Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Gabriel Thullen]

Thank you Natacha for the update on the French situation.
What would really make me happy this week would be to witness a goodwill or
wikilove gesture by the French board: let the members who were recently
expelled join up again so that we can hold some meaningful discussions.
Gabe

Le 8 août 2017 2:56 AM, "Natacha Rault"  a écrit :

> Dear All,
>
> More than a quarter of Wikimedia France’s members have requested that
> several topics be added and voted upon at he next general assembly to be
> held in september in order to reflect on the current governance issues.
>
> The board has just confirmed that the minimum of members requested to do
> this has now been reached, see here (in French) for more details
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/
> Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale/septembre_2017/Points_%
> C3%A0_ajouter_%C3%A0_l%27ordre_du_jour  wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9n%C3%
> A9rale/septembre_2017/Points_%C3%A0_ajouter_%C3%A0_l'ordre_du_jour>
>
> We hope that we will be able to achieve a sound democratic debate and
> start working towards a resolution of the problems recently encountered. I
> am personally really happy to see that a significant number of members have
> expressed ideas and worked collaboratively to express their point of view.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nattes à chat
>
> #whatmakesmehappythisweek
>
> > Le 4 août 2017 à 21:46, Devouard (gmail)  a écrit :
> >
> > 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 members have resigned, one staffer was
> fired
> >> for refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had
> their
> >> membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join
> >> the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I
> >> may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it
> up.
> >
> > It far from sum-it-up.
> >
> > There is also *very* disrespectful behavior from staff and management,
> including
> > * non respect of "friendly space policy" and comments directed to a very
> involved member with autistic traits such as "it is you who should adapt
> and you need to grow up to become an adult"
> > * paternalistic behavior toward volunteers such as "you still have not
> understood what I was saying. Let's meet face to face and I will explain to
> you *again* so that you *really* get it"
> > * legal threats toward volunteers who ask questions
> > * referring to members in a very belittling way : "tartempion" or
> "pigiste"
> > * refusal to acknowledge authorship of action from volunteers (such as
> "no author name in wiki newsletter")
> > * emails sent to board by members to "report issues" are immediately
> forwarded to the management, making it impossible to safely and
> confidentially discuss issues
> > * there has been cases of doxing by the management, using member private
> data
> > * set up of a black list of members that should not receive support by
> staff in spite of being members.
> >
> > There is staff suffering, upon which it is difficult to comment
> publicly, but is made quite obvious by the fact several staff members
> joined and created a trade-union branch to be able to *defend* themselves.
> >
> > There are multiple rumors reported by members of quite "generous"
> expenses reimbursement. Yet unclear due to non access to financial data.
> >
> > There are questions related to management using the resources and image
> of the association, as well as WMF brand, to look for funding for a
> mysterious entity no one knows anything about. Yet unanswered.
> >
> > There are questions related to using resources of the association to
> gain a elected position.
> >
> > And a bunch of other things. Those would count as "one or two minor
> details".
> >
> >
> >> The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they
> are
> >> related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with
> >> fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us
> find
> >> an issue to this crisis. (
> >> http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)
> >
> > Absolutely correct. Those were certifications (and done prior to most of
> our current issues). For example, a certification will check that there is
> a Conflict of Interest Policy in place. And yes there is one. So there is
> certification.
> >
> > What good is a COI policy when people do not report COI or when the
> members of the committee do not have independance from those reporting
> COI... that is another story. And this is when a governance audit can help.
> >
> > It may be that if WMF asks for a financial audit, only WMF 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Natacha Rault]

Dear All, 

More than a quarter of Wikimedia France’s members have requested that several 
topics be added and voted upon at he next general assembly to be held in 
september in order to reflect on the current governance issues.

The board has just confirmed that the minimum of members requested to do this 
has now been reached, see here (in French) for more details 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale/septembre_2017/Points_%C3%A0_ajouter_%C3%A0_l%27ordre_du_jour
 


We hope that we will be able to achieve a sound democratic debate and start 
working towards a resolution of the problems recently encountered. I am 
personally really happy to see that a significant number of members have 
expressed ideas and worked collaboratively to express their point of view.  

Kind regards, 

Nattes à chat 

#whatmakesmehappythisweek

> Le 4 août 2017 à 21:46, Devouard (gmail)  a écrit :
> 
> 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 members have resigned, one staffer was fired
>> for refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had their
>> membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join
>> the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I
>> may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it up.
> 
> It far from sum-it-up.
> 
> There is also *very* disrespectful behavior from staff and management, 
> including
> * non respect of "friendly space policy" and comments directed to a very 
> involved member with autistic traits such as "it is you who should adapt and 
> you need to grow up to become an adult"
> * paternalistic behavior toward volunteers such as "you still have not 
> understood what I was saying. Let's meet face to face and I will explain to 
> you *again* so that you *really* get it"
> * legal threats toward volunteers who ask questions
> * referring to members in a very belittling way : "tartempion" or "pigiste"
> * refusal to acknowledge authorship of action from volunteers (such as "no 
> author name in wiki newsletter")
> * emails sent to board by members to "report issues" are immediately 
> forwarded to the management, making it impossible to safely and 
> confidentially discuss issues
> * there has been cases of doxing by the management, using member private data
> * set up of a black list of members that should not receive support by staff 
> in spite of being members.
> 
> There is staff suffering, upon which it is difficult to comment publicly, but 
> is made quite obvious by the fact several staff members joined and created a 
> trade-union branch to be able to *defend* themselves.
> 
> There are multiple rumors reported by members of quite "generous" expenses 
> reimbursement. Yet unclear due to non access to financial data.
> 
> There are questions related to management using the resources and image of 
> the association, as well as WMF brand, to look for funding for a mysterious 
> entity no one knows anything about. Yet unanswered.
> 
> There are questions related to using resources of the association to gain a 
> elected position.
> 
> And a bunch of other things. Those would count as "one or two minor details".
> 
> 
>> The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they are
>> related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with
>> fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us find
>> an issue to this crisis. (
>> http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)
> 
> Absolutely correct. Those were certifications (and done prior to most of our 
> current issues). For example, a certification will check that there is a 
> Conflict of Interest Policy in place. And yes there is one. So there is 
> certification.
> 
> What good is a COI policy when people do not report COI or when the members 
> of the committee do not have independance from those reporting COI... that is 
> another story. And this is when a governance audit can help.
> 
> It may be that if WMF asks for a financial audit, only WMF will get the 
> outcome.
> 
> Which is why we are currently voting so that the members get the RIGHT to 
> vote to ASK for a financial audit during the next General Assembly.
> 
> But the amount of energy we have to spend to simply TRY to get answers is 
> frankly just wrong.
> 
> Florence
> 
> 
>> I remain convinced that WMFR needs an independent governance audit, and the
>> results should be made available to the chapter members and to the staff.
>> Something 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Devouard (gmail)]

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 members have resigned, one staffer was fired
for refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had their
membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join
the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I
may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it up.


It far from sum-it-up.

There is also *very* disrespectful behavior from staff and management, 
including
* non respect of "friendly space policy" and comments directed to a very 
involved member with autistic traits such as "it is you who should adapt 
and you need to grow up to become an adult"
* paternalistic behavior toward volunteers such as "you still have not 
understood what I was saying. Let's meet face to face and I will explain 
to you *again* so that you *really* get it"

* legal threats toward volunteers who ask questions
* referring to members in a very belittling way : "tartempion" or "pigiste"
* refusal to acknowledge authorship of action from volunteers (such as 
"no author name in wiki newsletter")
* emails sent to board by members to "report issues" are immediately 
forwarded to the management, making it impossible to safely and 
confidentially discuss issues
* there has been cases of doxing by the management, using member private 
data
* set up of a black list of members that should not receive support by 
staff in spite of being members.


There is staff suffering, upon which it is difficult to comment 
publicly, but is made quite obvious by the fact several staff members 
joined and created a trade-union branch to be able to *defend* themselves.


There are multiple rumors reported by members of quite "generous" 
expenses reimbursement. Yet unclear due to non access to financial data.


There are questions related to management using the resources and image 
of the association, as well as WMF brand, to look for funding for a 
mysterious entity no one knows anything about. Yet unanswered.


There are questions related to using resources of the association to 
gain a elected position.


And a bunch of other things. Those would count as "one or two minor 
details".




The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they are
related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with
fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us find
an issue to this crisis. (
http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)


Absolutely correct. Those were certifications (and done prior to most of 
our current issues). For example, a certification will check that there 
is a Conflict of Interest Policy in place. And yes there is one. So 
there is certification.


What good is a COI policy when people do not report COI or when the 
members of the committee do not have independance from those reporting 
COI... that is another story. And this is when a governance audit can help.


It may be that if WMF asks for a financial audit, only WMF will get the 
outcome.


Which is why we are currently voting so that the members get the RIGHT 
to vote to ASK for a financial audit during the next General Assembly.


But the amount of energy we have to spend to simply TRY to get answers 
is frankly just wrong.


Florence



I remain convinced that WMFR needs an independent governance audit, and the
results should be made available to the chapter members and to the staff.
Something drastic needs to be done so that this chapter can continue to
function. I also think that the members who have been expelled should be
allowed to rejoin the French chapter unconditionally. That is a goodwill
gesture that the current board can easily make and it will go a long way
towards finding a solution to this ridiculous situation.

The French press is starting to talk about what is going on at the French
Wikimedia chapter, are we all waiting for CNN to come in as well? For sure
that will get the WMF moving...

Best regards
Gabe

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:


Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly
who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?

