[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Tito Dutta]

Greetings,
I have read the recent additional questions or answers
(Special:Diff/134537). I have a stronger feeling now that most probably we
are talking about specific aspects and areas of the right. It might be
similar to someone stating that they visited India. Once asked what they
visited, they responded that they visited the Taj Mahal. That's fine but
that's a monument of the country, undoubtedly very famous. However that's
not the only thing, there are many many other places to look out for.

The subject of human rights is very very important, and I believe, most
definitely, this is an area we should be careful *about everywhere *(not
only Wikimedia). I am yet to understand what we are trying to do here, and
more importantly how? Possibly we are using the terms very lightly here.
My questions:
a) Is this an attempt to safeguard Wikimedians' human rights (if so, b)
which are the rights? and c) how exactly and not vaguely?) [I do understand
this will be very challenging, but that's something, even if we attempt,
would be super amazing.]
d) Who is going to work on the implementation? e) how?

Mostly I would not be able to attend the call. I'll be happy to continue
the discussion here on the mailing list or preferably on my talk page (or
any on-Wiki talk page).
Sincere thanks for your kind attention,

PS: I think this can be very well-presented by changing the perspective,
specially from an end-user's (Wikimedian's perspective) and a set of
hypothetical questions sorted by order. This might be helpful and make
things easier to understand. I can spend some time and prepare this on-wiki
if you think that helps. Kindly let me know.

Stay safe,
User:Titodutta


শুক্র, ৪ ফেব, ২০২২ তারিখে ৪:১৫ AM টায় এ,  লিখেছেন:

> Hello!
>
> The Global Advocacy team has published some additional questions and
> answers regarding the Human Rights Policy, based on many of your earlier
> questions and concerns. Please take a moment to review these questions and
> answers here >
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Human_Rights_Policy/Frequently_asked_questions<.
> Additionally, our team will be participating in the upcoming Office Hour
> with the Board of Trustees on 17 February to update the community on this
> policy and to take questions. We hope you'll be able to join us there >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/2022-02-17_Conversation_with_Trustees<.
> We expect additional conversation hours to occur in the future, as well.
>
> Best regards,
> Ricky Gaines
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RTSLP53WHLFUDOEICEH2VC4IVDXVB4VZ/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/EO5NYYCZFCIIY3EG2EY3ZKINPNKKZGLL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[rgaines]

Hello!

The Global Advocacy team has published some additional questions and answers 
regarding the Human Rights Policy, based on many of your earlier questions and 
concerns. Please take a moment to review these questions and answers here 
>https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Human_Rights_Policy/Frequently_asked_questions<.
 Additionally, our team will be participating in the upcoming Office Hour with 
the Board of Trustees on 17 February to update the community on this policy and 
to take questions. We hope you'll be able to join us there 
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee/2022-02-17_Conversation_with_Trustees<.
 We expect additional conversation hours to occur in the future, as well.

Best regards,
Ricky Gaines
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RTSLP53WHLFUDOEICEH2VC4IVDXVB4VZ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[rgaines]

Hi Sam - thanks so much for your feedback. The policy has been posted to Meta 
for comment (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Human_Rights_Policy) and notes 
from the Dec 10 Conversation Hour have also been posted on Meta 
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Notes_from_Human_Rights_Policy_Conversation_Hour_10_December_2021).
 Translations are forthcoming and will be posted directly to 
Governance/Foundation Wiki. Happy holidays!
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TXRGMX5QQVSWPB3LHMQZ7ZMJTRCI6ZAI/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

Greetings!

As Maggie said, the Global Advocacy/Public Policy team will be sharing more
detailed answers to many questions about the Human Rights Policy in
January. In the meantime, I thought I'd offer a bit more context that might
be helpful.

I joined

the WMF in late September as VP for Global Advocacy and am responsible for
the final version of the Human Rights Policy approved by the Board of
Trustees, building on a great deal of earlier work led by the WMF's
Director of Public Policy (who reports to me) and the WMF's Human Rights
Lead who reports to Maggie.

The exact timing of the Human Rights Policy's depended on the Board of
Trustees meeting schedule. They had a meeting in early December. The next
meeting after that will not be until March. While approving the policy
right before the holidays was indeed sub-optimal for reasons many have
noted, waiting until March to enact it would be too late for WMF's annual
planning cycle. Given that implementation of the policy has implications
for how budget is allocated in the coming fiscal year, the consequences of
delay beyond the December Board of Trustees meeting would be non-trivial
for WMF's ability to anticipate, mitigate, and respond to threats to
individuals as well as policy threats to the movement.

Maggie has written about sensitivities surrounding threats to individuals.
Regarding policy threats to the movement, our response to those is not
intended to be secret. The policy threats include regulatory and other
threats by governments that the WMF has a long history of taking stands
against, including censorship (an attack on freedom of expression as a
human right) and surveillance (an attack on privacy as a human right).
The Wikimedia
Public Policy portal   contains information
about stances that WMF has taken, and will continue to take. That said, I
would like to make an appeal for patience as we ramp up our team and build
capacity to engage with the movement, and improve how we communicate about
our work.

As many on this list know much better than I do, in 2019 Global Advocacy

was made a priority in the Medium-term plan

for
implementing the 2030 Movement Strategy ratified by the community. As of
August 2021 the WMF Public Policy Team had only three people who were
making solid progress on policy analysis, development, and engagement on
policy issues such as those listed in the Public Policy portal. However, in
order to be able to fulfill our objectives of engaging with the community
and other stakeholders on our advocacy work, the team badly needed further
staff capacity and strategic leadership. Now the team has grown to seven
people, but for most of the past three months we have been swamped with
onboarding, hiring more people so that we can actually execute on our
goals, responding to time-sensitive policy developments in Europe
,
Asia
,
and Latin America
,
and showing up in various international fora to defend the interests of our
community including on copyright, intermediary liability protections, and
net neutrality. All of these things affect the community's ability to
access and share free knowledge, which is itself a human right. All of the
policy positions taken by our global advocacy team are intended to defend
the digital rights  (a subset
of human rights, per the excellent Wikipedia article on the subject) of our
community members.

Frustratingly, our systems for publishing and communicating about our
global advocacy work, and building processes for communicating and
collaborating with the the broader community, are either stalled or
non-existent as of today. But my job, and that of some new colleagues who
are even newer me, and others not yet hired, is to change that as soon as
humanly feasible with available resources. My priority for the next couple
months is to put people and processes in place so that we can start to
publish regularly updated information about our work on the website. We
need to create a regular newsletter about what we are doing. We need to
share more information on Meta, update it regularly and participate in
discussions about it there. We need to establish channels and a productive
process to figure out how WMF staff and people across the broader movement
can all work 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Gnangarra]

I think there is some poor wording being used ignoring nuances of the
English language and how different people speak it.  One point that hits
hard for me is the way its being framed as "policy" rather than
"principles".  Policy is too strong a word for its something that is
beholden with political obligations that shifts the WMF away from the core
pillars.  For many jurisdictions the term policy is going to translate into
activism, advocacy, even into the realm of labelling all Wikimedians as
lobbyists, or trouble makers.

Whereas if we take as a principle it sets this as an expectation of our
community and our internal activities, it does not cross that line into
areas which cause concern, dissent, and fear within governments, GLAMs,
government  agencies with whom we need to work. It also limits the risk to
communities who are charitable organisations, and individuals that want to
contribute without the fear of being labelled as a subversive.

