Hi all,
I checked in with Adele today, to ask about progress on the Amazon Echo
licensing issue, and whether she had a rough idea when she'd be able to
report back to us.
Adele was happy for me to pass on here that we're unlikely to hear anything
further about this until September, as Wikimania
Le 04/08/2017 à 18:17, Gabriel Thullen a écrit :
What is important here is that trust has to be rebuilt between the chapter
members on one hand and the board & senior staff on the other hand.
The way I understand the situation is that the board has expelled a few
vocal opponents, a few board
Ilario,
A statement[1] released at the time said,
"Over the past six months, a Wikimedia UK trustee led two Wikipedia-related
projects, Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia, in a way that seemed to some
observers to blur his roles as a Wikimedia UK trustee, a paid consultant
for the projects’
Greetings —
Before I get to sharing the latest updates, I want thank each of you again
for your participation in the strategy process. You have helped us to shape
a draft direction that we hope truly reflects the needs of every community
in our movement. No matter where you plan to be in the
Well thanks to Andreas for pointing this, I really believe that a movement
advocating for the free sharing of knowledge can not afford to take royalist
views on who is entitled or not to see the results of any audit and to reflect
upon it.
I want to reflect on Illario’s previous words . Well
James
If the WMF is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter as if that
chapter were a mere subsidiary, then it might inherit the responsibility
for any content creation that the chapter had made in the past, or indeed
might do in the future. Mind you, I only say "might", because I am
What is important here is that trust has to be rebuilt between the chapter
members on one hand and the board & senior staff on the other hand.
The way I understand the situation is that the board has expelled a few
vocal opponents, a few board members have resigned, one staffer was fired
for
> Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly who?
> Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
>
By the Board.
The dynamics were different to the current situation with Wikimedia
France, in that the Wikimedia UK Board at the time was not engaged in
a big
Ilario,
A few years ago, WMUK was required to undergo an independent governance
review. The review was jointly commissioned by WMUK and WMF. The results
were public.[1] That option is available for WMFR today just as it was
available for WMUK a few years ago.
Andreas
[1]
In any case now what we would like is an independent audit, addressing very
precise questions pushed by the community of members To go through an audit to
get an IDEAS label is not the same as going through an audit resulting from a
governance crisis, The evaluation processes are not the same,
A few weeks ago I think I found a copy of WMFR's chapter agreement on
a Wiki somewhere. I had the impression (maybe wrongly) that it renewed
each January, and had to be cancelled by either party 3 months in
advance if they did not wish to renew it.
That puts the WMF's decision point somewhere in
I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.
However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no
report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and
a series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was
shared outside of
Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the
most appropriate solution.
It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be
interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and
another by the FDC.
The General Assembly can have the power to
The power of WMF, defined in the agreement, is basically limited to
revoke the chapters agreement.
There is no mention in the Chapters agreement that WMF can take a
control of a chapter and to manage a General Assembly.
You forget that the legal pilaster of a chapter is the bylaws.
On
The comment is a little bit partial.
The governance is partially connected with the local system law. In some
countries no profit association are linked to strict parameters and the
governance is not an option. I don't know personally the system law of
France, but I suppose that it's weaker
Rogol,
What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation
be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards
of a Chapter?
Is there some French law that requires charities to be more
independent of their international affiliates than would be under such
a
Have started a RfC on clarifying the CU policy on meta
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_comment/Clarification_to_CU_policy#Discuss
Best
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
___
Wikimedia-l
17 matches
Mail list logo