Kind regards


___
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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Andreas Kolbe]

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’ government partners, and an editor of the English
Wikipedia. This raised questions in the Wikimedia community about whether a
trustee was able to balance appropriately the interests of his clients with
his responsibilities to Wikimedia UK, the values and editorial policies of
Wikipedia, and whether any conflict of interest that arose as a result was
effectively managed.

"To better understand the facts and details of these allegations and to
ensure that governance arrangements commensurate with the standing of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia UK and the worldwide Wikimedia movement,
Wikimedia UK’s trustees and the Wikimedia Foundation will jointly appoint
an independent expert advisor to objectively review both Wikimedia UK’s
governance arrangements and its handling of the conflict of interest."


The present situation is not entirely dissimilar: questions about the
then-board's conduct (prior to Chris Keating's chairmanship), and
specifically its handling of conflicts of interest, first arose in the
community and then made their way into press reports.

It's worth remembering that the above WMF/WMUK statement only came about
ten days AFTER the press started picking up on this.

And while it's true that WMUK and WMF jointly commissioned the report, my
recollection is that WMUK did not have much choice in the matter.

The governance review eventually vindicated the community concerns, finding
that there had indeed been significant governance failings.[2]

It seems to me WMUK became a more mature organisation as a result of this
episode. A similar approach and outcome may well be possible for WMFR as
well.

Andreas

[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/28/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-
foundation-and-wikimedia-uk/
[2] http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-
overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly
> who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> On 04/08/2017 17:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> 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]
>> http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-gov
>> ernance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ilario Valdelli 
>> wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion there is a little bit confusion.
>>>
>>> The audit is required by someone (in this case the board) and the audit
>>> reports to the entity requiring it (the board).
>>>
>>> To communicate or not depends on the board. If the board required it to
>>> have a clearer picture to take a decision, the board can keep it private
>>> mainly if there are some personal questions involved in the audit.
>>>
>>> In this specific case if there is a problem between the staff and the
>>> community (as I understand) the audit cannot be managed nor by the staff
>>> neither by the community, because are the two conflictual parties and to
>>> communicate the results to both parties may revamp this conflict.
>>>
>>> But at the same time I understand that also the board is considered
>>> untrusted by the community, so I agree that any audit will be considered
>>> invalid by every parties. In computer science this may be called
>>> "starvation condition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
>>> /Starvation_(computer_science)).  A good governance, like a good
>>> algorithm, should avoid it.
>>>
>>> The biggest problem of starvation is not the condition itself, which can
>>> be blocked somehow, but the most strange solution that people would use
>>> to
>>> solve it. Someone would unplug the power and to reset the system, someone
>>> would burn the system and someone would simple wait that the system will
>>> solve the starvation by itself.
>>>
>>> At that point the FDC has taken the best decision, IMHO, like an external
>>> party, can unblock the starvation.
>>>
>>> Another solution is the General Assembly, but personally I think that the
>>> silent crowd will be the most representative party in this question and
>>> in
>>> general the silent crowd will take always the most moderate position. I
>>> don't see so much moderated position to attract more consent.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>>
>>> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Natacha Rault]

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 it is not often I agree 
with Ilario on governance issues, but in this case I agree that the FDC has 
taken the adequate decision, one that allows us members, to point out to the 
board that the situation has to change on the basis of the FDC recommendation. 
Of course I will be called a nasty troll by the WMFR board for writing that 
(but now I share the condition with Ilario, which is real comforting).  

Apart from this, it is not a 3 solution dilemna like exposed by Ilario 
previoulsy, because we are not solving a mathematical or computing problem, but 
initiating a negociation process with human beings embedded in a conflict who 
are feeling emotions. One cannot eradicate resentment by taking a computational 
approach to solve conflicts between humans, because humans first need to be 
heard before willing to collaborate : a mediation process always start by the 
presentation of each position. These positions usually move in the process, 
they are not rigid.  

To be successful each party (and there are obviously more than two parties 
there, there are a variety of different positions) has to let the other speak 
and express their point of vue, otherwise we might fall in a starvation case 
(but surely there are less radical solutions than just the 3 ones presented by 
you that allow to have hope and not fear of ”plug pulling”, ”burning” ect).

 If you have a look at this page 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale/septembre_2017#Point_de_l.27OJ_statutaire
 where a diversity of opinions and approaches are discussed to prepare the 
General Assembly, it will show you that we are not facing a minority showing 
extreme opinions: we are facing reasonable wikimedians, trying to find 
solutions and deeply concerned about the situation. 

So it is not correct to adopt a binary approach to present the situation. I 
find it very positive to discover all these point of views, just I I loved 
reading all the different point of views in the strategic review process 
initiated a few months ago by the WMF. Reading all this changes my own 
opinions. Friction of ideas is the basis of our movement. I remember Katherine 
Maher saying in a speech that this confrontation with other ideas in Wikipedia 
helps contributors to become more tolerant, and this is a vision that truly 
appeals to me. We should not be afraid of diverging opinions, we should be 
afraid of  puritan and totalitarian pictures depicting everything as perfect. 

The positive thing is that the Board, whatever it does, will now have feedback 
and information. I work in human ressources: leaders need feedbacks to be 
efficient, in assessing leadership skills one will always look at the capacity 
of obtaining feedback, negociating, motivating and offering a vision for the 
future. 

I would also like to highlight I find this wording of yours problematic: 

"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 than in other countries.”

I dont think it is adequate to assume that the French system of law is weaker 
than in other countries (and which countries please?). Especially since you 
start by saying you dont know… 

Kind regards, 

Natacha 
Le 4 août 2017 à 18:00, Chris Keating  a écrit :

> 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 fight with its community.

Regards,

Chris
(chair of Wikimedia UK at that point in time!)

___
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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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 not a
lawyer, although I sat opposite one in the London Underground once.  I
merely suggest that someone who actually is a lawyer, preferably even
employed or retained by the Foundation, should consider the matter and give
the WMF a professional opinion.  If you happen to be qualified to advise
the Foundation on the matter, by all means do so.  If not, so that your
opinion on the matter is as authoritative as mine, which is to say, not at
all, then perhaps you may wish to desist from discussing the matter
further, as I propose to do.

"Rogol"

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:02 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> 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 requirement?
>
> The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
> because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
> engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
> image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
> months notice.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
> > If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
> > the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
> > status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
> > of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation
> is
> > free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to
> control.
> > ___
> > 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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Gabriel Thullen]

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 refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had their
membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join
the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I
may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it up.
The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they are
related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with
fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us find
an issue to this crisis. (
http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)

I remain convinced that WMFR needs an independent governance audit, and the
results should be made available to the chapter members and to the staff.
Something drastic needs to be done so that this chapter can continue to
function. I also think that the members who have been expelled should be
allowed to rejoin the French chapter unconditionally. That is a goodwill
gesture that the current board can easily make and it will go a long way
towards finding a solution to this ridiculous situation.

The French press is starting to talk about what is going on at the French
Wikimedia chapter, are we all waiting for CNN to come in as well? For sure
that will get the WMF moving...

Best regards
Gabe

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly
> who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> On 04/08/2017 17:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> 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]
>> http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-gov
>> ernance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ilario Valdelli 
>> wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion there is a little bit confusion.
>>>
>>> The audit is required by someone (in this case the board) and the audit
>>> reports to the entity requiring it (the board).
>>>
>>> To communicate or not depends on the board. If the board required it to
>>> have a clearer picture to take a decision, the board can keep it private
>>> mainly if there are some personal questions involved in the audit.
>>>
>>> In this specific case if there is a problem between the staff and the
>>> community (as I understand) the audit cannot be managed nor by the staff
>>> neither by the community, because are the two conflictual parties and to
>>> communicate the results to both parties may revamp this conflict.
>>>
>>> But at the same time I understand that also the board is considered
>>> untrusted by the community, so I agree that any audit will be considered
>>> invalid by every parties. In computer science this may be called
>>> "starvation condition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
>>> /Starvation_(computer_science)).  A good governance, like a good
>>> algorithm, should avoid it.
>>>
>>> The biggest problem of starvation is not the condition itself, which can
>>> be blocked somehow, but the most strange solution that people would use
>>> to
>>> solve it. Someone would unplug the power and to reset the system, someone
>>> would burn the system and someone would simple wait that the system will
>>> solve the starvation by itself.
>>>
>>> At that point the FDC has taken the best decision, IMHO, like an external
>>> party, can unblock the starvation.
>>>
>>> Another solution is the General Assembly, but personally I think that the
>>> silent crowd will be the most representative party in this question and
>>> in
>>> general the silent crowd will take always the most moderate position. I
>>> don't see so much moderated position to attract more consent.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/08/2017 12:03, Gilles Chagnon wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 the board/the direction. I can understand that some points
 may
 be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been
 shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write their
 conclusion in a suitable way.

  G. Chagnon

 Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Chris Keating]

> 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 fight with its community.

Regards,

Chris
(chair of Wikimedia UK at that point in time!)