Its one thing to consider what we do and put guides in place its another
for the WMF to step into areas, or push our contributors into positions
that have implications beyond sharing knowledge.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 22:02, Nathan  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:12 PM Dan Szymborski 
> wrote:
> 
>>
>> The WMF likes the *idea* of this being a community-driven, collaborative
>> project rather than actually doing the stuff that *makes* it a
>> community-driven, collaborative project. How many times does this process
>> have to repeat in identical fashion before we stop pretending that this
>> *is* a community-driven collaborative project? If the goal is simply to be
>> another generic top-down Silicon Valley information charity, just one that
>> has somehow procured a gigantic unpaid workforce that the elites can
>> command, then just state it outright so that people don't spend their free
>> hours toiling in the delusion they're part of a movement.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
> There's a misunderstanding here, I think. The Wikimedia movement and the
> Wikimedia projects are community-driven and collaborative. The WMF itself
> is not and has never been. People who expect the WMF to be managed by
> consensus, determined by RfC, are destined to always be disappointed.  The
> WMF certainly knows many people in the Wikimedia world have that
> expectation, and I suppose they considered and rejected the possibility of
> engaging in a community process for this policy. My criticism of the policy
> itself is that it contains very aspirational statements; I would have
> preferred it to be focused on what practical actions the WMF can take, and
> build a policy around how and when those actions will be taken.
>
> In any case, the WMF is not a governance experiment. The projects are, to
> some extent, although that is not their *purpose*. Expecting every policy
> and decision to be workshopped with "the community" is essentially
> demanding the WMF be dissolved.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/G2SSMJBZ6FFGHSH3ILMHBS6GVKLULVMD/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
GN.
* 2021*
*Celebrating 20 years of Wikipedia*


Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/F22PAIYBX3ZNCF3S6VH3C4WW4Q6PMPQC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Nathan]

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:12 PM Dan Szymborski 
wrote:

> The WMF likes the *idea* of this being a community-driven, collaborative
> project rather than actually doing the stuff that *makes* it a
> community-driven, collaborative project. How many times does this process
> have to repeat in identical fashion before we stop pretending that this
> *is* a community-driven collaborative project? If the goal is simply to be
> another generic top-down Silicon Valley information charity, just one that
> has somehow procured a gigantic unpaid workforce that the elites can
> command, then just state it outright so that people don't spend their free
> hours toiling in the delusion they're part of a movement.
>
> Best,
>
> Dan
>

There's a misunderstanding here, I think. The Wikimedia movement and the
Wikimedia projects are community-driven and collaborative. The WMF itself
is not and has never been. People who expect the WMF to be managed by
consensus, determined by RfC, are destined to always be disappointed.  The
WMF certainly knows many people in the Wikimedia world have that
expectation, and I suppose they considered and rejected the possibility of
engaging in a community process for this policy. My criticism of the policy
itself is that it contains very aspirational statements; I would have
preferred it to be focused on what practical actions the WMF can take, and
build a policy around how and when those actions will be taken.

In any case, the WMF is not a governance experiment. The projects are, to
some extent, although that is not their *purpose*. Expecting every policy
and decision to be workshopped with "the community" is essentially
demanding the WMF be dissolved.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/G2SSMJBZ6FFGHSH3ILMHBS6GVKLULVMD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Maggie Dennis]

Link fail. >_< here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2020-10-15
(Sorry for the noise!)

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 8:43 AM Maggie Dennis  wrote:

> Hi, Nosebagbear.
>
> As I said in my first email on the subject (and I said a lot, so I'm not
> surprised if it gets missed!), I really can only speak to my part of this -
> I work with the Human Rights Team that does on the ground interventions.
> The lead of this team has been a substantial input to this process, but the
> work in the policy is far more expansive than my part. THAT human rights
> intervention is where we have a playbook to which I refer, and although we
> don't talk about how, it's not been intended to be a secret that it exists.
> I first posted about the team on Meta in 2020 and spoke about it at my
> second office hour, here. I believe it has come up in subsequent calls,
> and I have mentioned it in each office hour announcement (at least that I
> wrote myself). I don't think we can safely talk about HOW we are handling
> human rights threats to community members, but it's never been my intention
> to downplay that we're working on it!
>
> I will let the Global Advocacy and Public Policy teams speak to the policy
> as a whole. But in terms of the questions you mailed in, I imagine they
> received others as well and are working to aggregate them.
>
> Best,
> Maggie
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 7:31 AM  wrote:
>
>> Hi Maggie,
>>
>> Could you answer a few things, or at least provide your (and the team's)
>> reasoning:
>>
>> 1) It has now been stated multiple times it was urgent to get a policy
>> like this. But you tell us there's a secret playbook already in play, and I
>> can't imagine that has changed immediately just because there's now a
>> visible policy, and with the break shortly occurring, the WMF other teams
>> can't really decide major things with it in mind either. And it also took
>> some time to (seemingly purely internally) write. So why is it taking so
>> long to explain why we're having to wait until after Christmas break to
>> discuss it? *Why is it retroactive discussion at all?*
>>
>> 2) The policy includes the line " use our influence with partners, the
>> private sector, and governments to advance and uphold respect for human
>> rights." - you say you note the tension from needing to have such a
>> playbook be hidden to remain functional and be a collaborative community.
>>
>> I don't doubt your reasoning on the playbook, but this line is in effect
>> "the policy team will lobby for better human rights"...but without us
>> knowing the actual execution of methods, specifically raised areas, a
>> complete listing of ongoing areas of focus and so on. There is already a
>> concern that the WMF spends too much time trying to speak for the movement
>> without actually knowing that their specific positions are backed by the
>> movement as a whole. Doing it with this dichotomy in place surely seems
>> even less wise.
>>
>> 3) Back, more generally, to the process issues. I emailed shortly after
>> this went public, at the time, some considerable time before the Christmas
>> break. I just got a message saying they were collating questions and would
>> answer in the new year. But most of my questions were on either "why was
>> this procedure used" or "why was this paragraph included", rather than
>> substantive content change proposals.
>>
>> If even I know why I included any given thing in a regular old policy
>> that I help draft and can thus answer questions rapidly, why was this not
>> the case here. Surely the reasoning for each bit of content and failure to
>> publicly consult are already known? So why the lag time?
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Richard (Nosebagbear)
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UXQONI433PXLVTNG7UCZGR2TJEMJHHV7/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Maggie Dennis
> She/her/hers
> Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>


-- 
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7FFVPKXCCSCEBW6GVHKFKE3ISCWNMGLY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Maggie Dennis]

Hi, Nosebagbear.

As I said in my first email on the subject (and I said a lot, so I'm not
surprised if it gets missed!), I really can only speak to my part of this -
I work with the Human Rights Team that does on the ground interventions.
The lead of this team has been a substantial input to this process, but the
work in the policy is far more expansive than my part. THAT human rights
intervention is where we have a playbook to which I refer, and although we
don't talk about how, it's not been intended to be a secret that it exists.
I first posted about the team on Meta in 2020 and spoke about it at my
second office hour, here .
I believe it has come up in subsequent calls, and I have mentioned it in
each office hour announcement (at least that I wrote myself). I don't think
we can safely talk about HOW we are handling human rights threats to
community members, but it's never been my intention to downplay that we're
working on it!

