Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[effe iets anders]

Thank you Nat,

Thank you for pushing up the timeline a bit on having this conversation - I
agree that it's probably better not to stretch the conversation too much,
before an updated process is decided upon.

Will you invite any other people to present additional information to the
board? I think we all would like the board to be as fully informed as
possible about this topic, and I couldn't reasonably expect all board
members to read all discussions about this topic. I could for example
imagine that you invite the framers of the open letter to provide a short
presentation as well. This would be in acknowledgement that it's a very
complex task for any team to collect data and insights that are contrary to
what they saw as their instructions for several years.

As I also referred to in my 'asymmetry of power' comment in response to the
executive statement on meta earlier, I believe this is core to many
objections when highly disputed decisions are being made by the board: the
voice of the part of the community that strongly feels about and disagrees
with the proposal, is not in the room to make their case. I know there are
some attempts being made in the strategy process to address this, but
perhaps in the same spirit, the board could experiment a little with being
more inclusive of such voices - especially now that is technically trivial
as the meetings are all online anyway.

Warmly,
Lodewijk

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 4:27 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of Trustees about the Brand Project.
>
> Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
> happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
> the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
> fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
> Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
> recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
> to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> August meeting.
>
> Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
> project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
> an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
>
> We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
> than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
> now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
> collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
> whether to adopt them.
>
> Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
>
> * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
> and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> briefing on discussions happening;
>
> * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> posted publicly after the meeting;
>
> * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
> pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
>
> * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
> the Brand project.
>
> I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
> [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
> of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
> communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.
>
> Stay safe,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> [1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
>
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Hong Kong community's concern on implementing Hong Kong National Security Law

[Todd Allen]

Yes, this is very concerning indeed, and please do keep us up to date,
especially if any of these measures are used against someone for editing
Wikimedia projects or being a part of one of our communities or groups. I
know that some countries are considering economic sanctions for these types
of measures being taken in Hong Kong, so it is a matter that many are aware
of.

Todd

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 11:53 AM William Chan  wrote:

> Diane and all,
>
> It seems the the bill is far more dangerous than what we the local
> community have expected:
>
> 1. The bill exerts prosecution power on anything Hong Kong, from Hong Kong
> soli to water to Hong Kong-registered ships to Hong Kong-registered
> aircrafts, and applies on both Hong Kong citizens and non-Hong Kong
> citizens.
>
> 2. You can commit this crime anywhere on Earth. Even if such "crime" is
> carried outside of Hong Kong by non-Hong Kong citizens, this law makes Hong
> Kong have the judicial power to expirate such "criminal"
>
> 3. This means that non-Hong Kong contributors writing positively about the
> Hong Kong protests and topics about Hong Kong independence in a
> pro-protester tone can technically violate the bill.
>
> 4. If such a person steps onto a Hong Kong registered Aircraft (such as
> Cathay Pacific Airline Planes) or Hong Kong-registered ships, they can
> logically be arrested and brought to Hong Kong for trial for acts
> documented on sec. 3. Even when both the origin and destination is not in
> Hong Kong.
>
> There seems to be much more problems than expected considering how China
> manipulates its laws to its own good by violating international treaties
> and protections on human rights (when it is against their agenda).
>
> Grave Concern,
> William
>
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 23:08, William Chan  wrote:
>
> > Dear our beloved global community members,
> >
> > The National Security Bill for Hong Kong is passed today (30 Jun, HKT
> > 2300). Most members within Hong Kong’s recovering community are shocked,
> > considering how much it affects local politics, and at the same time,
> > uncertainty brought from this decision to the local community (including
> > much of the Hong Kong people). Even until this moment, not to mention its
> > accessibility for the general public, the full text is only to be found
> at
> > the time of implementation (30 Jun, HKT 2300). However, this unknown text
> > will precede all common law principles within 30 minutes’ time for those
> > who are currently in Hong Kong.
> >
> > There are a few points that we would like to bring up -- our worries this
> > piece of completely unconsulted legislation (apart from few well-known
> > local pro-Beijing figures), from the drafting phase to the implementation
> > phase, could change the Chinese-dominant Hong Kong community work:
> >
> >
> > 1. This piece of legislation has never entered a public consultation
> > phase. The legislation is passed in a way to effectively circumvent local
> > legislative council opposition. It imposes unnecessary restrictions on
> free
> > speech, and is against all norms within local (Hong Kong) politics, where
> > most bills, including the most controversial Article 23 implementation
> bill
> > that was brought to a halt in 2003, had open public consultation. This
> > piece of legislation didn’t do so, and citizens have not even read what
> is
> > written before it became a law.
> >
> > 2. This piece of legislation seems to interfere with freedom of speech
> > even out of local boundaries. This includes, most possibly the
> > criminalization of speeches and acts that promote Hong Kong independence.
> > This can include, according to what the so-called “people’s congress
> > representative” which most within the city cannot vote for, said acts
> > committed online could also be counted. This may mean writing for, for
> > example, reasons that lead to the rise of the Hong Kong independence
> > movement, may become a criminal act if written in Hong Kong. This is
> > unprecedented, and, as we all know, IP addresses can be documented and
> > tracked to prosecute personnels. If writing for Wikipedia becomes a
> > criminal act, what can go right?
> >
> > 3. It narrows the editor base. For example, the ban of Wikipedia in China
> > had completely changed the community environment for Mainland editors of
> > the Chinese Wikipedia. Off-site insults became common where local
> policies
> > could not act on as the editor base became much narrower. Without the
> input across
> > the political spectrum, Wikipedia will become harder to remain neutral
> > for its content.
> >
> > 4. Uncertainty brings whether accessing Wikipedia articles related to
> > Hong Kong independence can become a crime. It’s interpretation of the
> > bill is unknown, and it seems possible as the implementation of the bill
> > violates how local laws are passed.
> >
> >
> > The local offline and most members of the online community has accessed
> > the effects in the short run 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Hong Kong community's concern on implementing Hong Kong National Security Law

[William Chan]

Diane and all,

It seems the the bill is far more dangerous than what we the local
community have expected:

1. The bill exerts prosecution power on anything Hong Kong, from Hong Kong
soli to water to Hong Kong-registered ships to Hong Kong-registered
aircrafts, and applies on both Hong Kong citizens and non-Hong Kong
citizens.

2. You can commit this crime anywhere on Earth. Even if such "crime" is
carried outside of Hong Kong by non-Hong Kong citizens, this law makes Hong
Kong have the judicial power to expirate such "criminal"

3. This means that non-Hong Kong contributors writing positively about the
Hong Kong protests and topics about Hong Kong independence in a
pro-protester tone can technically violate the bill.

4. If such a person steps onto a Hong Kong registered Aircraft (such as
Cathay Pacific Airline Planes) or Hong Kong-registered ships, they can
logically be arrested and brought to Hong Kong for trial for acts
documented on sec. 3. Even when both the origin and destination is not in
Hong Kong.

There seems to be much more problems than expected considering how China
manipulates its laws to its own good by violating international treaties
and protections on human rights (when it is against their agenda).

Grave Concern,
William

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 23:08, William Chan  wrote:

> Dear our beloved global community members,
>
> The National Security Bill for Hong Kong is passed today (30 Jun, HKT
> 2300). Most members within Hong Kong’s recovering community are shocked,
> considering how much it affects local politics, and at the same time,
> uncertainty brought from this decision to the local community (including
> much of the Hong Kong people). Even until this moment, not to mention its
> accessibility for the general public, the full text is only to be found at
> the time of implementation (30 Jun, HKT 2300). However, this unknown text
> will precede all common law principles within 30 minutes’ time for those
> who are currently in Hong Kong.
>
> There are a few points that we would like to bring up -- our worries this
> piece of completely unconsulted legislation (apart from few well-known
> local pro-Beijing figures), from the drafting phase to the implementation
> phase, could change the Chinese-dominant Hong Kong community work:
>
>
> 1. This piece of legislation has never entered a public consultation
> phase. The legislation is passed in a way to effectively circumvent local
> legislative council opposition. It imposes unnecessary restrictions on free
> speech, and is against all norms within local (Hong Kong) politics, where
> most bills, including the most controversial Article 23 implementation bill
> that was brought to a halt in 2003, had open public consultation. This
> piece of legislation didn’t do so, and citizens have not even read what is
> written before it became a law.
>
> 2. This piece of legislation seems to interfere with freedom of speech
> even out of local boundaries. This includes, most possibly the
> criminalization of speeches and acts that promote Hong Kong independence.
> This can include, according to what the so-called “people’s congress
> representative” which most within the city cannot vote for, said acts
> committed online could also be counted. This may mean writing for, for
> example, reasons that lead to the rise of the Hong Kong independence
> movement, may become a criminal act if written in Hong Kong. This is
> unprecedented, and, as we all know, IP addresses can be documented and
> tracked to prosecute personnels. If writing for Wikipedia becomes a
> criminal act, what can go right?
>
> 3. It narrows the editor base. For example, the ban of Wikipedia in China
> had completely changed the community environment for Mainland editors of
> the Chinese Wikipedia. Off-site insults became common where local policies
> could not act on as the editor base became much narrower. Without the input 
> across
> the political spectrum, Wikipedia will become harder to remain neutral
> for its content.
>
> 4. Uncertainty brings whether accessing Wikipedia articles related to
> Hong Kong independence can become a crime. It’s interpretation of the
> bill is unknown, and it seems possible as the implementation of the bill
> violates how local laws are passed.
>
>
> The local offline and most members of the online community has accessed
> the effects in the short run and the long run:
>
>
> In the short run, we expect the community base to retain mostly intact,
> while meetups (currently run in an online mode due to the coronavirus
> pandemic) would attract fewer members, particularly when local
> pro-democracy (not pro-independence) figures are warned to be sent into
> jail with this piece of legislation.
>
> In the long run, if nothing changes, we expect the recovering user group
> will most likely descend into non-compliance like the former chapter, and
> similar to the current state of the offline-inactive Chinese User Group,
> Wikimedia User Group China, which 

[Wikimedia-l] Adding wording to the Wikimedia Foundation Friendly Space Policy around virtual events

[Rachel Farrand]

Hello everyone,


In order to adapt to current events and make the Wikimedia Foundation
Friendly Space Policy <
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policy> inclusive of
virtual events, we are proposing to add the new wording found at the end of
this email to the policy.

We are very open to any alternative wording suggestions that extend the
coverage of these policies to include virtual conferences/events and will
wait two weeks 15 July, 2020 before making the changes. If you would like
to discuss different wording ideas please do so on the discussion page of
the Friendly Space Policy on meta. <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Friendly_space_policies#Adding_wording_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_FSP_around_virtual_events
>

Proposed changes:

First sentence now:

The Wikimedia Foundation is dedicated to providing a harassment-free venue
and conference experience for everyone….

First sentence proposed change:

The Wikimedia Foundation is dedicated to providing a harassment-free
venue, virtual
event, and conference experience for everyone….

Last sentence now:

We expect participants to follow these rules at Wikimedia Foundation
venues, all conference venues, and conference-related social events.

Last sentence proposed change:

We expect participants to follow these rules at Wikimedia Foundation
venues, all conference venues, virtual events, and conference-related
social events.

This effort is done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Conference Grants
program and was reviewed by WMF legal and WMF Trust and Safety
representatives.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions,


-- 
Rachel Farrand
Senior Program Manager
Events Team
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] Hong Kong community's concern on implementing Hong Kong National Security Law

[Diane Ranville]

Hello William,

I am very sad to read what is happening in Hong Kong.
I am not sure how we can help, but it's important that you continue to
inform us.
If there is any way we can support your community, please let us know.