___
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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Andreas Kolbe]

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]
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> In my opinion there is a little bit confusion.
>
> The audit is required by someone (in this case the board) and the audit
> reports to the entity requiring it (the board).
>
> To communicate or not depends on the board. If the board required it to
> have a clearer picture to take a decision, the board can keep it private
> mainly if there are some personal questions involved in the audit.
>
> In this specific case if there is a problem between the staff and the
> community (as I understand) the audit cannot be managed nor by the staff
> neither by the community, because are the two conflictual parties and to
> communicate the results to both parties may revamp this conflict.
>
> But at the same time I understand that also the board is considered
> untrusted by the community, so I agree that any audit will be considered
> invalid by every parties. In computer science this may be called
> "starvation condition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
> /Starvation_(computer_science)).  A good governance, like a good
> algorithm, should avoid it.
>
> The biggest problem of starvation is not the condition itself, which can
> be blocked somehow, but the most strange solution that people would use to
> solve it. Someone would unplug the power and to reset the system, someone
> would burn the system and someone would simple wait that the system will
> solve the starvation by itself.
>
> At that point the FDC has taken the best decision, IMHO, like an external
> party, can unblock the starvation.
>
> Another solution is the General Assembly, but personally I think that the
> silent crowd will be the most representative party in this question and in
> general the silent crowd will take always the most moderate position. I
> don't see so much moderated position to attract more consent.
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> On 04/08/2017 12:03, Gilles Chagnon wrote:
>
>> 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 the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may
>> be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been
>> shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write their
>> conclusion in a suitable way.
>>
>> G. Chagnon
>>
>> Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
>>
>>> 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 claim for an audit too,
>>> defining the auditing entity.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>>
> --
> Ilario Valdelli
> Wikimedia CH
> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
> Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
> Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
> Tel: +41764821371
> http://www.wikimedia.ch
>
>
> ---
> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast
> antivirus.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> 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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Natacha Rault]

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, the context is 
usually not the same. 
Ideally it would be much better if the community got involved more in what is 
happening in chapters, as chapters spend the money derived from the notoriety 
of their work as contributors, thus getting also the media attention. 


Natacha Rault / Nattes à chat


> Le 4 août 2017 à 12:03, Gilles Chagnon <cont...@gchagnon.fr> a écrit :
> 
> 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 
> the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be 
> confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared, 
> provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a 
> suitable way.
> 
>   G. Chag
> 
> Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
>> 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 claim for an audit too, defining 
>> the auditing entity.
>> Kind regards
>> On 04/08/2017 11:27, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:
>>> Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of 
>>> Ilario Valdelli <valde...@gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM
>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
>>> 
>>> 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 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:
>>>> 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 requirement?
>>>> 
>>>> The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
>>>> because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
>>>> engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
>>>> image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
>>>> months notice.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
>>>>> the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
>>>>> status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
>>>>> of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation is
>>>>> free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to 
>>>>> control.
>>>>> ___
>>>>> 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, 
>>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>> ___
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Chris Keating]

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 late September or early October.

I believe that if there is no change in WMFR's position then the WMF
owes a duty to the wider movement to withdraw the Chapter Agreement at
that point. (And if I were on the WMF Board, which of course I'm not,
this is what I would be saying). I don't know if WMF is officially
thinking along these lines, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have a
plan for a worst case scenario

The special GA is the only opportunity WMFR has to demonstrate it's
changing before the WMF has to make up its mind. So if WMFR Board
manipulates the special GA to prevent criticism or change, then I
imagine that will not be helping their position at all.

Regards,

Chris



On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Gilles Chagnon <cont...@gchagnon.fr> wrote:
> 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 the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be
> confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared,
> provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a
> suitable way.
>
> G. Chagnon
>
>
> Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
>>
>> 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 claim for an audit too,
>> defining the auditing entity.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> On 04/08/2017 11:27, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:
>>>
>>> Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws
>>>
>>> 
>>> From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of
>>> Ilario Valdelli <valde...@gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM
>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
>>>
>>> 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 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 requirement?
>>>>
>>>> The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
>>>> because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
>>>> engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
>>>> image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
>>>> months notice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors
>>>> <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter
>>>>> at
>>>>> the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the
>>>>> legal
>>>>> status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status)
>>>>> and
>>>>> of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation
>>>>> is
>>>>> free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to
>>>>> control.
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_li

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Gilles Chagnon]

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 the board/the direction. I can understand that some 
points may be confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could 
have been shared, provided the auditing organism had been told to write 
their conclusion in a suitable way.


G. Chagnon

Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
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 claim for an audit too, 
defining the auditing entity.


Kind regards

On 04/08/2017 11:27, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:

Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws


From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf 
of Ilario Valdelli <valde...@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

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 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:

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 requirement?

The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
months notice.


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
<domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:
If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a 
chapter at
the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the 
legal
status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour 
status) and
of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The 
Foundation is
free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to 
control.

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast 
antivirus.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>






___
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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Ilario Valdelli]

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 claim for an audit too, 
defining the auditing entity.


Kind regards

On 04/08/2017 11:27, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:

Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws


From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Ilario 
Valdelli <valde...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

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 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:

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 requirement?

The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
months notice.


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> wrote:

If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation is
free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to control.
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Ilario Valdelli]

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 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:

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 requirement?

The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
months notice.


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:

If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation is
free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to control.
___
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, 




--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Ilario Valdelli]

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 than in other countries.


The last point is connected with the point of privileges which are, at 
the opposite, balanced by stricter parameters than user groups.


Chapters have some obligations compensated by few privileges, and 
honestly the state of User Group is at the moment the easiest way to get 
an official recognition by WMF.


It's sufficient to check how many user groups have been created recently 
and how many chapters to define clearly if there is a "marginalization 
of alternatives".


Kind regards

On 04/08/2017 09:55, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:

The current situation (further) demonstrates a huge weakness in the current 
system of the governance of local communities. The problems being discussed 
here are far from unique to Wikimedia France and can be seen not only in other 
affiliates, but also in the long-festering problems of the administration of 
Wikimedia projects. As Rogol and others note... the Foundation has it hands 
tied to a large degree because of both legal and ideological concerns. But this 
means that individuals and small groups of people are able to work the system 
to their advantage, with little to no accountability to either their local 
communities or to the overall movement.


As for the idea of forming alternate organizations, that is easier said than 
done. I speak from my experience with Wiki Learning Tec de Monterrey. It took 
us almost 2 years to get approval from AffCom as a user group among other 
struggles. The privileges that chapters have in particular allow for 
marginalization of alternatives.



From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Rogol 
Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 11:38:01 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation is
free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to control.



--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[James Salsman]

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 requirement?

The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
months notice.


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors  wrote:
> If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter at
> the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the legal
> status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status) and
> of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation is
> free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to control.
> ___
> 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] Update on Wikimédia France

[James Salsman]

As a general question, Pine, what do you think is the optimal amount
of time that the Foundation should allow a chapter agreement to
persist when, as in this case, allegations of financial impropriety
and use of the trademarks to  enrich chapter officials' side projects
are followed by removal of access to the chapter mailing list and
refusal to agendize an audit and recall?

Do we have a healthier movement if the Foundation signals, by lack of
action, that they will tolerate such conditions  and require the
ordinary membership to do so much extra legwork to organize the muted
membership?

Would requiring the ordinary membership to form an alternative
organization in order to address this issue encourage other chapters'
officials to use the trademarks for their personal benefit, too?


On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> A matter of concern is that WMF is far from having an exemplary record of
> good governance and transparency. It's problematic for WMF to be pointing
> fingers at other organizations and telling them to improve their governance.
>
> On the other hand, based on my limited understanding of the facts, it seems
> to me that the situation with WMFR shouldn't be allowed to continue
> indefinitely. Pulling the chapter agreement should be an option, although I
> would prefer that that option be exercised by someone other than the WMF
> staff and/or WMF Board. I don't think that the Affiliations Committee would
> be a good option either, at least not with its present form, since it is an
> advisory committee to the WMF Board and it relies on a charter from the WMF
> Board for its authority, which means that the Affiliations Committee could
> be easily manipulated by the WMF Board and in any case a decision from the
> Affiliations Committee would need the approval of the WMF Board.
>
> I think that most people would prefer that the existing WMFR organization
> be returned to good health, but if that doesn't happen in a timely manner,
> then there are a lot of difficult choices to be made, unfortunately.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:20 PM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter, in this situation I think it is completely appropriate and
>> preferable for the Foundation Director to make the continued existence
>> of the Chapter contingent on their agendizing the specific questions
>> of audit, transparency, and recall in the General Assembly which the
>> members who have called the assembly are trying to call, especially
>> since there are suddenly so many new members and the Chapter
>> leadership has deliberately censored the only means for the membership
>> to communicate with each other.
>>
>> Frankly, I think removing the restriction and moderation on the
>> chapter mailing list is the very first thing that the Foundation
>> should require of the Chapter at this point. The choice is apparently
>> between a few people getting more email than they want and complete
>> dysfunctional takeover.
>>
>> Ting, can you please say how that, "can open a door to do a lot of
>> harm to the movement"?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Peter Southwood
>> <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> > Are you requesting her to do this, or asking if she has the
>> rights/power/authority to do this?
>> > Cheers,
>> > Peter
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> Behalf Of James Salsman
>> > Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:11 PM
>> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Katherine Maher
>> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
>> >
>> > Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce
>> a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the
>> September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may
>> not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) <fdevou...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting
>> >> data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
>> >> we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to
>> >> request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several
>> >> weeks to achieve that.
>> >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Pine W]

Hi James,

A matter of concern is that WMF is far from having an exemplary record of
good governance and transparency. It's problematic for WMF to be pointing
fingers at other organizations and telling them to improve their governance.

On the other hand, based on my limited understanding of the facts, it seems
to me that the situation with WMFR shouldn't be allowed to continue
indefinitely. Pulling the chapter agreement should be an option, although I
would prefer that that option be exercised by someone other than the WMF
staff and/or WMF Board. I don't think that the Affiliations Committee would
be a good option either, at least not with its present form, since it is an
advisory committee to the WMF Board and it relies on a charter from the WMF
Board for its authority, which means that the Affiliations Committee could
be easily manipulated by the WMF Board and in any case a decision from the
Affiliations Committee would need the approval of the WMF Board.