I will let the Global Advocacy and Public Policy teams speak to the policy
as a whole. But in terms of the questions you mailed in, I imagine they
received others as well and are working to aggregate them.

Best,
Maggie

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 7:31 AM  wrote:

> Hi Maggie,
>
> Could you answer a few things, or at least provide your (and the team's)
> reasoning:
>
> 1) It has now been stated multiple times it was urgent to get a policy
> like this. But you tell us there's a secret playbook already in play, and I
> can't imagine that has changed immediately just because there's now a
> visible policy, and with the break shortly occurring, the WMF other teams
> can't really decide major things with it in mind either. And it also took
> some time to (seemingly purely internally) write. So why is it taking so
> long to explain why we're having to wait until after Christmas break to
> discuss it? *Why is it retroactive discussion at all?*
>
> 2) The policy includes the line " use our influence with partners, the
> private sector, and governments to advance and uphold respect for human
> rights." - you say you note the tension from needing to have such a
> playbook be hidden to remain functional and be a collaborative community.
>
> I don't doubt your reasoning on the playbook, but this line is in effect
> "the policy team will lobby for better human rights"...but without us
> knowing the actual execution of methods, specifically raised areas, a
> complete listing of ongoing areas of focus and so on. There is already a
> concern that the WMF spends too much time trying to speak for the movement
> without actually knowing that their specific positions are backed by the
> movement as a whole. Doing it with this dichotomy in place surely seems
> even less wise.
>
> 3) Back, more generally, to the process issues. I emailed shortly after
> this went public, at the time, some considerable time before the Christmas
> break. I just got a message saying they were collating questions and would
> answer in the new year. But most of my questions were on either "why was
> this procedure used" or "why was this paragraph included", rather than
> substantive content change proposals.
>
> If even I know why I included any given thing in a regular old policy that
> I help draft and can thus answer questions rapidly, why was this not the
> case here. Surely the reasoning for each bit of content and failure to
> publicly consult are already known? So why the lag time?
>
> Yours,
>
> Richard (Nosebagbear)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UXQONI433PXLVTNG7UCZGR2TJEMJHHV7/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>


-- 
Maggie Dennis
She/her/hers
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/EFFZC3G3OKTRVWWXLP3R4O4ISF4PEMIA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[nosebagbear]

Hi Maggie,

Could you answer a few things, or at least provide your (and the team's) 
reasoning:

1) It has now been stated multiple times it was urgent to get a policy like 
this. But you tell us there's a secret playbook already in play, and I can't 
imagine that has changed immediately just because there's now a visible policy, 
and with the break shortly occurring, the WMF other teams can't really decide 
major things with it in mind either. And it also took some time to (seemingly 
purely internally) write. So why is it taking so long to explain why we're 
having to wait until after Christmas break to discuss it? *Why is it 
retroactive discussion at all?*

2) The policy includes the line " use our influence with partners, the private 
sector, and governments to advance and uphold respect for human rights." - you 
say you note the tension from needing to have such a playbook be hidden to 
remain functional and be a collaborative community. 

I don't doubt your reasoning on the playbook, but this line is in effect "the 
policy team will lobby for better human rights"...but without us knowing the 
actual execution of methods, specifically raised areas, a complete listing of 
ongoing areas of focus and so on. There is already a concern that the WMF 
spends too much time trying to speak for the movement without actually knowing 
that their specific positions are backed by the movement as a whole. Doing it 
with this dichotomy in place surely seems even less wise. 

3) Back, more generally, to the process issues. I emailed shortly after this 
went public, at the time, some considerable time before the Christmas break. I 
just got a message saying they were collating questions and would answer in the 
new year. But most of my questions were on either "why was this procedure used" 
or "why was this paragraph included", rather than substantive content change 
proposals.

If even I know why I included any given thing in a regular old policy that I 
help draft and can thus answer questions rapidly, why was this not the case 
here. Surely the reasoning for each bit of content and failure to publicly 
consult are already known? So why the lag time?

Yours,

Richard (Nosebagbear)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UXQONI433PXLVTNG7UCZGR2TJEMJHHV7/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Maggie Dennis]

Hi, Dan.

With respect to this - "And telling the community things like that "there's
a secret playbook we have" is making everything worse. *Why* is there a
secret playbook for a collaborative movement? That is not how collaboration
and consensus work." - I *do* understand that there is a tension between
transparency and safety at times, and I'm sure we can do the balance
better. We have talked a bit about our approach with NDA-holding community
groups and iterated a lot on our approach in non-public conversations with
community members who have observed or experienced these kinds of issues on
our platforms. We keep exploring ways to be more transparent. The reason
that we do not discuss our protocols in responding to human rights threats
against users is that not only Wikimedians can see them and make use of
that information. I suspect these are similar reasons that there are other
closed forums like the functionaries mailing lists and a private steward
wiki. The Human Rights Team is, as their Meta page notes, planning to build
out a Human Rights Interest group within the community,  but we are a long
way from being able to publicly discuss what we are and are not well
equipped to handle without essentially highlighting weaknesses in our
system and making community members more vulnerable to exploitation.

I know that doesn't resolve the concern, but I do hope that it helps to
clarify my own position better.

Warm regards,
Maggie


On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:12 PM Dan Szymborski 
wrote:

> The fundamental problem here is that the WMF's response to everything is
> simply *reactive*. A policy is instituted, with zero real collaboration,
> little or no discussion, foggy goals, sparsely answered direct questions
> and then simply announced to the community in faux-press release fashion.
> And then when people in the community like Andreas Kolbe, who has been an
> important voice of caution on many issues, speak up, they're told that this
> isn't the specific bureaucratically appointed time to have a discussion.
>
> Then, various WMF-affiliated people assure that we can talk about this,
> which is basically "this is our decision, not yours, but we'll be happy to
> tell you why we did this, though we're not going to change anything" with
> any substantive changes require near rebellion in the Wiki movement. And
> telling the community things like that "there's a secret playbook we have"
> is making everything worse. *Why* is there a secret playbook for a
> collaborative movement? That is not how collaboration and consensus work.
>
> If I and my five friends are collaborating to make a fancy dinner, that
> involves *discussing*. It doesn't mean that I decide what the six dishes
> will be, inform the other five friends what my decision is, and then simply
> assuage them afterwards that I'd love to hear their input. If K says she
> doesn't like the parsnip dish I decided on, I don't say "well, I considered
> that as part of my decision, so that's that." If P asks why we don't have a
> dessert, I don't tell him that this is not the time of the dinner planning
> that we may talk about dish choices, but he can ask about it between 4 PM
> and 4:30 PM next Tuesday. My friends would get very angry at this very
> quickly.
>
> The WMF likes the *idea* of this being a community-driven, collaborative
> project rather than actually doing the stuff that *makes* it a
> community-driven, collaborative project. How many times does this process
> have to repeat in identical fashion before we stop pretending that this
> *is* a community-driven collaborative project? If the goal is simply to be
> another generic top-down Silicon Valley information charity, just one that
> has somehow procured a gigantic unpaid workforce that the elites can
> command, then just state it outright so that people don't spend their free
> hours toiling in the delusion they're part of a movement.
>
> Best,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:52 AM Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 8:07 PM geni  wrote:
>> 
>>
>>
>>> You and who's army? If one of the world's more questionable
>>> governments decides to target Wikipedians within its territory there's
>>> not a thing you can do about about it. You’re not France. You can’t
>>> threaten governments into submission (and if one of the most powerful
>>> states on earth can’t get Zara Radcliffe out you certainly can’t).
>>>
>>> You’re not a mineral extraction company. You don’t have mercenaries on
>>> retainer to try and get your people out.
>>>
>>> You policy is worse than useless. It doesn’t help at all but
>>> marginally increases the risk of being involved with Wikipedia as what
>>> can be seen as a harmless hobby writing about trains turns into being
>>> involved with a human rights campaigning organisation.
>>>
>>
>> There seems to be a lot of distress in this email, and I'm sorry to see
>> it. :( I hope I can speak thoughtfully to these issues without raising
>> dangers or 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Dan Szymborski]

The fundamental problem here is that the WMF's response to everything is
simply *reactive*. A policy is instituted, with zero real collaboration,
little or no discussion, foggy goals, sparsely answered direct questions
and then simply announced to the community in faux-press release fashion.
And then when people in the community like Andreas Kolbe, who has been an
important voice of caution on many issues, speak up, they're told that this
isn't the specific bureaucratically appointed time to have a discussion.

