Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

[Lodewijk]

Besides all discussions on the exact definition, could we please replace
"WMF" with "the Wikimedia movement"? I don't think that supporting emerging
communities, however we define them, should be the prerogative of the WMF,
nor should it be implied. I trust this was not the intention, either :)

Lodewijk

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> > I would like to thank the Community Resources team for dropping the
> highly discriminatory division into North and South and for proposing a
> more nuanced approach.
>
> Indeed - this is a really useful step forward, and much more practical
> for the way our movement works.
>
> Plus we can now stop arguing about whether or not to use the term
> "global south" which will increase everyone's productivity.
>
> Chris
>
> ___
> 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] Recognition of Wikimedia Community User Group Malaysia

[Kirill Lokshin]

Hi everyone!

I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
Wikimedia Community User Group Malaysia [1] as a Wikimedia User Group. The
group aims to act as a hub for Wikimedians in Malaysia, organizing public
outreach activities around the county, promoting Wikipedia and the various
Malaysian Wikimedia projects, and collaborating with the wider regional and
international Wikimedia community.

Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Malaysia
___
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] Recognition of Open Foundation West Africa

[Kirill Lokshin]

Hi everyone!

I'm very happy to announce that the Affiliations Committee has recognized
Open Foundation West Africa [1] as a Wikimedia User Group. The group aims
to extend the reach of Wikimedia movement activities in West Africa through
open education programs, digitizing open resources, preserving cultural and
heritage items for educational purposes, and promoting content about the
West African region.

Please join me in congratulating the members of this new user group!

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_Foundation_West_Africa
___
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] The other side of the crisis at WMFR

[Fæ]

Taking María's statement on behalf of the WMF by itself, there are a
couple of simple in-line questions about handling governance I would
like to make, based on my experience with a number of governance
issues both within and outside of Wikimedia related organizations.

I'm sticking to this being a governance case, as the WMF Board can
only be expected to make resolutions on the basis of good governance.

On 11 October 2017 at 18:54, María Sefidari  wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We would like to specifically address the allegations related to harassment
> in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment
> seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that
> allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We
> immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation employed
> independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on the
> information presented, the investigation found no support for the
> allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.

The statement is short on factual detail despite being described as
specific. It would be reassuring if the following actions would be
considered by the Board, and responded to even if rejected:
1. Publish the timeline of events, which would be essential for any
governance review. Several events are implicit in the statement, but
absent any facts about when or who, they easily lead to later
confusion.
2. Publish the report from the investigators. If necessary this can be
redacted, however from emails that have been made a public record so
far, it's hard to imagine what now needs to remain confidential.
3. Explain who was contracted to produce the report and why and how
they were chosen.
4. Explain what information has been presented, so there can be no
doubt whether the WMF and the Board have been presented with all the
information available and the steps taken to ensure potential bias in
how information was selected was minimized, for example by not
pre-selecting who to talk to, rather than giving the investigators a
free hand to ask for interviews.

> The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation if
> presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the
> allegations to be without merit.

This closing sentence seem to give a heavy implication that the Board
is aware that more information may exist than was used. It seems
unhelpful to have an investigation or review that does not take
proactive steps to gather information from all the stakeholders
identified so that it can stick as a final resolution. In the absence
of specifics, it's hard to imagine that anyone outside of the WMF
board will be able to understand if you are missing any critical
information, yet somehow that appears to be what you are expecting.

> On behalf of the Board,
>
>
> María Sefidari

Thanks for making a statement as a board to the email list, it's a
helpful communication channel to use this way. I appreciate that a
governance based response to allegations against a named trustee, will
not be the same as judging a harassment case that should happen
elsewhere.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] The other side of the crisis at WMFR

[Emeric Vallespi]

Dear Maria,
Dear all,

The Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees, the executive and the legal 
management of the Wikimedia Foundation have been informed of Nathalie Martin's 
complaint against her former employer now member of your board, and then of the 
criminal complaint against this same person (facts from his time in Wikimédia 
France and other from his time in your Board).

It would have been logical for a board of trustees member to gather her 
testimony. No one has sought to make contact with her. Why?
At the very least, the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees could have 
requested a copy of the complaint, as well as the various testimonies, so that 
they could study them and make their opinion. We had no solicitation. Why?
From what I see, the Wikimedia Foundation has done everything to stifle the 
problem. Here is the only initiative WMF has taken: paid "independent lawyers" 
(a concept unknown to me…) to "question Christophe". He responded, to the 
general surprise, that there was no problem.
Do you really feel that this is a serious investigation? Honestly?
Why did not these lawyers also hear Nathalie?
Why did these lawyers not ask questions to the Wikimédia France Board of 
trustees members? Only with the testimony of the defendant himself, the 
Wikimedia Foundation today states that there is no problem. ...
During the site visit, Nathalie proposed to the Wikimedia Foundation 
representatives to organize a confrontation. Not only did she have a flat 
denial, but, moreover, it was replied that it must not be addressed.
Why did the Wikimedia Foundation not accede to this request for confrontation? 
Not to know the truth which can be too embarrassing to assume?
 
We have a movement employee who brilliantly held management responsibilities 
for 4 years (great longevity for an Executive Director…) who asked for help. 
And what is the answer of the movement, of the Wikimedia Foundation? Nothing. 
Nothing was undertaken to give her any kind of listening or help.

Marie-Alice Mathis, who courageously expressed disapproval of the sexist 
harassment of Nathalie, was also harassed by community members. Nathalie and 
Marie-Alice suffered health damages and had medical leaves issued by real 
general practitioners. The Wikimedia Foundation was informed and what did you 
do? Nothing, or worst: two messages from your staff legitimizing the harassment 
and one from a member of your board who publicly stated against Wikimédia 
France without any prior contact with us.
What kind of help or support did you offer to Marie-Alice?

The outcome of the complaints is not even the issue at this stage and this is 
not my point (I’m not a judge as you or other community member think they are).
The real problem is that today a man in the movement, if he has power position, 
can do absolutely everything he wants without any control. The problem is, 
despite all the empty values you’re communicating on, you legitimize whatever 
the community does. Because the community is the measure of all things.
No objective process is foreseen to protect women (and more generally, people) 
or at least to hear them.
Do you find this normal for a movement that advocates inclusiveness and respect?

I’ve read an ardent defender of epicene style of writing who is accusing of 
lying other women because of their private then public declarations. Having no 
clue of what is in the procedure. Thank you for enlightening me about true 
fight with feminism.

I’m glad that « We take all allegations of harassment seriously », but I can 
not endorse this functioning which goes against legality and simply against 
human values.

N.B: English is not my native language, may you be as tolerant of my selected 
words or sentences construction as with harassing behavior. Thanks for your 
understanding.

Regards,
--
Emeric Vallespi

> On 11 Oct 2017, at 19:54, María Sefidari  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> 
> We would like to specifically address the allegations related to harassment
> in this thread’s original email. We take all allegations of harassment
> seriously. Earlier this year, the Board of Trustees was informed that
> allegations of harassment had been made against the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board Chair dating back to his time as chair of Wikimédia France. We
> immediately directed the Foundation to investigate. The Foundation employed
> independent, external experts and conducted an investigation. Based on the
> information presented, the investigation found no support for the
> allegations. That conclusion was conveyed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> as well as the chair of Wikimédia France.
> 
> The Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to independent investigation if
> presented with new information. Absent such information, we consider the
> allegations to be without merit.
> 
> 
> On behalf of the Board,
> 
> 
> María Sefidari
> 
> El 8 oct. 2017 5:20, "John Erling Blad"  escribió:
> 
> When I first saw the posts I thought it would probably