I think that most people would prefer that the existing WMFR organization
be returned to good health, but if that doesn't happen in a timely manner,
then there are a lot of difficult choices to be made, unfortunately.

Pine


On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:20 PM, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter, in this situation I think it is completely appropriate and
> preferable for the Foundation Director to make the continued existence
> of the Chapter contingent on their agendizing the specific questions
> of audit, transparency, and recall in the General Assembly which the
> members who have called the assembly are trying to call, especially
> since there are suddenly so many new members and the Chapter
> leadership has deliberately censored the only means for the membership
> to communicate with each other.
>
> Frankly, I think removing the restriction and moderation on the
> chapter mailing list is the very first thing that the Foundation
> should require of the Chapter at this point. The choice is apparently
> between a few people getting more email than they want and complete
> dysfunctional takeover.
>
> Ting, can you please say how that, "can open a door to do a lot of
> harm to the movement"?
>
> Sincerely,
> Jim
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Peter Southwood
> <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > Are you requesting her to do this, or asking if she has the
> rights/power/authority to do this?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of James Salsman
> > Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:11 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Katherine Maher
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
> >
> > Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce
> a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the
> September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may
> not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) <fdevou...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
> >>
> >>
> >> After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting
> >> data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
> >> we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to
> >> request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several
> >> weeks to achieve that.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per
> >> bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting.
> >> Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous
> >> (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion
> >> AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as
> >> the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would
> >> like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial
> audit...
> >>
> >>
> >> According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions
> >> may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least
> >> 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one
> >> month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
> >>
> >>
> >> But to make things easier for us...
> >> * some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
> >> decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[James Salsman]

Peter, in this situation I think it is completely appropriate and
preferable for the Foundation Director to make the continued existence
of the Chapter contingent on their agendizing the specific questions
of audit, transparency, and recall in the General Assembly which the
members who have called the assembly are trying to call, especially
since there are suddenly so many new members and the Chapter
leadership has deliberately censored the only means for the membership
to communicate with each other.

Frankly, I think removing the restriction and moderation on the
chapter mailing list is the very first thing that the Foundation
should require of the Chapter at this point. The choice is apparently
between a few people getting more email than they want and complete
dysfunctional takeover.

Ting, can you please say how that, "can open a door to do a lot of
harm to the movement"?

Sincerely,
Jim


On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Peter Southwood
<peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> Are you requesting her to do this, or asking if she has the 
> rights/power/authority to do this?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of James Salsman
> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:11 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Katherine Maher
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
>
> Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce a 
> new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the 
> September General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may 
> not otherwise be inclined to agendas, please?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) <fdevou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
>>
>>
>> After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting
>> data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
>> we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to
>> request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several
>> weeks to achieve that.
>>
>>
>> Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per
>> bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting.
>> Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous
>> (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion
>> AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as
>> the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would
>> like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial 
>> audit...
>>
>>
>> According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions
>> may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least
>> 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one
>> month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
>>
>>
>> But to make things easier for us...
>> * some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
>> decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships
>> rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have
>> voted for the new agenda...
>> * in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to
>> 300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased
>> number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to
>> request additions to the agenda.
>> * the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which
>> means we can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact
>> them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the
>> closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for
>> registration. So the most active members actually joined that public
>> list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who
>> did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them.
>> How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on
>> an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them
>> about it.
>>
>> How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond
>> shameful behavior.
>>
>> So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
>>
>>
>> If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks...
>> please vote.
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/se
>> ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
>>
>>
>> Please, do realy our call in your network

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Yann Forget]

2017-08-03 13:47 GMT+02:00 Rémi Mathis :

> > To be honest, 25-30% of WMFR members is quite a lot. And, don't
> > forget, include roughly half of the Wikimedia France Board elected at
> > the last General Assembly.
> >
> > This isn't the first governance crisis in the Wikimedia movement (WMF
> > and other chapters have certainly had them) but it is probably the
> > biggest and most long-drawn-out.
>
> Of course, it's quite a lot: that's why a special meeting is scheduled to
> discuss of all that and the biggest part of the discussion will be driven
> by the people who are not happy.
> But still, 70-75% of the members are happy with the organisation and never

ask them anything, nobody tries to listen to them. We should try to include
> everyone, even the shy ones, even those who just work and don't consider
> themselves as potentiol bosses... not only the few who knows who to talk
> to, where to write, to have their personal wills fulfilled
>
> No, that's plain wrong.
70-75% of members are silent, or not interested. So far, Rémi, you are the
only one outside the board who supports the board.

The people complaining are ALL the active volunteers of the French
Wikimedia community.

Please get things right.

Regards,

Yann
___
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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Peter Southwood]

Are you requesting her to do this, or asking if she has the 
rights/power/authority to do this?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
James Salsman
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:11 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Katherine Maher
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and announce a new 
policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is contingent on the September 
General Assembly agenda including particular items which they may not otherwise 
be inclined to agendas, please?



On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail) <fdevou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
>
>
> After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting 
> data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
> we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to 
> request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several 
> weeks to achieve that.
>
>
> Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per 
> bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. 
> Topics not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous 
> (sarcasm on), the current board will open the floor for discussion 
> AFTER the General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as 
> the discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would 
> like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial 
> audit...
>
>
> According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions 
> may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 
> 25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one 
> month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
>
>
> But to make things easier for us...
> * some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus 
> decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships 
> rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have 
> voted for the new agenda...
> * in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 
> 300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased 
> number of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to 
> request additions to the agenda.
> * the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which 
> means we can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact 
> them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the 
> closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for 
> registration. So the most active members actually joined that public 
> list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who 
> did not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them.
> How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on 
> an agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them 
> about it.
>
> How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond 
> shameful behavior.
>
> So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
>
>
> If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... 
> please vote.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/se
> ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
>
>
> Please, do realy our call in your network.
>
> If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia 
> France, please tell them about the vote. It is here :
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/se
> ptembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
>
> Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet
> https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
>
> Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong 
> they behave by not giving a chance to democracy Something like "please 
> inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote opened for the new 
> agenda : "
>
> The current board members
> * Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
> * the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
> * the vice President : 
> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
> * The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
> * and the former president who is now regular member:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Florence
>
>
>
> Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :
>>
>> The passing of Louise is really sad :(
>>
>> On the other fro

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Alessandro Marchetti]

About Louise, IMHO if you care about someone who has recently died, you should 
dedicate a whole separated email to the topic.

Of course, if I had specifically any feeling that a mail will be at the center 
of a critical discussion, I would not put any reference to a dead person right 
there. I'd send two mail, in this case one about the situation of WMFr and one 
in memoriam of Louise. You ask different member of the board to do that, so 
every confusion is avoided.

That's what I though when I read the mail from E. Hue: "why here?"
For the future, let's try not to mix "business emails" with obituaries. Just my 
personal advice.

Alessandro


  

Il Giovedì 3 Agosto 2017 14:45, Natacha Rault  ha scritto:
 

 Dear All, 
Remi's email is symptomatic of the kind of communication we have been 
confronted with when asking questions (I repeat : questions, because all the so 
called opponants did in the first place was to question). 
No wonder people are unhappy: they are invited to do exactly the contrary to 
what we are used to in  the Wikimedia projects: debate and search consensus 
though confrontation of different ideas. 
As for the "silent majority" representing 70%, they are just silent. Maybe they 
dont understand, dont care, dont have the information or support  the current 
board: we cannot assume without an open conversation what their ideas are.
This is why it is important to discuss AND vote before the GA assembly to make 
sure all interested members.

Furthermore: last year if I remember correctly, there were 130 people 
participating to the GA.
Now 74 members asking for a GA is about half of them. Not just a few members..
Words and numbers have precise meaning, that can just not be avoided.

With wikilove 
Natacha /Nattes à chat 




> Le 3 août 2017 à 14:16, Devouard (gmail)  a écrit :
> 
> Correct Ting
> 
> 
> At the moment, we are still in the hopes of saving it.
> I do not think losing the chapter agreement at the moment would be helpful.
> 
> 
> Flo
> 
>> Le 03/08/2017 à 13:30, Ting Chen a écrit :
>> Hello dear all,
>> at first I would object that the Foundation do such a thing, even as a 
>> denkexperiment. This may be seen as an easy way to react on a crisis but 
>> this opens doors for misuse of power. In a different situation, a different 
>> time, with a different WMF board and ED, this can open a door to do a lot of 
>> harm to the movement.
>> Second, @Florence and other WMFR members: If the chapter is really beyond 
>> repair, I think a better way is to create a new organization, join as a user 
>> group. This can lead in a few possible outcomes:
>> - The old chapter could struggle and lose further ground, lose funding, 
>> missing reports, etc. which at some time will also lead to lose of chapter 
>> status. The new user group, if it performs well, can then apply for the 
>> chapter status
>> - The old chapter can reform itself, regain its foot step, and come back in 
>> course.
>> The point is, you can be member of both the old and the new organization / 
>> group, they don't exclude each other. With the new group you can also create 
>> pressure from outside to get the old chapter back in course.
>> I believe this is the more ordered way to get a better solution. It 
>> certainly is the longer and more difficult way. But the dark side of the 
>> force is always easier and quicker.
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>> Am 03.08.2017 um 13:10 schrieb James Salsman:
>>> Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and
>>> announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is
>>> contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including
>>> particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas,
>>> please?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail)  
 wrote:
 The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
 
 
 After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data,
 finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
 we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request
 a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to
 achieve that.
 
 
 Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys,
 the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the
 agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the 
 current
 board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which
 somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the
 vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such 
 as
 request of a financial audit...
 
