Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

[Birgitte_sb]

Seriously stop hijacking this thread. Let MZMcBride have a chance at some 
discussion on his question.

This below is just not cool. Have some respect for MZMcBride. He didn't write 
out his thoughts or concerns with idea that the first reply would turn it all 
into snip fodder. That seems beyond demoralizing to me.

I know I am as guilty of a tangent as anyone, but can't we all, at the very 
least, agree to let one another's sincere *questions* stand without being 
twisted beyond all recognition. We need to insist on there being some lines in 
respect for the other person's voice, or else we are all better off to just 
write a blogs. The only point to joining a mailing list is so you might hear 
what others wish to say. As a sort of pact. This mailing list, I like it as a 
mailing list; I think it sucks as a blog.

Birgitte SB

On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> 
>> What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
>> 
> 
> You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November
> 2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months
> before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time
> Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?
> 
> Good question.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:45 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 2 August 2012 05:13, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the
> General
> > Counsel.
>
>
> Um ... that's a bizarre perception.



Well, just look at the number of scenarios where the democratically elected
board is entirely out of the loop, or at best (possibly) consulted.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
>

You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November
2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months
before the English Wikipedia's SOPA blackout, and round about the time
Wikimedia first made public statements denouncing SOPA?

Good question.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

[MZMcBride]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 2 August 2012 05:13, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General
>> Counsel.
> 
> Um ... that's a bizarre perception.

Is it?

I read through the page at Meta-Wiki and couldn't help but notice that every
involvement required the approval of the General Counsel. I read the linked
Board resolution 
()
and looked around wikimediafoundation.org and Meta-Wiki trying to find a
resolution or vote that directed the General Counsel to develop this kind of
policy, but didn't find anything.

Philippe seemed to suggest that there's a distinction between outside groups
approaching the Wikimedia Foundation for support and the community making
its own requests. The distinction seems incredibly murky and doesn't seem
likely to become clearer over time.

What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

[David Gerard]

On 2 August 2012 05:13, MZMcBride  wrote:

> This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General
> Counsel.


Um ... that's a bizarre perception.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

[Mark]

On 8/2/12 7:51 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:

And I would love to see
the foundation practice delegating some of this bureaucracy and
responsibility to non-staff groups.  We have no shortage of energy, talent,
and experience there in the community.

In addition, there's a fairly well-organized set of advocacy groups in 
related areas (Creative Commons, FSF, EFF), who perhaps some of the work 
could be delegated to? There would still be a need for a process to 
decide when Wikimedia should do things such as agreeing to sign on to an 
EFF amicus brief. But imo it makes sense to leave most of the legwork to 
advocacy organizations who focus on it.


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

[Samuel Klein]

There has been discussion about this in the past.

To second Philippe's comment:  A uniform process makes sense.  In practice,
most of the advocacy or policy positions of the WMF have for years taken
the form of amicus briefs.  And positions the WMF takes on behalf of
promoting, preserving, or collaborating on free knowledge fall under the
mandate of the LCA team (since this spring).

So we're starting from a position where that team has the most experience
and day-to-day concern with such positions.  And there is no t yet an
organized community body that tracks such things - despite the idea of an
advocacy advisory group.

I do think there are quite a lot of different staff with "approval" in the
current guideline.  Must it be so time-consuming?  And I would love to see
the foundation practice delegating some of this bureaucracy and
responsibility to non-staff groups.  We have no shortage of energy, talent,
and experience there in the community.

SJ


On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation <
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi MZ -
>
> I'm surprised by this, given that it clearly delineates that it doesn't
> impact community requests at all, and only applies to requests that come to
> the Foundation.  It seems logical that there be a uniform process for
> routing those internally and this is an attempt to transparently tell the
> community what that process is. The alternative is to have no policy for
> handling it and make it up every time.
>
> Regardless, if you have specific concerns, perhaps you could lay them out
> at the talk page and we can figure out if it makes sense to modify or
> adjust the policy in some way?
>
> PB
> ---
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: MZMcBride 
> Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:13:47
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations
>  Guideline
>
> Geoff Brigham wrote:
> > Since the SOPA blackout, we have had a number of requests come in for
> > public affiliations regarding policy and political issues. The Wikimedia
> > Foundation (WMF) is not a political organization, and many may argue
> > understandably that our role is to support great projects - not politics.
> > That said, we recognize that there may be select times where such
> > affiliations should be considered, and, in those cases, we should have a
> > review process in place, especially where there is strong community
> > interest in an issue.
> >
> > To make sure that the right parties, including the community, are
> involved
> > in the review process, we have created the Policy and Political
> > Affiliations
> > Guideline<
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundati
> > on_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline>to
> > clarify when and how the WMF associates itself publicly on policy and
> > political issues.  This guideline is an internal ³rule of thumb² covering
> > requests to and actions by the WMF - without restricting the independent
> > actions of the community. The guideline sets out a number of different
> > types of affiliations and examines when review is appropriate by the
> > community, WMF staff, and the Board of Trustees.
>
> This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General
> Counsel. Was there any Board or community support for placing so much power
> in an unelected and unaccountable lawyer?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

[Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation]

Hi MZ -

I'm surprised by this, given that it clearly delineates that it doesn't impact 
community requests at all, and only applies to requests that come to the 
Foundation.  It seems logical that there be a uniform process for routing those 
internally and this is an attempt to transparently tell the community what that 
process is. The alternative is to have no policy for handling it and make it up 
every time. 