Best,
Diane

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 5:09 PM William Chan  wrote:

> Dear our beloved global community members,
>
> The National Security Bill for Hong Kong is passed today (30 Jun, HKT
> 2300). Most members within Hong Kong’s recovering community are shocked,
> considering how much it affects local politics, and at the same time,
> uncertainty brought from this decision to the local community (including
> much of the Hong Kong people). Even until this moment, not to mention its
> accessibility for the general public, the full text is only to be found at
> the time of implementation (30 Jun, HKT 2300). However, this unknown text
> will precede all common law principles within 30 minutes’ time for those
> who are currently in Hong Kong.
>
> There are a few points that we would like to bring up -- our worries this
> piece of completely unconsulted legislation (apart from few well-known
> local pro-Beijing figures), from the drafting phase to the implementation
> phase, could change the Chinese-dominant Hong Kong community work:
>
>
> 1. This piece of legislation has never entered a public consultation phase.
> The legislation is passed in a way to effectively circumvent local
> legislative council opposition. It imposes unnecessary restrictions on free
> speech, and is against all norms within local (Hong Kong) politics, where
> most bills, including the most controversial Article 23 implementation bill
> that was brought to a halt in 2003, had open public consultation. This
> piece of legislation didn’t do so, and citizens have not even read what is
> written before it became a law.
>
> 2. This piece of legislation seems to interfere with freedom of speech even
> out of local boundaries. This includes, most possibly the criminalization
> of speeches and acts that promote Hong Kong independence. This can include,
> according to what the so-called “people’s congress representative” which
> most within the city cannot vote for, said acts committed online could also
> be counted. This may mean writing for, for example, reasons that lead to
> the rise of the Hong Kong independence movement, may become a criminal act
> if written in Hong Kong. This is unprecedented, and, as we all know, IP
> addresses can be documented and tracked to prosecute personnels. If writing
> for Wikipedia becomes a criminal act, what can go right?
>
> 3. It narrows the editor base. For example, the ban of Wikipedia in China
> had completely changed the community environment for Mainland editors of
> the Chinese Wikipedia. Off-site insults became common where local policies
> could not act on as the editor base became much narrower. Without the
> input across
> the political spectrum, Wikipedia will become harder to remain neutral for
> its content.
>
> 4. Uncertainty brings whether accessing Wikipedia articles related to Hong
> Kong independence can become a crime. It’s interpretation of the bill is
> unknown, and it seems possible as the implementation of the bill violates
> how local laws are passed.
>
>
> The local offline and most members of the online community has accessed the
> effects in the short run and the long run:
>
>
> In the short run, we expect the community base to retain mostly intact,
> while meetups (currently run in an online mode due to the coronavirus
> pandemic) would attract fewer members, particularly when local
> pro-democracy (not pro-independence) figures are warned to be sent into
> jail with this piece of legislation.
>
> In the long run, if nothing changes, we expect the recovering user group
> will most likely descend into non-compliance like the former chapter, and
> similar to the current state of the offline-inactive Chinese User Group,
> Wikimedia User Group China, which ceased its offline operations after the
> Chinese government blocked Wikipedia. In the worst case scenario, the local
> community may be replaced with a pseudo-community that works more like a
> propaganda service than a User Group advocating for free speech and open
> access.
>
> We, as Hong Kong editors have tried expressing our concern but it is in
> vain because of fierce opposition from some Chinese Wikipedia editors who
> are mostly pro-Beijing. Uncertainty from the legislation, where original
> plans to react to the bill when it became open to the public, became in
> vain because of “local editors’ desire to respond when the bill is
> publicized” and the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress of
> China act to hide the bill from public access. This rendered the local
> community’s inability to react before the bill was implemented. This
> included plans to “shut down” some articles related to the ongoing 2019-20
> Hong Kong protests. Of course, this turns out to be in vain both because of
> its 

[Wikimedia-l] Hong Kong community's concern on implementing Hong Kong National Security Law

[William Chan]

Dear our beloved global community members,

The National Security Bill for Hong Kong is passed today (30 Jun, HKT
2300). Most members within Hong Kong’s recovering community are shocked,
considering how much it affects local politics, and at the same time,
uncertainty brought from this decision to the local community (including
much of the Hong Kong people). Even until this moment, not to mention its
accessibility for the general public, the full text is only to be found at
the time of implementation (30 Jun, HKT 2300). However, this unknown text
will precede all common law principles within 30 minutes’ time for those
who are currently in Hong Kong.