 
 According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may 
 be
 made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Natacha Rault]

Dear All, 
Remi's email is symptomatic of the kind of communication we have been 
confronted with when asking questions (I repeat : questions, because all the so 
called opponants did in the first place was to question). 
No wonder people are unhappy: they are invited to do exactly the contrary to 
what we are used to in  the Wikimedia projects: debate and search consensus 
though confrontation of different ideas. 
As for the "silent majority" representing 70%, they are just silent. Maybe they 
dont understand, dont care, dont have the information or support  the current 
board: we cannot assume without an open conversation what their ideas are.
This is why it is important to discuss AND vote before the GA assembly to make 
sure all interested members.

Furthermore: last year if I remember correctly, there were 130 people 
participating to the GA.
Now 74 members asking for a GA is about half of them. Not just a few members..
Words and numbers have precise meaning, that can just not be avoided.

With wikilove 
Natacha /Nattes à chat 




> Le 3 août 2017 à 14:16, Devouard (gmail)  a écrit :
> 
> Correct Ting
> 
> 
> At the moment, we are still in the hopes of saving it.
> I do not think losing the chapter agreement at the moment would be helpful.
> 
> 
> Flo
> 
>> Le 03/08/2017 à 13:30, Ting Chen a écrit :
>> Hello dear all,
>> at first I would object that the Foundation do such a thing, even as a 
>> denkexperiment. This may be seen as an easy way to react on a crisis but 
>> this opens doors for misuse of power. In a different situation, a different 
>> time, with a different WMF board and ED, this can open a door to do a lot of 
>> harm to the movement.
>> Second, @Florence and other WMFR members: If the chapter is really beyond 
>> repair, I think a better way is to create a new organization, join as a user 
>> group. This can lead in a few possible outcomes:
>> - The old chapter could struggle and lose further ground, lose funding, 
>> missing reports, etc. which at some time will also lead to lose of chapter 
>> status. The new user group, if it performs well, can then apply for the 
>> chapter status
>> - The old chapter can reform itself, regain its foot step, and come back in 
>> course.
>> The point is, you can be member of both the old and the new organization / 
>> group, they don't exclude each other. With the new group you can also create 
>> pressure from outside to get the old chapter back in course.
>> I believe this is the more ordered way to get a better solution. It 
>> certainly is the longer and more difficult way. But the dark side of the 
>> force is always easier and quicker.
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>> Am 03.08.2017 um 13:10 schrieb James Salsman:
>>> Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and
>>> announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is
>>> contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including
>>> particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas,
>>> please?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail)  
 wrote:
 The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
 
 
 After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data,
 finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
 we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request
 a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to
 achieve that.
 
 
 Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys,
 the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the
 agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the 
 current
 board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which
 somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the
 vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such 
 as
 request of a financial audit...
 
 
 According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may 
 be
 made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the
 membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the
 actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
 
 
 But to make things easier for us...
 * some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
 decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships
 rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted
 for the new agenda...
 * in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 300
 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of
 members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request 
 additions
 to the agenda.
 * the main mailing list of the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Devouard (gmail)]

Correct Ting


At the moment, we are still in the hopes of saving it.
I do not think losing the chapter agreement at the moment would be helpful.


Flo

Le 03/08/2017 à 13:30, Ting Chen a écrit :

Hello dear all,

at first I would object that the Foundation do such a thing, even as a 
denkexperiment. This may be seen as an easy way to react on a crisis but 
this opens doors for misuse of power. In a different situation, a 
different time, with a different WMF board and ED, this can open a door 
to do a lot of harm to the movement.


Second, @Florence and other WMFR members: If the chapter is really 
beyond repair, I think a better way is to create a new organization, 
join as a user group. This can lead in a few possible outcomes:


- The old chapter could struggle and lose further ground, lose funding, 
missing reports, etc. which at some time will also lead to lose of 
chapter status. The new user group, if it performs well, can then apply 
for the chapter status


- The old chapter can reform itself, regain its foot step, and come back 
in course.


The point is, you can be member of both the old and the new organization 
/ group, they don't exclude each other. With the new group you can also 
create pressure from outside to get the old chapter back in course.


I believe this is the more ordered way to get a better solution. It 
certainly is the longer and more difficult way. But the dark side of the 
force is always easier and quicker.


Greetings

Ting


Am 03.08.2017 um 13:10 schrieb James Salsman:

Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and
announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is
contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including
particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas,
please?



On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail)  
wrote:

The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE


After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting 
data,

finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to 
request

a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to
achieve that.


Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per 
bylawys,
the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on 
the
agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the 
current
board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. 
Which
somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur 
BEFORE the
vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, 
such as

request of a financial audit...


According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions 
may be
made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% 
of the
membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before 
the

actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...


But to make things easier for us...
* some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships
rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have 
voted

for the new agenda...
* in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 
300

members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of
members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request 
additions

to the agenda.
* the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which 
means we

can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I
managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the 
closure of
the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the 
most
active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. 
But

all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public
list... we have NO MEANS to contact them.
How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an
agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them 
about

it.

How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond
shameful behavior.

So, friends, I would like to ask you help.


If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... 
please

vote.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour 




Please, do realy our call in your network.

If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France,
please tell them about the vote. It is here :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour 



Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet
https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704

Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong 
they

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Gabriel Thullen]

> Nuff said.
> >
> >
> > Florence
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 03/08/2017 à 12:17, Rémi Mathis a écrit :
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> As a member - and former chair - of Wikimedia France, this kind of
> message
> >> really hurts my feelings and I still wonder why they can be posted on
> >> international mailing lists.
> >> We are supposed to act as responsible adults and work together so that
> the
> >> chapters can manage projects... and I keep thinking we are pretty good
> at
> >> it.
> >>
> >> I don't want to read "shame", "false statement", "use Louise passing",
> >> "uncollaborative way".
> >> Both because it's a very agressive way to talk to human beings, because
> >> it's misleading people about what's going on, and because it's simply
> not
> >> true.
> >>
> >> A few French wkipedians are not happy with the board and some of the
> >> employees. They are about 25-30% of Wikimedia France members and asked
> for
> >> a General Meeting - which will take place in September.
> >> Some of their concerns can be understood, but some of those wikipedians
> >> began to accuse the board of squandering money without any ground for it
> >> (there have been two audits within the past few years and all the
> >> accounts/expenses are audited yearly, published and commented to the
> >> members), to go and see former employee's bosses to stalk them, to
> spread
> >> rumours on their sexuality, to report members of the board to their own
> >> boss etc. This is going mad. Really mad.
> >>
> >> This is not "the community", Pierre-Selim, I'm sorry.
> >> This is a few people, for various reasons, usualy very personal and very
> >> bad ones. And those people refuse to acknowledge reality, even when the
> >> board explains everything, even when lawyers explains what can and
> cannot
> >> be done within a chapter.
> >>
> >> I'm really worried about the behaviour of those people, and the future
> of
> >> Wikimedia France - since the harassment could lead to prosecution from
> >> employees.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rémi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: Pierre-Selim <pierre-se...@huard.info>
> >>> Date: 2 August 2017 at 20:09
> >>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
> >>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The passing of Louise is really sad :(
> >>>
> >>> On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things
> the
> >>> way
> >>> they really are.
> >>>
> >>> "The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM
> >>> by
> >>> 25%
> >>> of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
> >>>
> >>> The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of
> >>> inexact/false
> >>> statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board
> >>> on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]).
> >>> This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
> >>>
> >>> In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the
> >>> community/member
> >>> for
> >>> the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to
> the
> >>> agenda
> >>> ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
> >>>
> >>> I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the
> >>> community,
> >>> but I wish we did not had to go this way.
> >>>
> >>> I am truly ashamed of this board,
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitderep
> >>> onse.html
> >>> [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/
> >>> 088008.html
> >>> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/
> >>> Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
> >>>
> >>> 2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
> >>>>
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Rémi Mathis]

> To be honest, 25-30% of WMFR members is quite a lot. And, don't
> forget, include roughly half of the Wikimedia France Board elected at
> the last General Assembly.
>
> This isn't the first governance crisis in the Wikimedia movement (WMF
> and other chapters have certainly had them) but it is probably the
> biggest and most long-drawn-out.
>


Of course, it's quite a lot: that's why a special meeting is scheduled to
discuss of all that and the biggest part of the discussion will be driven
by the people who are not happy.
But still, 70-75% of the members are happy with the organisation and never
ask them anything, nobody tries to listen to them. We should try to include
everyone, even the shy ones, even those who just work and don't consider
themselves as potentiol bosses... not only the few who knows who to talk
to, where to write, to have their personal wills fulfilled

And you are totally right, this is not the first crisis; this is actually
the point.
Every two years, some people complain and ask question about the general
strategy: should the organisation grow or not, what should be the relations
between employees and members, what are the main goals, etc. Then everybody
work together to build a strategic plan, to take decisions ; the plan is
implemented... and two years after that those who weren't happy at that
time, some new members, etc. want to begin from scratch one more time. It's
very hard to have a long-term strategy and developpment if there is no
trust in what members have done before. And it's above all a real problem
for the employees who can never be sure their job won't be at risk a few
months after.