Regardless, if you have specific concerns, perhaps you could lay them out at 
the talk page and we can figure out if it makes sense to modify or adjust the 
policy in some way?

PB
---
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc 


Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: MZMcBride 
Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:13:47 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations
 Guideline

Geoff Brigham wrote:
> Since the SOPA blackout, we have had a number of requests come in for
> public affiliations regarding policy and political issues. The Wikimedia
> Foundation (WMF) is not a political organization, and many may argue
> understandably that our role is to support great projects - not politics.
> That said, we recognize that there may be select times where such
> affiliations should be considered, and, in those cases, we should have a
> review process in place, especially where there is strong community
> interest in an issue.
> 
> To make sure that the right parties, including the community, are involved
> in the review process, we have created the Policy and Political
> Affiliations 
> Guideline<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundati
> on_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline>to
> clarify when and how the WMF associates itself publicly on policy and
> political issues.  This guideline is an internal ³rule of thumb² covering
> requests to and actions by the WMF - without restricting the independent
> actions of the community. The guideline sets out a number of different
> types of affiliations and examines when review is appropriate by the
> community, WMF staff, and the Board of Trustees.

This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General
Counsel. Was there any Board or community support for placing so much power
in an unelected and unaccountable lawyer?

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

[MZMcBride]

Geoff Brigham wrote:
> Since the SOPA blackout, we have had a number of requests come in for
> public affiliations regarding policy and political issues. The Wikimedia
> Foundation (WMF) is not a political organization, and many may argue
> understandably that our role is to support great projects - not politics.
> That said, we recognize that there may be select times where such
> affiliations should be considered, and, in those cases, we should have a
> review process in place, especially where there is strong community
> interest in an issue.
> 
> To make sure that the right parties, including the community, are involved
> in the review process, we have created the Policy and Political
> Affiliations 
> Guideline on_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline>to
> clarify when and how the WMF associates itself publicly on policy and
> political issues.  This guideline is an internal ³rule of thumb² covering
> requests to and actions by the WMF - without restricting the independent
> actions of the community. The guideline sets out a number of different
> types of affiliations and examines when review is appropriate by the
> community, WMF staff, and the Board of Trustees.

This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the General
Counsel. Was there any Board or community support for placing so much power
in an unelected and unaccountable lawyer?

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline

[Tilman Bayer]

Forwarding, as this doesn't yet seem to have made it through from the
Announce list (possibly because of the HTML content; but trying anyway. The
message can also be read at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2012-August/000450.html
 ).


-- Forwarded message --
From: Geoff Brigham 
To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: Geoff Brigham 
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:34:05 -0700
Subject: WMF Policy and Political Affiliations Guideline
Hi all,

Since the SOPA blackout, we have had a number of requests come in for
public affiliations regarding policy and political issues. The Wikimedia
Foundation (WMF) is not a political organization, and many may argue
understandably that our role is to support great projects - not politics.
 That said, we recognize that there may be select times where such
affiliations should be considered, and, in those cases, we should have a
review process in place, especially where there is strong community
interest in an issue.

To make sure that the right parties, including the community, are involved
in the review process, we have created the Policy and Political
Affiliations 
Guidelineto
clarify when and how the WMF associates itself publicly on policy and
political issues.  This guideline is an internal “rule of thumb” covering
requests to and actions by the WMF - without restricting the independent
actions of the community. The guideline sets out a number of different
types of affiliations and examines when review is appropriate by the
community, WMF staff, and the Board of Trustees.

We are also establishing an open Advocacy Advisory Group to provide a
community venue to discuss political and legislative developments worldwide
that affect our mission, such as censorship laws and proposals that seek to
restrict a free and open Internet.

The new guideline incorporates consultation with the Advocacy Advisory
Group into the review process.  With the most important cases, WMF will
also seek a community Request for
Comments(RfC) for consultation or
consensus.

We encourage community members interested in political and policy issues to
join the Advocacy Advisory Group, and members should feel free to apply to
be moderators. You can join the advisory group here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors .

If you have any comments, feel free to leave them on the talk page. You can
find the guideline at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Affiliations_Guideline

Cheers,

Geoff

Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l