Then, various WMF-affiliated people assure that we can talk about this,
which is basically "this is our decision, not yours, but we'll be happy to
tell you why we did this, though we're not going to change anything" with
any substantive changes require near rebellion in the Wiki movement. And
telling the community things like that "there's a secret playbook we have"
is making everything worse. *Why* is there a secret playbook for a
collaborative movement? That is not how collaboration and consensus work.

If I and my five friends are collaborating to make a fancy dinner, that
involves *discussing*. It doesn't mean that I decide what the six dishes
will be, inform the other five friends what my decision is, and then simply
assuage them afterwards that I'd love to hear their input. If K says she
doesn't like the parsnip dish I decided on, I don't say "well, I considered
that as part of my decision, so that's that." If P asks why we don't have a
dessert, I don't tell him that this is not the time of the dinner planning
that we may talk about dish choices, but he can ask about it between 4 PM
and 4:30 PM next Tuesday. My friends would get very angry at this very
quickly.

The WMF likes the *idea* of this being a community-driven, collaborative
project rather than actually doing the stuff that *makes* it a
community-driven, collaborative project. How many times does this process
have to repeat in identical fashion before we stop pretending that this
*is* a community-driven collaborative project? If the goal is simply to be
another generic top-down Silicon Valley information charity, just one that
has somehow procured a gigantic unpaid workforce that the elites can
command, then just state it outright so that people don't spend their free
hours toiling in the delusion they're part of a movement.

Best,

Dan



On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:52 AM Maggie Dennis  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 8:07 PM geni  wrote:
> 
>
>
>> You and who's army? If one of the world's more questionable
>> governments decides to target Wikipedians within its territory there's
>> not a thing you can do about about it. You’re not France. You can’t
>> threaten governments into submission (and if one of the most powerful
>> states on earth can’t get Zara Radcliffe out you certainly can’t).
>>
>> You’re not a mineral extraction company. You don’t have mercenaries on
>> retainer to try and get your people out.
>>
>> You policy is worse than useless. It doesn’t help at all but
>> marginally increases the risk of being involved with Wikipedia as what
>> can be seen as a harmless hobby writing about trains turns into being
>> involved with a human rights campaigning organisation.
>>
>
> There seems to be a lot of distress in this email, and I'm sorry to see
> it. :( I hope I can speak thoughtfully to these issues without raising
> dangers or making it seem like your concerns - which are completely valid
> and which I share - are being minimized.
>
> For those who don't know me, I'm the VP of Community Resilience and
> Sustainability
> .
> For full disclosure, I'm not one of the team working on the Human Rights
> Policy directly, but one of the people who is working on that directly does
> report up through my line to me. I hired him. He is our Human Rights Lead
> in charge of working to intervene in exactly such situations. We hired him
> because we have faced exactly such situations, and we needed competent
> approaches for threats that would arise whether we wanted them to or not.
>
> I'm only going to speak here to that element of this policy, since it is
> one of the specific areas of my focus.
>
> I've spoken about our human rights interventions at the higher level in my
> office hours several times over the past year. (They are linked, with
> notes, from the page above.) The role rose when an early approach one of
> my teams led to collaborate across particularly high risk regions on
> finding resources for people in trouble
>  led us to find more
> critical need for direct support. We CANNOT threaten governments. We are
> NOT an extraction company. You are totally correct. We need to stay humble
> in our approaches. Instead, the Human Rights Team
>  who supports threats
> on the ground is working on several initiatives to help that includes
> digital 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Maggie Dennis]

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 8:07 PM geni  wrote:



> You and who's army? If one of the world's more questionable
> governments decides to target Wikipedians within its territory there's
> not a thing you can do about about it. You’re not France. You can’t
> threaten governments into submission (and if one of the most powerful
> states on earth can’t get Zara Radcliffe out you certainly can’t).
>
> You’re not a mineral extraction company. You don’t have mercenaries on
> retainer to try and get your people out.
>
> You policy is worse than useless. It doesn’t help at all but
> marginally increases the risk of being involved with Wikipedia as what
> can be seen as a harmless hobby writing about trains turns into being
> involved with a human rights campaigning organisation.
>

There seems to be a lot of distress in this email, and I'm sorry to see it.
:( I hope I can speak thoughtfully to these issues without raising dangers
or making it seem like your concerns - which are completely valid and which
I share - are being minimized.

For those who don't know me, I'm the VP of Community Resilience and
Sustainability
.
For full disclosure, I'm not one of the team working on the Human Rights
Policy directly, but one of the people who is working on that directly does
report up through my line to me. I hired him. He is our Human Rights Lead
in charge of working to intervene in exactly such situations. We hired him
because we have faced exactly such situations, and we needed competent
approaches for threats that would arise whether we wanted them to or not.

I'm only going to speak here to that element of this policy, since it is
one of the specific areas of my focus.

I've spoken about our human rights interventions at the higher level in my
office hours several times over the past year. (They are linked, with
notes, from the page above.) The role rose when an early approach one of my
teams led to collaborate across particularly high risk regions on finding
resources for people in trouble
 led us to find more
critical need for direct support. We CANNOT threaten governments. We are
NOT an extraction company. You are totally correct. We need to stay humble
in our approaches. Instead, the Human Rights Team
 who supports threats on
the ground is working on several initiatives to help that includes digital
security training and importantly partnerships with organizations around
the world who DO have these abilities.

Raising the danger of Wikimedians is something I take very, very seriously.
Where I work, I can't help but be incredibly aware that no matter how it is
seen, being involved with Wikipedia is not - for many - a harmless hobby
writing about trains. Some of the people we've tried to support have joined
it expecting precisely that, only to find that malign actors around them
already perceived it differently and attempted to pressure or harm them to
get what they wanted.

Our Global Advocacy and Policy teams have the hard job of trying to support
an environment wherein knowledge remains free. I admire them for it and
recognize the hard haul of what they're doing, in a shifting legislative
landscape where this can't be taken for granted anywhere.

My focus is on the people who contribute. I think they must be *informed* -
must know the risks when and where they engage - and must be supported in
doing so *as safely as possible*. I think when things go wrong they need to
have somebody who can help them. Our Human Rights Team is making
connections so that when the things that go wrong come from organized
persecution (<--best words I can think of to describe terrorism, government
groups, etc. This is distinct from individuals being jerks to each other.)