>
> > And those people refuse to acknowledge reality, even when the
> > board explains everything, even when lawyers explains what can and
> cannot be done within a chapter.
>
> To my mind the board's "explanations" are part of the problem. Reading
> the statements from WMFR about the FDC process, or their emails to
> members or their response to the timeline - it's all about how WMFR
> has never been wrong about anything. All the criticism is wrong (and
> probably a conspiracy). WMFR's board has been doing the only thing
> they could possibly have done. All of this is repeated again and
> again.
>
> That is a dysfunctional response to the situation. A significant part
> of the French Wikimedia community has lost confidence in WMFR. The
> Board should be working to restore that confidence, and the more it
> denies the problem is real, the worse the result will be.
>


Well, the problem is that... it's not really clear what the problem is...
They always talk about "what happens", "the situation"... but it's very
hard to understand what specific problem there is. I mean, to have another
answer than "a gouvernance problem" and another ideas than "we should fire
the director, another employee and ask the board to resign".
The people organizing the next general meeting want an audit... but there
have been two in a few months, and we are waiting for the conclusion of the
Foundation (some people came in Paris a few weeks ago): what new can an
audit find?
They want to create a commission against conflits of interest... but it
already exist (within the board, it can be widened, I totally agree) and
some of their leaders precisely left because they wouldn't sign the conflit
of interest statement!
They want to reinstate not only the people whose admission have been
refused but all the members who have been excluded... but no member have
ever been excluded!

It's really hard to speak and be understood (once more, Anthere asks a
question about something she doesn't know, about a fact; I answer to her
with the very fact, and she says "I don't agree". What can you answer to
that?)
I think everybody counted on the Foundation mission to facilitate the
dialogue, we really hope it will happen.

And anyway, I think most of the board cannot deal with the harasment
anymore and will resign. This is just a terrible waste of energy, good will
and work. Back to 2008... with a lot of frustration from those who gave a
lot of free time and competence to the development of the chapter

R














>
> Regards,
>
> 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Ting Chen]

Hello dear all,

at first I would object that the Foundation do such a thing, even as a 
denkexperiment. This may be seen as an easy way to react on a crisis but 
this opens doors for misuse of power. In a different situation, a 
different time, with a different WMF board and ED, this can open a door 
to do a lot of harm to the movement.


Second, @Florence and other WMFR members: If the chapter is really 
beyond repair, I think a better way is to create a new organization, 
join as a user group. This can lead in a few possible outcomes:


- The old chapter could struggle and lose further ground, lose funding, 
missing reports, etc. which at some time will also lead to lose of 
chapter status. The new user group, if it performs well, can then apply 
for the chapter status


- The old chapter can reform itself, regain its foot step, and come back 
in course.


The point is, you can be member of both the old and the new organization 
/ group, they don't exclude each other. With the new group you can also 
create pressure from outside to get the old chapter back in course.


I believe this is the more ordered way to get a better solution. It 
certainly is the longer and more difficult way. But the dark side of the 
force is always easier and quicker.


Greetings

Ting


Am 03.08.2017 um 13:10 schrieb James Salsman:

Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and
announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is
contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including
particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas,
please?



On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail)  wrote:

The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE


After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data,
finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request
a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to
achieve that.


Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys,
the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the
agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current
board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which
somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the
vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as
request of a financial audit...


According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be
made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the
membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the
actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...


But to make things easier for us...
* some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships
rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted
for the new agenda...
* in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 300
members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of
members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions
to the agenda.
* the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which means we
can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I
managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of
the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most
active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But
all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public
list... we have NO MEANS to contact them.
How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an
agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about
it.

How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond
shameful behavior.

So, friends, I would like to ask you help.


If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please
vote.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour


Please, do realy our call in your network.

If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France,
please tell them about the vote. It is here :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour

Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet
https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704

Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they
behave by not giving a chance to democracy
Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote
opened for the new agenda : "

The current board members
* Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
* 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Rémi Mathis]

This is typically the kind agressive behaviour we don't need right now.
Everybody in the chapter knows that Marie-Alice Mathis and Rémi Mathis are
wife and husband, it has always been clearly stated and we always refused
to be at the board at the same time to avoid conflicts of interest.

Now what? Do you think I can't have opinions of my own because I'm not a
member of the board, or she can't have because she's a manipulated woman?
We are *two individuals* and we do have *two brains*. This kind of
allegations are not acceptable and the smugness of "Nuff said" really
hurtful!

I am an ordinary member... but I think I have a certain experience of
what's going on
1/ as a long-time member of the board (2009-2014) and chair (2011-2014),
who hired most of the employees, managed them, organized a lot of what made
Wikimedia France one of the biggest and most sucessful chapters... and a
member still really involved in the life of the community
2/ as someone, yes, who sees her wife spending hours every night, trying to
explain things to people who don't want to hear or understand. Like, you
know, when you ask a question about a fact, I answer to you with a
*checkable fact*. And you answer "I don't agree" (not even "it's not true",
because everybody could check that, but "I don't agree")...

I can't even understand why you post things like at all, but even less on
an international list where people don't know what happens and, for most of
them, can't read French.
This really makes me sad and frustrated

Rémi












On 3 August 2017 at 12:47, Devouard (gmail) <fdevou...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And for the sake of proper understanding... Rémi Mathis is the husband of
> the current vice-chair of Wikimedia France.
>
> Nuff said.
>
>
> Florence
>
>
>
> Le 03/08/2017 à 12:17, Rémi Mathis a écrit :
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As a member - and former chair - of Wikimedia France, this kind of message
>> really hurts my feelings and I still wonder why they can be posted on
>> international mailing lists.
>> We are supposed to act as responsible adults and work together so that the
>> chapters can manage projects... and I keep thinking we are pretty good at
>> it.
>>
>> I don't want to read "shame", "false statement", "use Louise passing",
>> "uncollaborative way".
>> Both because it's a very agressive way to talk to human beings, because
>> it's misleading people about what's going on, and because it's simply not
>> true.
>>
>> A few French wkipedians are not happy with the board and some of the
>> employees. They are about 25-30% of Wikimedia France members and asked for
>> a General Meeting - which will take place in September.
>> Some of their concerns can be understood, but some of those wikipedians
>> began to accuse the board of squandering money without any ground for it
>> (there have been two audits within the past few years and all the
>> accounts/expenses are audited yearly, published and commented to the
>> members), to go and see former employee's bosses to stalk them, to spread
>> rumours on their sexuality, to report members of the board to their own
>> boss etc. This is going mad. Really mad.
>>
>> This is not "the community", Pierre-Selim, I'm sorry.
>> This is a few people, for various reasons, usualy very personal and very
>> bad ones. And those people refuse to acknowledge reality, even when the
>> board explains everything, even when lawyers explains what can and cannot
>> be done within a chapter.
>>
>> I'm really worried about the behaviour of those people, and the future of
>> Wikimedia France - since the harassment could lead to prosecution from
>> employees.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rémi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: Pierre-Selim <pierre-se...@huard.info>
>>> Date: 2 August 2017 at 20:09
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> The passing of Louise is really sad :(
>>>
>>> On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the
>>> way
>>> they really are.
>>>
>>> "The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM
>>> by
>>> 25%
>>> of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
>>>
>>> The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of
>>> inexact/false
>>> statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board
>&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[James Salsman]

Can Katherine Maher as Foundation Executive Director decide and
announce a new policy that the continuation of the WMFR Charter is
contingent on the September General Assembly agenda including
particular items which they may not otherwise be inclined to agendas,
please?



On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Devouard (gmail)  wrote:
> The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE
>
>
> After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting data,
> finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
> we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to request
> a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several weeks to
> achieve that.
>
>
> Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per bylawys,
> the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics not on the
> agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm on), the current
> board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the General Assembly. Which
> somehow defeats the whole process as the discussion should occur BEFORE the
> vote. Also, some of us would like some resolutions to be voted upon, such as
> request of a financial audit...
>
>
> According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions may be
> made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 25% of the
> membership ask for them. And this should be approved one month before the
> actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...
>
>
> But to make things easier for us...
> * some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus
> decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships
> rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have voted
> for the new agenda...
> * in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 300
> members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number of
> members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request additions
> to the agenda.
> * the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which means we
> can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact them. I
> managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the closure of
> the internal mailing list and to send a call for registration. So the most
> active members actually joined that public list and are within reach. But
> all the other members... the ones who did not reach to that new public
> list... we have NO MEANS to contact them.
> How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an
> agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them about
> it.
>
> How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond
> shameful behavior.
>
> So, friends, I would like to ask you help.
>
>
> If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... please
> vote.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
>
>
> Please, do realy our call in your network.
>
> If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France,
> please tell them about the vote. It is here :
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour
>
> Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet
> https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704
>
> Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong they
> behave by not giving a chance to democracy
> Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the vote
> opened for the new agenda : "
>
> The current board members
> * Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
> * the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
> * the vice President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
> * The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
> * and the former president who is now regular member:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Florence
>
>
>
> Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :
>>
>> The passing of Louise is really sad :(
>>
>> On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the
>> way
>> they really are.
>>
>> "The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by
>> 25%
>> of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
>>
>> The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of
>> inexact/false
>> statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board
>> on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]).
>> This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
>>
>> In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the
>> community/member
>> for
>> the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the
>> agenda
>> ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
>>
>> I hope the board will have 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Chris Keating]

> A few French wkipedians are not happy with the board and some of the
> employees. They are about 25-30% of Wikimedia France members

To be honest, 25-30% of WMFR members is quite a lot. And, don't
forget, include roughly half of the Wikimedia France Board elected at
the last General Assembly.

This isn't the first governance crisis in the Wikimedia movement (WMF
and other chapters have certainly had them) but it is probably the
biggest and most long-drawn-out.

> And those people refuse to acknowledge reality, even when the
> board explains everything, even when lawyers explains what can and cannot be 
> done within a chapter.

To my mind the board's "explanations" are part of the problem. Reading
the statements from WMFR about the FDC process, or their emails to
members or their response to the timeline - it's all about how WMFR
has never been wrong about anything. All the criticism is wrong (and
probably a conspiracy). WMFR's board has been doing the only thing
they could possibly have done. All of this is repeated again and
again.

