empower and engage people
> > around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
> > license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and
> > globally.” Accordingly, we will not support causes unrelated to or
> > inconsistent with that mission." The document goes on to list several
> > examples such as anti-war activism and animal rights.
> >
> > I think this is an excellent and necessary policy.
> >
> > The recent blog post says "We strongly urge the U.S. administration to
> > withdraw the recent executive order ... closing the doors to many
> > refugees." I have yet to hear any arguments regarding how that statement
> > specifically protects and advances our mission.
> >
> > I have, on the other hand, heard on this list many arguments by people
> > explaining reasons why they feel very strongly that actions must be taken
> > against a certain country's administration, about how they expect that
> many
> > expected policies on general issues will cause harm in areas that they
> > value. Areas that are not directly related to our mission.
> >
> > I can imagine that some may feel that certain areas of immigration and
> > travel policy may be so closely associated to Wikimedia's functioning
> that
> > action on that front must be taken. I would expect such an issue to be
> > discussed independently of the personal political wishes of those
> arguing.
> > If decisions are made on the basis that the only relevant issue is
> whether
> > any action would further Wikimedia's goals, I would trust that such
> > decisions were sufficiently reasonable.
> >
> > However, if 

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

2017-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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
> something there?
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2017-02-05 10:22 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
>
> > 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 the
> > task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
> > Wikimedia board.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 5 February 2017 at 00:06, Maor Malul  wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic
> organization,
> > > or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to
> > > officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission.
> While
> > > most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set
> > > forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has
> > > been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia
> > affiliate
> > > does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued
> recognition
> > as
> > > a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement. This
> > > protocol is outlined at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > > i/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_
> > > Wikimedia_movement_affiliates
> > >
> > > In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from
> > Wikimedia
> > > Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of
> > > chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in
> the
> > > coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been
> unable
> > to
> > > return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not
> have
> > > their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations
> > > will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia
> > trademarks,
> > > including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those
> > agreements.
> > >
> > > For a list of affiliates and their compliance status, please consult
> the
> > > reports page on Meta; there is also a page that lists formerly active
> > > affiliates. If you have questions about what this means for community
> > > members in the affected affiliates’ geographic area or language scope,
> we
> > > have put together a very basic FAQ, which may be found at
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliate
> > > s/Affiliate_derecognition_FAQ
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > M.
> > >
> > > --
> > > "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
> wayuukanairua
> > > junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
> junain."
> > > Maor Malul
> > > Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> > www.wikimedia.org.ve
> > > 
> > > Member, Wikimedia Israel | www.wikimedia.org.il <
> http://wikimedia.org.il
> > >
> > > Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> > > Phone: +972-52-4869915
> > > Twitter: @maor_x
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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
cannot visit their family when there are grave family situations.

The question is very much in what you call politics and the extend you want
to excuse politics. When lawyers including the person responsible for
prosecuting the law opine that an ukaze is illegal, it loses much of the
excuse. There are things we stand for as an organisation; we stand for
making our gender gap less. That is also very much political given that Mr
Trump has it that women should dress like women.. Yair, you can not defend
the inexcusable. We have values and when these values are threatened, when
they become political, they are still our values.

We have let one of us die in prison [1]. The same argument. I will be
honest; I hate this. I have trouble believing that people can argue this
way. This was one of us and apparently we do not care.

Our reputation is in tatters [2] because of the way our servers are
energised. This may be politics for you but it is not to me. I do live
below sea level as it is. It is easy to compensate for this; we have the
money and when the WMF invests money in green energy and allows people to
invest with it to make our foot print smaller and help our readers, I will
invest from the little that I have.

We seek to share the sum of all knowledge and for various reasons we could
do much better. But to do better we have to want to do better and my
experience is that we are not capable to do what is good for us because of
politics. Internal politics.