We are short-staffed at the end of the calendar year and with the rising
tide of illnesses globally again, but I do want to note that while I have
contributed some information to the FAQ that will be issued by the Global
Advocacy Team in due course, I know there's a lot of interest in precisely
HOW we work with people who are persecuted.

Y'all, I'm very sorry, but I can't lay out our playbook. Geni is completely
right that this can raise the threat level for people. I always think about
the English Wikipedia's essay on BEANs
.
I don't want to give people ideas or make it easier for them to exploit
gaps in our ability to handle problems. For this reason, I've always
struggled with whether it's better to* not *raise the specter of human
rights violations to those who might not have considered that there are
rights to violate here or to *not* inform the community at large that some
people are violating those rights already. There are pros and cons for both
approaches, and while I know we won't get the balance perfect I will 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Tito Dutta]

Greetings,
I can make a list of things or areas. However, it is not difficult to do
so. So far, it looks like the consultation was not open and did not engage
the communities who the policy intends to serve. Anyway, in my humble
opinion, what we could do is: getting information, experience, suggestions,
and requests from the people who are actually working in this area, such
as: (note the list is indicative, and incomplete):
a) Wikimedians who are working on editor retention and similar initiatives
on different projects. They have some idea on why people leave, or what are
the challenges? They can give some indications.
b) Definitely country and affiliates/hubs leaders: I won't take any
specific name, but you can think of a few people from each country,
continent, affiliate and hubs who know where it actually hurts in their
regions/counties.
c) Admins and experienced editors from different projects who have
witnessed things themselves: They might be better aware of different
discussions, support requests at different village pumps, noticeboards, or
during different incidents.
d) Major and relevant mailing lists such as Wikimedia-l moderator(s) (or
selected long-term posters): sometimes we see discussions on Wikimedia-l "a
Wikimedia arrested", or some other unpleasant thing happened. A mailing
list moderator or anyone who is following a mailing list for long, may add
a lot of inputs.
e) Legal team or people handling emergency@wikimedia: From time to time
specific requests have gone to the legal team or to the support structures.
I am aware of the few emails I have sent. Note: I understand and respect
privacy. I am not at all asking to make the information public here (or
anywhere).
(and so on)

"could you give some indication what you think you can do to safeguard
someone's human rights in another country?"
I can make a list of two or three things I know (such as a Wikimedian was
arrested, or in India a particular law makes things difficult or possibly
vulnerable etc). However, if the same question is asked at the
above-mentioned channels (the list was indicative), I am absolutely
confident that we will get a whole lot of inputs, indications, and
information. I can add my two cents (my experience, or requests) as a part
of that process, or I can narrate it now in a standalone format. I
personally believe the first option is better. Isn't it so?

Now if we have this detailed consultation,
first) I am pretty sure we'll have an amazingly huge amount of information
and indications.
second) because of different socio-economic backgrounds, I feel we will
receive extremely diverse inputs and indications.
so finally) not everything can be done under different restrictions or
limitations. There might be different things out of scope for various
reasons. A priority order may be needed at some point.
Only after all these steps, possibly a draft policy, alongwith an
implementation plan could be better, in my opinion. Isn't it so?

[PS: Over-all I find this a very important topic and many thanks for
working on this. I am adding inputs with sincere hope that these help the
process. Thanks for your kind attention.]


ইতি,
টিটো দত্ত/User:Titodutta
(মাতৃভাষা থাক জীবন জুড়ে)


রবি, ১৯ ডিসেম্বর, ২০২১ তারিখে ১০:৫৮ PM টায় তারিখে Andreas Kolbe <
jayen...@gmail.com> লিখেছেন:

> Hi Tito and all,
>
> Tito said, in part,
>
>
> 1) Okay, we have an "urgent" policy. What is the plan and procedure to
>> safeguard the human rights of someone? Example: If a Wikimedian's human
>> right is in danger for using Wikimedia's/OSM's disputed map[1], what's the
>> "exact" procedure?
>> I do understand that the implementation plan is to be made (around 13:48
>> of the video[2]) and I fully understand that it is going to be difficult on
>> a global scale. However the execution plan and procedure will be more
>> important.
>>
>
>
>> 4) (around 20:00 of the video) "Three people on the Wikimedia-l mailing
>> list asked ..." I am one of the three I don't think we/I asked about
>> royalty etc. What we speak about is about Wikimedians' lives in different
>> socio-economic backgrounds. This is connected with editor retention,
>> community health, (and human rights). I'll be very happy to discuss it
>> separately on my Meta-Wiki talk page[3] or elsewhere.
>>
>
>
> As for the first question, it is early days, but could you give some
> indication what you think you can do to safeguard someone's human rights in
> another country? You could open communication channels to human rights
> organisations, perhaps, and inform them of problematic cases. Is this the
> kind of action you have in mind? I must say I sympathise with what Geni
> says in his mail – surely the WMF is quite limited in what it can do.
> Geni's point about the WMF potentially being perceived as a hostile
> campaigner (or, I would add, even a US foreign policy instrument), thus
> increasing the risks of participation for individuals, is worth pondering
> as well.
>
> As Tito says, there 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Liam Wyatt]

To the question of who, how, whether, and for what, individuals should
receive direct financial support for their volunteer contributions - I
leave that to the discussions of movement Strategy and Charter.

To the specific question of if the eventual revenue raised via ‘Wikimedia
Enterprise’ commercial services should be directed towards that outcome:

We (the ‘Enterprise team), and also the WMF board in their statement on the
matter [1], have been quite clear in the design of the project that its
revenues will go into the same processes, and receive the same oversight
and decision-making as any other revenue - including however those
processes might change over time with movement strategy implementation.

It would be an unhelpful precedent to direct revenue from one specific
input, towards one specific purpose. By analogy: we don’t allocate “revenue
from X Wikipedia language banners in Y will pay for Z project”.

- Liam / Wittylama

P.S. just for clarity: the commercial service of ‘Wikimedia Enterprise’ is
the *service* (API access, customer service agents, SLA contract), and NOT
the content.

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Statement_on_Wikimedia_Enterprise_revenue_principles

On Sun, 19 Dec 2021 at 18:28, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Tito and all,
>
> Tito said, in part,
>
>
> 1) Okay, we have an "urgent" policy. What is the plan and procedure to
>> safeguard the human rights of someone? Example: If a Wikimedian's human
>> right is in danger for using Wikimedia's/OSM's disputed map[1], what's the
>> "exact" procedure?
>> I do understand that the implementation plan is to be made (around 13:48
>> of the video[2]) and I fully understand that it is going to be difficult on
>> a global scale. However the execution plan and procedure will be more
>> important.
>>
>
>
>> 4) (around 20:00 of the video) "Three people on the Wikimedia-l mailing
>> list asked ..." I am one of the three I don't think we/I asked about
>> royalty etc. What we speak about is about Wikimedians' lives in different
>> socio-economic backgrounds. This is connected with editor retention,
>> community health, (and human rights). I'll be very happy to discuss it
>> separately on my Meta-Wiki talk page[3] or elsewhere.
>>
>
>
> As for the first question, it is early days, but could you give some
> indication what you think you can do to safeguard someone's human rights in
> another country? You could open communication channels to human rights
> organisations, perhaps, and inform them of problematic cases. Is this the
> kind of action you have in mind? I must say I sympathise with what Geni
> says in his mail – surely the WMF is quite limited in what it can do.
> Geni's point about the WMF potentially being perceived as a hostile
> campaigner (or, I would add, even a US foreign policy instrument), thus
> increasing the risks of participation for individuals, is worth pondering
> as well.
>
> As Tito says, there was also a question about the feasibility of
> royalties. This mentioned Tito's and others' posts here, though I think the
> questioner was only using those questions about healthcare and minimum pay
> as a springboard for their own question. They wondered whether there was
> any way to get royalties or licence fees from re-users who use more than a
> certain volume of Wikimedia data, and to provide support to volunteers in
> this manner. The answer was that it didn't seem likely. But it occurred to
> me that the for-profit Wikimedia Enterprise is doing a similar thing,
> charging large re-users for API services. So couldn't some of the profits
> from that business be used in the way the questioner suggested? The money
> would come from much the same companies.
>
> Andreas
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FIAT43C22XI24RS4MZSPDE2NZT75BPEW/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