That is a dysfunctional response to the situation. A significant part
of the French Wikimedia community has lost confidence in WMFR. The
Board should be working to restore that confidence, and the more it
denies the problem is real, the worse the result will be.

Regards,

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Devouard (gmail)]

And for the sake of proper understanding... Rémi Mathis is the husband 
of the current vice-chair of Wikimedia France.


Nuff said.


Florence


Le 03/08/2017 à 12:17, Rémi Mathis a écrit :

Dear all,

As a member - and former chair - of Wikimedia France, this kind of message
really hurts my feelings and I still wonder why they can be posted on
international mailing lists.
We are supposed to act as responsible adults and work together so that the
chapters can manage projects... and I keep thinking we are pretty good at
it.

I don't want to read "shame", "false statement", "use Louise passing",
"uncollaborative way".
Both because it's a very agressive way to talk to human beings, because
it's misleading people about what's going on, and because it's simply not
true.

A few French wkipedians are not happy with the board and some of the
employees. They are about 25-30% of Wikimedia France members and asked for
a General Meeting - which will take place in September.
Some of their concerns can be understood, but some of those wikipedians
began to accuse the board of squandering money without any ground for it
(there have been two audits within the past few years and all the
accounts/expenses are audited yearly, published and commented to the
members), to go and see former employee's bosses to stalk them, to spread
rumours on their sexuality, to report members of the board to their own
boss etc. This is going mad. Really mad.

This is not "the community", Pierre-Selim, I'm sorry.
This is a few people, for various reasons, usualy very personal and very
bad ones. And those people refuse to acknowledge reality, even when the
board explains everything, even when lawyers explains what can and cannot
be done within a chapter.

I'm really worried about the behaviour of those people, and the future of
Wikimedia France - since the harassment could lead to prosecution from
employees.

Best,

Rémi











From: Pierre-Selim <pierre-se...@huard.info>
Date: 2 August 2017 at 20:09
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


The passing of Louise is really sad :(

On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the
way
they really are.

"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by
25%
of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.

The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of
inexact/false
statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board
on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]).
This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!

In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member
for
the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the
agenda
... during the summer ... and Wikimania.

I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the
community,
but I wish we did not had to go this way.

I am truly ashamed of this board,

[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/
088008.html
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/
Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour

2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com>:


Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault <n.ra...@me.com> wrote:


probably me...

Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> a

écrit

:


Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by

someone

I can not recognize from the username.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher <

kma...@wikimedia.org



wrote:


Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,

We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau.

While I

did

not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for

the

Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and

the

relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have

gotten

along well.

Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are

grateful

for

the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have

benefited

greatly from her continued advocacy.

I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can
quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us.

However,

I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who

have

come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion

and

bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or

challenges.

Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize

her

passing.

On behalf of the Wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Devouard (gmail)]

The current situation at Wikimedia France is ABSOLUTE NON SENSE


After MONTHS spent trying to figure out what was going on, collecting 
data, finding witnesses, fighting fears of being sued...
we succeeded to mobilize 25% of Wikimedia France members to vote to 
request a General Assembly. That was a challenge. It took us several 
weeks to achieve that.



Now... the General Assembly is scheduled 9th of September. But per 
bylawys, the current board decides of the agenda of the meeting. Topics 
not on the agenda can not lead to any votes... Being generous (sarcasm 
on), the current board will open the floor for discussion AFTER the 
General Assembly. Which somehow defeats the whole process as the 
discussion should occur BEFORE the vote. Also, some of us would like 
some resolutions to be voted upon, such as request of a financial audit...



According to our bylaws, discussion points and decisions propositions 
may be made by the members and will be added to the agenda IF at least 
25% of the membership ask for them. And this should be approved one 
month before the actual assembly. Which is just in a few days...



But to make things easier for us...
* some members memberships requests and renewals were rejected, thus 
decreasing the number of potential voters. Of course, the memberships 
rejected were from opponents to the current board... who would have 
voted for the new agenda...
* in the same time (2 weeks...), the membership increased from 275 to 
300 members. No idea who those 25 new members are. But increased number 
of members is making it even tougher to reach the 75 votes to request 
additions to the agenda.
* the main mailing list of the association is still closed... which 
means we can NOT reach out to ALL members. We have no means to contact 
them. I managed to get a public list opened just a few days before the 
closure of the internal mailing list and to send a call for 
registration. So the most active members actually joined that public 
list and are within reach. But all the other members... the ones who did 
not reach to that new public list... we have NO MEANS to contact them.
How are we supposed to get members to be given the chance to vote on an 
agenda when they do not KNOW about this agenda ? We can't tell them 
about it.


How serious and honest from our current board is that ? This is beyond 
shameful behavior.


So, friends, I would like to ask you help.


If by any chance, you joined the association in the past 2 weeks... 
please vote. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour



Please, do realy our call in your network.

If you know anyone who might by chance be a member of Wikimedia France, 
please tell them about the vote. It is here : 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l%27ordre_du_jour


Or RELAY in social networks. For example that tweet
https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/892731233784008704

Or DROP A WORD to current board members and tell them about how wrong 
they behave by not giving a chance to democracy
Something like "please inform all Wikimedia France members about the 
vote opened for the new agenda : "


The current board members
* Secretary : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:EdouardHue
* the President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Authueil
* the vice President : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisatrice:AlienSpoon
* The treasurer : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Floflo
* and the former president who is now regular member: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShreCk



Thanks

Florence


Le 02/08/2017 à 20:09, Pierre-Selim a écrit :

The passing of Louise is really sad :(

On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way
they really are.

"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by
25%
of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.

The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of
inexact/false
statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board
on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]).
This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!

In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member
for
the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the
agenda
... during the summer ... and Wikimania.

I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the
community,
but I wish we did not had to go this way.

I am truly ashamed of this board,

[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.html
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/
Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour

2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter :


Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.

Cheers

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Rémi Mathis]

Dear all,

As a member - and former chair - of Wikimedia France, this kind of message
really hurts my feelings and I still wonder why they can be posted on
international mailing lists.
We are supposed to act as responsible adults and work together so that the
chapters can manage projects... and I keep thinking we are pretty good at
it.

I don't want to read "shame", "false statement", "use Louise passing",
"uncollaborative way".
Both because it's a very agressive way to talk to human beings, because
it's misleading people about what's going on, and because it's simply not
true.

A few French wkipedians are not happy with the board and some of the
employees. They are about 25-30% of Wikimedia France members and asked for
a General Meeting - which will take place in September.
Some of their concerns can be understood, but some of those wikipedians
began to accuse the board of squandering money without any ground for it
(there have been two audits within the past few years and all the
accounts/expenses are audited yearly, published and commented to the
members), to go and see former employee's bosses to stalk them, to spread
rumours on their sexuality, to report members of the board to their own
boss etc. This is going mad. Really mad.

This is not "the community", Pierre-Selim, I'm sorry.
This is a few people, for various reasons, usualy very personal and very
bad ones. And those people refuse to acknowledge reality, even when the
board explains everything, even when lawyers explains what can and cannot
be done within a chapter.

I'm really worried about the behaviour of those people, and the future of
Wikimedia France - since the harassment could lead to prosecution from
employees.

Best,

Rémi









>
> From: Pierre-Selim <pierre-se...@huard.info>
> Date: 2 August 2017 at 20:09
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> The passing of Louise is really sad :(
>
> On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the
> way
> they really are.
>
> "The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by
> 25%
> of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.
>
> The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of
> inexact/false
> statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board
> on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]).
> This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!
>
> In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member
> for
> the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the
> agenda
> ... during the summer ... and Wikimania.
>
> I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the
> community,
> but I wish we did not had to go this way.
>
> I am truly ashamed of this board,
>
> [1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html
> [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/
> 088008.html
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/
> Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour
>
> 2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault <n.ra...@me.com> wrote:
> >
> > > probably me...
> > > > Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> a
> écrit
> > :
> > > >
> > > > Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by
> > > someone
> > > > I can not recognize from the username.
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher <
> kma...@wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
> > > >>
> > > >> We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau.
> While I
> > > did
> > > >> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for
> > the
> > > >> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and
> the
> > > >> relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have
> > > gotten
> > > >> along well.
> > > >>
> > > >> Although she did not get to share 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Pierre-Selim]

The passing of Louise is really sad :(

On the other fronts, Edouard it feels like you're not telling things the way
they really are.

"The board acknowledge..." means the board has been forced to a new AGM by
25%
of the member. Our bylaws dictate that.

The board has published a shameful "Right of reply" [1], full of
inexact/false
statements that are on the same line than the email sent by the board
on July 11th (and shared here by Chris [2]).
This Right of reply even "use" Louise passing ... For shame!

In an uncollaborative way, the board has not listen to the community/member
for
the agenda which forces the members to a new vote [3] to add items to the
agenda
... during the summer ... and Wikimania.

I hope the board will have again to "Acknowlege" the voice of the
community,
but I wish we did not had to go this way.