Everyone may say what they want but politics affect us, they often affect
us negatively and for us the one thing that should guide us is how we
optimise our mission. When "politics" are required and have us say why what
a government does negatively impact us, we should and we do. We did so in
the past, we did so with China and now we need to do this with the USA,
Thanks,
  GerardM


[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/11/missingbassel-wikidata-as-tool.html
[2] https://rankabrand.org/websites/Wikipedia

On 5 February 2017 at 10:15, Yair Rand  wrote:

> 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], established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring up the
> issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies, listing
> several requirements for doing so, and further requiring that they "should
> protect and advance Wikimedia’s mission “to empower and engage people
> around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
> license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and
> globally.” Accordingly, we will not support causes unrelated to or
> inconsistent with that mission." The document goes on to list several
> examples such as anti-war activism and animal rights.
>
> I think this is an excellent and necessary policy.
>
> The recent blog post says "We strongly urge the U.S. administration to
> withdraw the recent executive order ... closing the doors to many
> refugees." I have yet to hear any arguments regarding how that statement
> specifically protects and advances our mission.
>
> I have, on the other hand, heard on this list many arguments by people
> explaining reasons why they feel very strongly that actions must be taken
> against a certain country's administration, about how they expect that many
> expected policies on general issues will cause harm in areas that they
> value. Areas that are not directly related to our mission.
>
> I can imagine that some may feel that certain areas of immigration and
> travel policy may be so closely associated to Wikimedia's functioning that
> action on that front must be taken. I would expect such an issue to be
> discussed independently of the personal political wishes of those arguing.
> If decisions are made on the basis that the only relevant issue is whether
> any action would further Wikimedia's goals, I would trust that such
> decisions were sufficiently reasonable.
>
> However, if that is not the basis used, and some in the community and WMF
> are willing to have their own independent individual values and goals
> override those of the movement, to harm Wikimedia goals to support their
> own political goals... I would find it very difficult to support such a
> decision. I don't mean to speak too harshly, but the united goals and
> vision of the movement are the _only_ thing that holds this diverse
> community together, the only means by which Wikimedia exists, and if
> 

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

2017-02-05 Thread Lodewijk
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 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 the
> task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
> Wikimedia board.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 5 February 2017 at 00:06, Maor Malul  wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization,
> > or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to
> > officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. While
> > most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set
> > forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has
> > been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia
> affiliate
> > does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued recognition
> as
> > a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement. This
> > protocol is outlined at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> > i/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_
> > Wikimedia_movement_affiliates
> >
> > In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from
> Wikimedia
> > Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of
> > chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in the
> > coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been unable
> to
> > return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not have
> > their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations
> > will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia
> trademarks,
> > including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those
> agreements.
> >
> > For a list of affiliates and their compliance status, please consult the
> > reports page on Meta; there is also a page that lists formerly active
> > affiliates. If you have questions about what this means for community
> > members in the affected affiliates’ geographic area or language scope, we
> > have put together a very basic FAQ, which may be found at
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliate
> > s/Affiliate_derecognition_FAQ
> >
> > Regards,
> > M.
> >
> > --
> > "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> > junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> > Maor Malul
> > Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> www.wikimedia.org.ve
> > 
> > Member, Wikimedia Israel | www.wikimedia.org.il  >
> > Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> > Phone: +972-52-4869915
> > Twitter: @maor_x
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
___
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] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread FRED BAUDER

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 
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], established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring 
up the
issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies, 
listing
several requirements for doing so, and further requiring that they 
"should
protect and advance Wikimedia’s mission “to empower and engage 
people
around the world to collect and develop educational content under a 
free
license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively 
and

globally.” Accordingly, we will not support causes unrelated to or
inconsistent with that mission." The document goes on to list 
several

examples such as anti-war activism and animal rights.

I think this is an excellent and necessary policy.

The recent blog post says "We strongly urge the U.S. administration 
to

withdraw the recent executive order ... closing the doors to many
refugees." I have yet to hear any arguments regarding how that 
statement

specifically protects and advances our mission.

I have, on the other hand, heard on this list many arguments by 
people
explaining reasons why they feel very strongly that actions must be 
taken
against a certain country's administration, about how they expect 
that many
expected policies on general issues will cause harm in areas that 
they

value. Areas that are not directly related to our mission.

I can imagine that some may feel that certain areas of immigration 
and
travel policy may be so closely associated to Wikimedia's 
functioning that
action on that front must be taken. I would expect such an issue to 
be
discussed independently of the personal political wishes of those 
arguing.
If decisions are made on the basis that the only relevant issue is 
whether

any action would further Wikimedia's goals, I would trust that such
decisions were sufficiently reasonable.