-- 

* Liam Wyatt [Wittylama]*

Program Manager
for *Enterprise, WikiCite,* and *Newcomer Experience*
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4ILBNGNSUOICLH63GBWICCMAWOXRWTJC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Tito and all,

Tito said, in part,


1) Okay, we have an "urgent" policy. What is the plan and procedure to
> safeguard the human rights of someone? Example: If a Wikimedian's human
> right is in danger for using Wikimedia's/OSM's disputed map[1], what's the
> "exact" procedure?
> I do understand that the implementation plan is to be made (around 13:48
> of the video[2]) and I fully understand that it is going to be difficult on
> a global scale. However the execution plan and procedure will be more
> important.
>


> 4) (around 20:00 of the video) "Three people on the Wikimedia-l mailing
> list asked ..." I am one of the three I don't think we/I asked about
> royalty etc. What we speak about is about Wikimedians' lives in different
> socio-economic backgrounds. This is connected with editor retention,
> community health, (and human rights). I'll be very happy to discuss it
> separately on my Meta-Wiki talk page[3] or elsewhere.
>


As for the first question, it is early days, but could you give some
indication what you think you can do to safeguard someone's human rights in
another country? You could open communication channels to human rights
organisations, perhaps, and inform them of problematic cases. Is this the
kind of action you have in mind? I must say I sympathise with what Geni
says in his mail – surely the WMF is quite limited in what it can do.
Geni's point about the WMF potentially being perceived as a hostile
campaigner (or, I would add, even a US foreign policy instrument), thus
increasing the risks of participation for individuals, is worth pondering
as well.

As Tito says, there was also a question about the feasibility of royalties.
This mentioned Tito's and others' posts here, though I think the questioner
was only using those questions about healthcare and minimum pay as a
springboard for their own question. They wondered whether there was any way
to get royalties or licence fees from re-users who use more than a certain
volume of Wikimedia data, and to provide support to volunteers in this
manner. The answer was that it didn't seem likely. But it occurred to me
that the for-profit Wikimedia Enterprise is doing a similar thing, charging
large re-users for API services. So couldn't some of the profits from that
business be used in the way the questioner suggested? The money would come
from much the same companies.

Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FIAT43C22XI24RS4MZSPDE2NZT75BPEW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What Jimmy does or does not from within his own organisation has nothing to
do with the Wikimedia Foundation. You know that..
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 22:20, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Given the topic of human rights, I would like to point out that we have
> not had any reply on what happened to the $500k UAE award Jimmy Wales
> pledged he would use – every last penny – for human rights work with his
> Jimmy Wales Foundation.
>
> https://www.dailydot.com/debug/jimmy-wales-uae-prize-money/
>
> According to the Foundation's filed paperwork, only a far smaller amount
> ever arrived with said Foundation. It would be good to know that the
> remainder, too, was used in line with the public pledge made at the time.
>
> For further details see my earlier post to this mailing list:
>
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PKXEHWGOHOHZPYN7T2JBNJTTTHIFZJWW/
>
> Andreas
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:38 PM Yair Rand  wrote:
>
>> Criticism of the process:
>> * No public consultation or even announcement was done before the policy
>> was finalized. No opportunity to influence the outcome was given.
>> * The policy was preceded by a human rights impact assessment,
>> commissioned by the WMF. The report was given to the WMF in July, but has
>> still not been made public.
>> * No details are given on the mentioned "Human Rights Steering
>> Committee", including structure or membership.
>> * It looks like the policy wasn't even proofread before approval, and is
>> exceedingly ambiguous in parts.
>> * The policy is stated to act as a "North Star" guiding the efforts of
>> other parts of the movement as well, ignoring the WMF's actual position
>> relative to the other groups and where movement guidance actually comes
>> from.
>>
>> Given the level of disassociation between this process and Wikimedia,
>> it's hard to tell how to interpret these events. This looks to me like
>> another example of the WMF simultaneously marginalizing itself from the
>> movement while also pushing itself as a greater portion of activities. This
>> is a problem.
>>
>> (The merits of the actual text are separate from the process issues, and
>> this criticism should not be taken as a position on the correctness/value
>> of such a policy.)
>>
>> -- Yair Rand
>>
>> ‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 9 בדצמ׳ 2021 ב-10:25 מאת ‪Richard Gaines‬‏ <‪
>> rgai...@wikimedia.org‬‏>:‬
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Advocacy team is excited to announce
>>> the approval of the Human Rights Policy
>>> 
>>> by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 2021. Please read our blog post
>>> 
>>> about the policy and what it means for the Wikimedia Foundation’s work in
>>> the coming years on Diff. We invite you to join representatives of the
>>> Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams here
>>>  for a conversation hour tomorrow,
>>> 10 December, at 10:00 AM ET (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns,
>>> questions, or suggestions regarding this policy or how it will be
>>> implemented. The session will be recorded for later viewing and you may
>>> submit questions by email to myself (rgai...@wikimedia.org) and Ziski
>>> Putz (zp...@wikimedia.org) ahead of or following the conversation hour.
>>> Additional conversation hours on this policy will be made available in the
>>> coming weeks.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> --
>>> *Ricky Gaines *(he/him/his)
>>> Senior Manager, Advocacy Audiences
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>> rgai...@wikimedia.org
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> Public archives at
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/37DBZDJ2YUYBN7VARYYYUY62O53LAJ7T/
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GPDWKPOTFL37XW22QF7GEMBE22AL4GFJ/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[geni]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 at 00:29,  wrote:
> As I stated in the conversation hour [2], the Foundation urgently needs such 
> a policy in order to meet our responsibility to protect members of our 
> community from real, growing threats in the world. More governments are 
> increasingly aggressive about trying to control and manipulate information 
> spaces, including Wikimedia projects, and to threaten people who act to share 
> knowledge, and govern free knowledge projects independently of their 
> governments’ requirements. At the same time, as the Foundation globalizes and 
> as the Movement works actively to increase participation across the world, a 
> growing percentage of people who we are bringing into the projects are living 
> in places where contributing to free knowledge projects is more difficult or 
> dangerous than it is for people in North America or Western Europe or other 
> places where the projects have the largest number of long-time volunteers. 
> For this among other reasons, we believe it is urgent to have a policy that 
> clearly articulates the Foundation’s responsibility to actively work to 
> understand how our platforms and operations affect the rights of everyone who 
> interacts with the projects, how we will work to mitigate threats and harms 
> to members of the movement, and how we will work with people across the 
> Movement to implement these policies over the coming years. We don’t believe 
> that our responsibility to respect, protect and promote human rights is up 
> for negotiation.