I am truly ashamed of this board,

[1] https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/droitdereponse.html
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-July/088008.html
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/
Assemblée_générale/septembre_2017/Points_à_ajouter_à_l'ordre_du_jour

2017-07-26 17:56 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav Blanter :

> Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault  wrote:
>
> > probably me...
> > > Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter  a écrit
> :
> > >
> > > Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by
> > someone
> > > I can not recognize from the username.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
> > >>
> > >> We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I
> > did
> > >> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for
> the
> > >> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the
> > >> relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have
> > gotten
> > >> along well.
> > >>
> > >> Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are
> grateful
> > for
> > >> the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have
> > benefited
> > >> greatly from her continued advocacy.
> > >>
> > >> I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can
> > >> quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us.
> > However,
> > >> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who
> have
> > >> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion
> and
> > >> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or
> > challenges.
> > >> Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize
> her
> > >> passing.
> > >>
> > >> On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our
> > >> thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
> > >>
> > >> Katherine
> > >>
> > >> PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from
> > her
> > >> article on French Wikipedia:  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > Louise_Merzeau
> > >> ___
> > >> 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Yes, I figured this out, thanks. Now copyediting.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Natacha Rault  wrote:

> probably me...
> > Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter  a écrit :
> >
> > Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by
> someone
> > I can not recognize from the username.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
> >>
> >> We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I
> did
> >> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for the
> >> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the
> >> relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have
> gotten
> >> along well.
> >>
> >> Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are grateful
> for
> >> the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have
> benefited
> >> greatly from her continued advocacy.
> >>
> >> I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can
> >> quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us.
> However,
> >> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who have
> >> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion and
> >> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or
> challenges.
> >> Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize her
> >> passing.
> >>
> >> On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our
> >> thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
> >>
> >> Katherine
> >>
> >> PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from
> her
> >> article on French Wikipedia:  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Louise_Merzeau
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> 
>
___
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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Natacha Rault]

probably me...
> Le 26 juil. 2017 à 17:49, Yaroslav Blanter  a écrit :
> 
> Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by someone
> I can not recognize from the username.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
> 
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> 
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher 
> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
>> 
>> We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I did
>> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for the
>> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the
>> relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have gotten
>> along well.
>> 
>> Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are grateful for
>> the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have benefited
>> greatly from her continued advocacy.
>> 
>> I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can
>> quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us. However,
>> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who have
>> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion and
>> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or challenges.
>> Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize her
>> passing.
>> 
>> On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our
>> thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
>> 
>> Katherine
>> 
>> PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from her
>> article on French Wikipedia:  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
>> ___
>> 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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Natacha Rault]

Hi there, being in the train from Geneva to Paris I started to translate the 
page on Louise Merzeau in English. 

Unfortunately I am going down now, and I am not finished… But it is available 
here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau 


I have discovered the translation tool is deactivated in english, so in fact I 
had to translate twice. What a shame the system allows you to proceed in the 
first place…

Kind regards, 

Natacha 
> Le 26 juil. 2017 à 14:38, Katherine Maher  a écrit :
> 
> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,o 
> 
> We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I did
> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for the
> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the
> relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have gotten
> along well.
> 
> Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are grateful for
> the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have benefited
> greatly from her continued advocacy.
> 
> I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can
> quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us. However,
> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who have
> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion and
> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or challenges.
> Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize her
> passing.
> 
> On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our
> thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
> 
> Katherine
> 
> PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from her
> article on French Wikipedia:  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
> ___
> 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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Actually, after Catherine's mail, an English article was started by someone
I can not recognize from the username.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Katherine Maher 
wrote:

> Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,
>
> We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I did
> not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for the
> Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the
> relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have gotten
> along well.
>
> Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are grateful for
> the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have benefited
> greatly from her continued advocacy.
>
> I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can
> quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us. However,
> I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who have
> come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion and
> bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or challenges.
> Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize her
> passing.
>
> On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our
> thoughts and that the community has our condolences.
>
> Katherine
>
> PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from her
> article on French Wikipedia:  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
> ___
> 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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Katherine Maher]

Dear Édouard and our other colleagues at Wikimédia France,

We are sorry to hear about the passing of Mrs. Louise Merzeau. While I did
not have a chance to meet her, I understand she was an advocate for the
Commons movement and a leading academic on digital identities and the
relationship between technology and culture. I suspect we would have gotten
along well.

Although she did not get to share her knowledge longer, we are grateful for
the contributions she made. I have no doubt Wikimedia would have benefited
greatly from her continued advocacy.

I recognize with everything that is going on, an event like this can
quickly pass by without enough notice and tribute from all of us. However,
I hope we can pause to recognize that, above all, we are people who have
come together under a shared vision for a better future. The passion and
bond that unites us are much stronger than any disagreements or challenges.
Louise was a part of that vision, and we owe it to her to recognize her
passing.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, please know that she is in our
thoughts and that the community has our condolences.

Katherine

PS. I encourage you to learn more about Mrs. Merzeau and her life from her
article on French Wikipedia:  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Merzeau
___
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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Pine W]

Hello Édouard,

Thank you for this information.

Condolences on the passing of your colleague Louise.

The news about WMFR that has been sent to this mailing list during the past
few weeks is a matter of serious concern. I hope that there will be
progress on clarifying the facts and, if it seems prudent, making changes
to improve the governance and leadership of WMFR. I am glad to hear that
the WMF staff visit will happen soon. I hope that revoking the chapter
agreement between WMF and WMFR can be avoided, although sometimes a fresh
start is the "least bad" option. I am glad to hear that the WMFR members
have indicated their support for a general assembly, that the WMFR Board
has acknowledged this demand, and that the general assembly has been
scheduled.

Please keep us updated on the situation at WMFR.

Pine


On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Édouard Hue 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia community,
>
> Here are the latest news from Wikimedia France.
>
> First of all, we are devastated by the passing of our estimate trustee Mrs.
> Louise Merzeau on July 15th. Louise had been appointed by the Board in
> February with the ambition to learn and profit from her deep knowledge of
> and academic research on the commons. Sadly, the current problems of
> Wikimedia France did not give her the opportunity to get seriously involved
> with the movement before she passed away.
>
> This sad news reached us a few days after the resignation of Mr. Guillaume
> Goursat, treasurer, from the Board.
>
> The Board has appointed a new treasurer, Mr. Florian Pépellin, who already
> had a mandate from the Board for banking and financial matters. The
> executive team (chair, vice-chair and secretary) remains otherwise
> unchanged.
>
> The Board has also acknowledged the demand for a general assembly expressed
> by more than 25% of our members. This assembly will take place on September
> 9th and will be the opportunity for members to elect six new Board members
> to fill the vacant seats, and discuss current issues. The regular General
> Assembly where the certified and audited accounts are presented and voted
> will be held in October as usual. Six Board seats will also be renewed
> then.
>
> Wikimédia France will receive a site visit from the Wikimedia Foundation on
> the 25th and 26th of July.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Édouard, on behalf of the board of Wikimédia France
> ___
> 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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Samuele Mantani]

I want to express my sincere condolences and I can understand that this
event will have a strong impact on WMFR.

Samuele2002

Il 24/Lug/2017 07:07 AM, "Samuel Klein"  ha scritto:

> Thank you kindly Édouard for sharing this update on all fronts.  I am so
> terribly sorry to hear about the passing of Louise Merzeau.
>
> Warm thoughts and regards. SJ
>
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Édouard Hue 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedia community,
> >
> > Here are the latest news from Wikimedia France.
> >
> > First of all, we are devastated by the passing of our estimate trustee
> Mrs.
> > Louise Merzeau on July 15th. Louise had been appointed by the Board in
> > February with the ambition to learn and profit from her deep knowledge of
> > and academic research on the commons. Sadly, the current problems of
> > Wikimedia France did not give her the opportunity to get seriously
> involved
> > with the movement before she passed away.
> >
> > This sad news reached us a few days after the resignation of Mr.
> Guillaume
> > Goursat, treasurer, from the Board.
> >
> > The Board has appointed a new treasurer, Mr. Florian Pépellin, who
> already
> > had a mandate from the Board for banking and financial matters. The
> > executive team (chair, vice-chair and secretary) remains otherwise
> > unchanged.
> >
> > The Board has also acknowledged the demand for a general assembly
> expressed
> > by more than 25% of our members. This assembly will take place on
> September
> > 9th and will be the opportunity for members to elect six new Board
> members
> > to fill the vacant seats, and discuss current issues. The regular General
> > Assembly where the certified and audited accounts are presented and voted
> > will be held in October as usual. Six Board seats will also be renewed
> > then.
> >
> > Wikimédia France will receive a site visit from the Wikimedia Foundation
> on
> > the 25th and 26th of July.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Édouard, on behalf of the board of Wikimédia France
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
> ___
> 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] Update on Wikimédia France

[Samuel Klein]

Thank you kindly Édouard for sharing this update on all fronts.  I am so
terribly sorry to hear about the passing of Louise Merzeau.

Warm thoughts and regards. SJ

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Édouard Hue 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia community,
>
> Here are the latest news from Wikimedia France.
>
> First of all, we are devastated by the passing of our estimate trustee Mrs.
> Louise Merzeau on July 15th. Louise had been appointed by the Board in
> February with the ambition to learn and profit from her deep knowledge of
> and academic research on the commons. Sadly, the current problems of
> Wikimedia France did not give her the opportunity to get seriously involved
> with the movement before she passed away.
>
> This sad news reached us a few days after the resignation of Mr. Guillaume
> Goursat, treasurer, from the Board.
>
> The Board has appointed a new treasurer, Mr. Florian Pépellin, who already
> had a mandate from the Board for banking and financial matters. The
> executive team (chair, vice-chair and secretary) remains otherwise
> unchanged.
>
> The Board has also acknowledged the demand for a general assembly expressed
> by more than 25% of our members. This assembly will take place on September
> 9th and will be the opportunity for members to elect six new Board members
> to fill the vacant seats, and discuss current issues. The regular General
> Assembly where the certified and audited accounts are presented and voted
> will be held in October as usual. Six Board seats will also be renewed
> then.
>
> Wikimédia France will receive a site visit from the Wikimedia Foundation on
> the 25th and 26th of July.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Édouard, on behalf of the board of Wikimédia France
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
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,