There are a few points that we would like to bring up -- our worries this
piece of completely unconsulted legislation (apart from few well-known
local pro-Beijing figures), from the drafting phase to the implementation
phase, could change the Chinese-dominant Hong Kong community work:


1. This piece of legislation has never entered a public consultation phase.
The legislation is passed in a way to effectively circumvent local
legislative council opposition. It imposes unnecessary restrictions on free
speech, and is against all norms within local (Hong Kong) politics, where
most bills, including the most controversial Article 23 implementation bill
that was brought to a halt in 2003, had open public consultation. This
piece of legislation didn’t do so, and citizens have not even read what is
written before it became a law.

2. This piece of legislation seems to interfere with freedom of speech even
out of local boundaries. This includes, most possibly the criminalization
of speeches and acts that promote Hong Kong independence. This can include,
according to what the so-called “people’s congress representative” which
most within the city cannot vote for, said acts committed online could also
be counted. This may mean writing for, for example, reasons that lead to
the rise of the Hong Kong independence movement, may become a criminal act
if written in Hong Kong. This is unprecedented, and, as we all know, IP
addresses can be documented and tracked to prosecute personnels. If writing
for Wikipedia becomes a criminal act, what can go right?

3. It narrows the editor base. For example, the ban of Wikipedia in China
had completely changed the community environment for Mainland editors of
the Chinese Wikipedia. Off-site insults became common where local policies
could not act on as the editor base became much narrower. Without the
input across
the political spectrum, Wikipedia will become harder to remain neutral for
its content.

4. Uncertainty brings whether accessing Wikipedia articles related to Hong
Kong independence can become a crime. It’s interpretation of the bill is
unknown, and it seems possible as the implementation of the bill violates
how local laws are passed.


The local offline and most members of the online community has accessed the
effects in the short run and the long run:


In the short run, we expect the community base to retain mostly intact,
while meetups (currently run in an online mode due to the coronavirus
pandemic) would attract fewer members, particularly when local
pro-democracy (not pro-independence) figures are warned to be sent into
jail with this piece of legislation.

In the long run, if nothing changes, we expect the recovering user group
will most likely descend into non-compliance like the former chapter, and
similar to the current state of the offline-inactive Chinese User Group,
Wikimedia User Group China, which ceased its offline operations after the
Chinese government blocked Wikipedia. In the worst case scenario, the local
community may be replaced with a pseudo-community that works more like a
propaganda service than a User Group advocating for free speech and open
access.

We, as Hong Kong editors have tried expressing our concern but it is in
vain because of fierce opposition from some Chinese Wikipedia editors who
are mostly pro-Beijing. Uncertainty from the legislation, where original
plans to react to the bill when it became open to the public, became in
vain because of “local editors’ desire to respond when the bill is
publicized” and the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress of
China act to hide the bill from public access. This rendered the local
community’s inability to react before the bill was implemented. This
included plans to “shut down” some articles related to the ongoing 2019-20
Hong Kong protests. Of course, this turns out to be in vain both because of
its controversy of bringing Wikipedia into media attention, and whether
such an act violates neutrality principles, plus fierce opposition from
editors from China (excl. Hong Kong and Macao).

We hope the glocal community can pay attention to the effects of this bill
in Hong Kong, as it would most probably limit free speech and may affect
most citizens (including Wikimedia (incl. Wikipedia) editors in Hong Kong),
instead of what it proclaimed