You and who's army? If one of the world's more questionable
governments decides to target Wikipedians within its territory there's
not a thing you can do about about it. You’re not France. You can’t
threaten governments into submission (and if one of the most powerful
states on earth can’t get Zara Radcliffe out you certainly can’t).

You’re not a mineral extraction company. You don’t have mercenaries on
retainer to try and get your people out.

You policy is worse than useless. It doesn’t help at all but
marginally increases the risk of being involved with Wikipedia as what
can be seen as a harmless hobby writing about trains turns into being
involved with a human rights campaigning organisation.





--
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OCIVZYBFP3EHCMQRLJTTUZ5AELJ5PSED/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[rgaines]

Hello everyone - Thank you all for your comments and questions regarding the 
Foundation’s Human Rights Policy. We are collecting these questions and look 
forward to discussing them in January, when we will organize a process for 
additional dialogue, including additional Conversation Hours. We will also 
develop an expanded FAQ based on common questions and concerns, which we will 
publish in January and will serve additional audiences interested in the policy.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QSLJUNCWZQP4IFT3MK7R7K43P5HSI4PP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Tito Dutta]

Greetings,
"... urgently needs such a policy in order to meet our responsibility to
protect members of our community from real, growing threats in the world.
More governments are increasingly aggressive about [entire paragraph]"
— If that's the objective, that is a great and welcome move in my opinion.
Thank you.
I have these questions/observations:
1) Okay, we have an "urgent" policy. What is the plan and procedure to
safeguard the human rights of someone? Example: If a Wikimedian's human
right is in danger for using Wikimedia's/OSM's disputed map[1], what's the
"exact" procedure?
I do understand that the implementation plan is to be made (around 13:48 of
the video[2]) and I fully understand that it is going to be difficult on a
global scale. However the execution plan and procedure will be more
important.
2) I do understand "Our Human Rights Policy relates to *all *of the rights
listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.", and UDHR has several
components and rights.
3) "Human Rights Interest Group" (around 18:45 of the video), I would
suggest continuing documenting the procedure timeline and on Meta-Wiki as
much as possible. This documentation helps everyone.
4) (around 20:00 of the video) "Three people on the Wikimedia-l mailing
list asked ..." I am one of the three I don't think we/I asked about
royalty etc. What we speak about is about Wikimedians' lives in different
socio-economic backgrounds. This is connected with editor retention,
community health, (and human rights). I'll be very happy to discuss it
separately on my Meta-Wiki talk page[3] or elsewhere.

Over-all I thank you for initiating work on this, and the clarification.


[1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T215073
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Conversation_Hour_for_Human_Rights_Policy_Launch.webm
[3] The discussion will be too long, happy to discuss separately on talk
page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Titodutta

ইতি,/Regards
টিটো দত্ত/User:Titodutta
(মাতৃভাষা থাক জীবন জুড়ে)


শনি, ১১ ডিসেম্বর, ২০২১ তারিখে ৬:০০ AM টায় এ, 
লিখেছেন:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Thank you for your replies.
>
> Sam makes some great points and suggestions. Indeed, the Movement’s free
> knowledge agenda is about freedom *to* which is why the first sentence of
> the policy says: “The Wikimedia Movement’s vision—of a world in which every
> single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge—both relies
> upon and enables human rights. “ [1]
>
> As I stated in the conversation hour [2], the Foundation urgently needs
> such a policy in order to meet our responsibility to protect members of our
> community from real, growing threats in the world. More governments are
> increasingly aggressive about trying to control and manipulate information
> spaces, including Wikimedia projects, and to threaten people who act to
> share knowledge, and govern free knowledge projects independently of their
> governments’ requirements. At the same time, as the Foundation globalizes
> and as the Movement works actively to increase participation across the
> world, a growing percentage of people who we are bringing into the projects
> are living in places where contributing to free knowledge projects is more
> difficult or dangerous than it is for people in North America or Western
> Europe or other places where the projects have the largest number of
> long-time volunteers. For this among other reasons, we believe it is urgent
> to have a policy that clearly articulates the Foundation’s responsibility
> to actively work to understand how our platforms and operations affect the
> rights of everyone who interacts with the projects, how we will work to
> mitigate threats and harms to members of the movement, and how we will work
> with people across the Movement to implement these policies over the coming
> years. We don’t believe that our responsibility to respect, protect and
> promote human rights is up for negotiation.
>
> That said, as Ricky and I wrote in the blog post [3], the Foundation is
> absolutely committed to a long term process, in partnership with
> volunteers, extending into the coming months and years well beyond this
> thread, to discuss all the different ways in which the policy should be
> implemented.
>
> There is a lot to digest in the responses we have received, not just on
> this thread but also from other volunteers who have reached out in
> different ways. We are compiling all of the suggestions and questions. We
> hope that we can find a number of ways to hold both real-time and
> asynchronous conversations, perhaps broken down by specific topics and
> concerns. In any case, we look forward to the concrete steps that need to
> be taken not only to implement the policy but to connect it to many other
> existing efforts that are all - fundamentally - about different aspects of
> human rights as Sam rightly points out.
>
> Thanks so much and have a great weekend.
> Rebecca
>
> [1] 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[rmackinnon]

Hi everyone,

Thank you for your replies. 

Sam makes some great points and suggestions. Indeed, the Movement’s free 
knowledge agenda is about freedom *to* which is why the first sentence of the 
policy says: “The Wikimedia Movement’s vision—of a world in which every single 
human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge—both relies upon and 
enables human rights. “ [1]

As I stated in the conversation hour [2], the Foundation urgently needs such a 
policy in order to meet our responsibility to protect members of our community 
from real, growing threats in the world. More governments are increasingly 
aggressive about trying to control and manipulate information spaces, including 
Wikimedia projects, and to threaten people who act to share knowledge, and 
govern free knowledge projects independently of their governments’ 
requirements. At the same time, as the Foundation globalizes and as the 
Movement works actively to increase participation across the world, a growing 
percentage of people who we are bringing into the projects are living in places 
where contributing to free knowledge projects is more difficult or dangerous 
than it is for people in North America or Western Europe or other places where 
the projects have the largest number of long-time volunteers. For this among 
other reasons, we believe it is urgent to have a policy that clearly 
articulates the Foundation’s responsibility to actively work to understand how 
our platforms and operations affect the rights of everyone who interacts with 
the projects, how we will work to mitigate threats and harms to members of the 
movement, and how we will work with people across the Movement to implement 
these policies over the coming years. We don’t believe that our responsibility 
to respect, protect and promote human rights is up for negotiation. 

That said, as Ricky and I wrote in the blog post [3], the Foundation is 
absolutely committed to a long term process, in partnership with volunteers, 
extending into the coming months and years well beyond this thread, to discuss 
all the different ways in which the policy should be implemented. 

There is a lot to digest in the responses we have received, not just on this 
thread but also from other volunteers who have reached out in different ways. 
We are compiling all of the suggestions and questions. We hope that we can find 
a number of ways to hold both real-time and asynchronous conversations, perhaps 
broken down by specific topics and concerns. In any case, we look forward to 
the concrete steps that need to be taken not only to implement the policy but 
to connect it to many other existing efforts that are all - fundamentally - 
about different aspects of human rights as Sam rightly points out. 