However, if that is not the basis used, and some in the community 
and WMF
are willing to have their own independent individual values and 
goals
override those of the movement, to harm Wikimedia goals to support 
their
own political goals... I would find it very difficult to support 
such a
decision. I don't mean to speak too harshly, but the united goals 
and

vision of the movement are the _only_ thing that holds this diverse
community together, the only means by which Wikimedia exists, and if
outside aims can take priority, we would likely find that many would 
not
appreciate some using Wikimedia as yet another bullet in someone's 
arsenal

to be sacrificed in a political crusade, to say the least.

"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."

Please let us keep it that way.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_
and_Political_Association_Guideline
___
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] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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 the
task the committee seeks and it does its activity on behalf of the
Wikimedia board.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 5 February 2017 at 00:06, Maor Malul  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate - a chapter, thematic organization,
> or user group - is a privilege that allows an independent group to
> officially use the Wikimedia name to further the Wikimedia mission. While
> most Wikimedia affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set
> forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has
> been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia affiliate
> does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued recognition as
> a Wikimedia affiliate presents a risk to the Wikimedia movement. This
> protocol is outlined at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Protocol_for_noncompliant_
> Wikimedia_movement_affiliates
>
> In the past year, the Affiliations Committee - with support from Wikimedia
> Foundation staff - has made a concerted effort to address a handful of
> chapters with long-standing issues of non-compliance. As a result, in the
> coming days and months, a small number of chapters that have been unable to
> return to compliance through their efforts in the past year will not have
> their chapter agreements renewed. As a consequence, these organizations
> will no longer have the additional rights to use the Wikimedia trademarks,
> including the Wikimedia name, that had been granted under those agreements.
>
> For a list of affiliates and their compliance status, please consult the
> reports page on Meta; there is also a page that lists formerly active
> affiliates. If you have questions about what this means for community
> members in the affected affiliates’ geographic area or language scope, we
> have put together a very basic FAQ, which may be found at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliate
> s/Affiliate_derecognition_FAQ
>
> Regards,
> M.
>
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> Maor Malul
> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
> 
> Member, Wikimedia Israel | www.wikimedia.org.il 
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> Twitter: @maor_x
> ___
> 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] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Yair Rand
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], established by WMF Legal for internal use, specifically bring up the
issue of "public endorsement or critique" of political policies, listing
several requirements for doing so, and further requiring that they "should
protect and advance Wikimedia’s mission “to empower and engage people
around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and
globally.” Accordingly, we will not support causes unrelated to or
inconsistent with that mission." The document goes on to list several
examples such as anti-war activism and animal rights.

I think this is an excellent and necessary policy.

The recent blog post says "We strongly urge the U.S. administration to
withdraw the recent executive order ... closing the doors to many
refugees." I have yet to hear any arguments regarding how that statement
specifically protects and advances our mission.

I have, on the other hand, heard on this list many arguments by people
explaining reasons why they feel very strongly that actions must be taken
against a certain country's administration, about how they expect that many
expected policies on general issues will cause harm in areas that they
value. Areas that are not directly related to our mission.

I can imagine that some may feel that certain areas of immigration and
travel policy may be so closely associated to Wikimedia's functioning that
action on that front must be taken. I would expect such an issue to be
discussed independently of the personal political wishes of those arguing.
If decisions are made on the basis that the only relevant issue is whether
any action would further Wikimedia's goals, I would trust that such
decisions were sufficiently reasonable.

However, if that is not the basis used, and some in the community and WMF
are willing to have their own independent individual values and goals
override those of the movement, to harm Wikimedia goals to support their
own political goals... I would find it very difficult to support such a
decision. I don't mean to speak too harshly, but the united goals and
vision of the movement are the _only_ thing that holds this diverse
community together, the only means by which Wikimedia exists, and if
outside aims can take priority, we would likely find that many would not
appreciate some using Wikimedia as yet another bullet in someone's arsenal
to be sacrificed in a political crusade, to say the least.

"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."

Please let us keep it that way.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_
and_Political_Association_Guideline
___
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,