Thanks so much and have a great weekend. 
Rebecca

[1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Human_Rights_Policy 
[2] 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Conversation_Hour_for_Human_Rights_Policy_Launch.webm
 
[3] 
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/12/09/what-the-wikimedia-foundations-new-human-rights-policy-means-for-our-movement/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/LU5KWRQAGADD3BU5CZFE5OZPOMQ4ZCVC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[rmackinnon]

Hi everyone,

Thank you for your replies. 

Sam makes some great points and suggestions. Indeed, the Movement’s free 
knowledge agenda is about freedom *to* which is why the first sentence of the 
policy says: “The Wikimedia Movement’s vision—of a world in which every single 
human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge—both relies upon and 
enables human rights. “ [1]

As I stated in the conversation hour [2], the Foundation urgently needs such a 
policy in order to meet our responsibility to protect members of our community 
from real, growing threats in the world. More governments are increasingly 
aggressive about trying to control and manipulate information spaces, including 
Wikimedia projects, and to threaten people who act to share knowledge, and 
govern free knowledge projects independently of their governments’ 
requirements. At the same time, as the Foundation globalizes and as the 
Movement works actively to increase participation across the world, a growing 
percentage of people who we are bringing into the projects are living in places 
where contributing to free knowledge projects is more difficult or dangerous 
than it is for people in North America or Western Europe or other places where 
the projects have the largest number of long-time volunteers. For this among 
other reasons, we believe it is urgent to have a policy that clearly 
articulates the Foundation’s responsibility to actively work to understand how 
our platforms and operations affect the rights of everyone who interacts with 
the projects, how we will work to mitigate threats and harms to members of the 
movement, and how we will work with people across the Movement to implement 
these policies over the coming years. We don’t believe that our responsibility 
to respect, protect and promote human rights is up for negotiation. 

That said, as Ricky and I wrote in the blog post [3], the Foundation is 
absolutely committed to a long term process, in partnership with volunteers, 
extending into the coming months and years well beyond this thread, to discuss 
all the different ways in which the policy should be implemented. 

There is a lot to digest in the responses we have received, not just on this 
thread but also from other volunteers who have reached out in different ways. 
We are compiling all of the suggestions and questions. We hope that we can find 
a number of ways to hold both real-time and asynchronous conversations, perhaps 
broken down by specific topics and concerns. In any case, we look forward to 
the concrete steps that need to be taken not only to implement the policy but 
to connect it to many other existing efforts that are all - fundamentally - 
about different aspects of human rights as Sam rightly points out. 

Thanks so much and have a great weekend. 
Rebecca

[1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Human_Rights_Policy 
[2] 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Conversation_Hour_for_Human_Rights_Policy_Launch.webm
 
[3] 
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/12/09/what-the-wikimedia-foundations-new-human-rights-policy-means-for-our-movement/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2RWFJVXB6FEKCG2NA5VUR54QYJAACITX/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Eddan Katz]

Greetings and salutations.

I am also excited and inspired by the release of the Human Rights Policy and on 
the occasion of Human Rights Day, wanted to contribute to this intriguing 
conversation.

Addressing the conflicts between the different policy instruments and their 
constitutive provisions, international human rights law and advocacy is a 
constant exercise in the balancing of rights, liberties, and other protections. 
I think isolating the right to a 'just and favorable remuneration clause’ from 
Article 23 itself and the Declaration of Human Rights as a whole is misleading, 
at the very least confusing. (See 
http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/work_definition.html 
 for more context). 
For a discussion faithful to the protection of human rights as an objective, 
and as a North Star - the issues related to volunteer work need to also 
incorporate the distinctions within the international human rights regime 
generally and policy instruments identified specifically.

The fundamental values of the right to work protections are primarily about 
discrimination amongst workers, and the support for societal protections of 
public benefits explicitly directed at state actors in relationship to 
citizens. The public policy issues specifically contemplated for work without 
pay is focused on forced labor, underaged labor, and as also mentioned in this 
thread - about the rights to collective bargaining. Distinctions regarding work 
towards public goods vs. private goods, modalities of motivation and reputation 
economies, household labor and volunteer expectations of paid employees are 
some starting points for thinking this through. An interpretation of the 
remuneration clause however requiring pay for all productive labor is not only 
untenable, but also in conflict with the recognition of various UN bodies of 
the importance and necessity of volunteer work to the progress towards 
sustainable development goals.

I do not intend to dismiss the admittedly complex considerations of open 
knowledge/open source economics was they relate to human rights. Not being a 
regular contributor to these discussions, I chime in because I agree that these 
questions shouldn’t be ignored. The foundational contribution in the issuance 
of Wikimedia's Human Rights Policy in fact enables the serious consideration of 
how these tensions play out in context, rather than minimizing them.

There are likely other places one might start, but it seems to me that the 
International Labor Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and 
Right to Work (https://www.ilo.org/declaration/lang--en/index.htm 
), identified as one of the 
core instruments in the Human Rights Policy, seem most promising. The related 
ILO "Resolution concerning statistics of work, employment, and labor 
underutilization” 
(https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_230304.pdf
 
)
 (Oct., 2013) is instructive in parsing out the above referenced distinctions. 
The ILO Volunteer Work Measurement Guide 
(https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/publication/wcms_789950.pdf
 
)
 (May, 2021) further guides how to operationalize these principles. The UN 
Handbook on Non-Profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts 
(https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/seriesf/seriesf_91e.pdf 
) is also 
helping in getting to greater clarity and deliberative consensus.  

Congratulations again to the Wikimedia communities for this important public 
step and commitment to global leadership on respect for human rights.

Thanks,
Eddan
  

> On Dec 9, 2021, at 8:06 PM, Bodhisattwa Mandal  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I find a human rights policy based on major human rights documents of the 
> world very conflicting and equally amusing in an organization which grows 
> itself in an inherently exploitative system feeding on volunteer works. While 
> volunteers from around the world, who generate contents and technologies 
> every day, build partnerships to gather more human knowledge, man different 
> committees to make important decisions for the movement and so on and without 
> whom the Wikimedia movement would not exist at all, are not remunerated in 
> any way, forget ensuring minimum wage for their time and effort or social 
> protection, medical care etc. and the organization which collects weath based 
> on these people's works talk about Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
> whose Articles 23 and 25 say about right to just and favorable remuneration, 
> social protection, equal pay for equal work 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Samuel Klein]

Hi Richard, thanks.  Keen to see what the team is planning.

- Are there any notes from the session earlier today?
- Can you post the policy to Meta, and link it to the [[m:Human Rights
Team]]?
- You might seed its discussion page with the current FAQ; people may have
other questions.  This would be a better place to gather + respond
to movement-internal questions, even if a clean static version remains on
the foundation-wiki
- The FAQ currently says the policy will be translated (by whom? through
the translation dashboard?) and posted on the Governance Wiki.  Not
everyone realizes that foundation.wikimedia.org was renamed to that so it's
a bit confusing -- you might just link to the page where translations will
be added.

My primary question: Most of the language of the policy is about freedom
*from* threats, rather than freedom *to* (create, share, learn,
self-govern, protect one's own rights, ). The free knowledge policy agenda

is
linked to, but that more often focuses on freedoms *to*.   I'd like to hear
how you are thinking about this.

For instance, we could focus all available energy and resources staffing a
defense league to protect those who are under threat; or focus on training,
empowering, and unblocking active community groups; or on providing them
with new avenues for educating individuals and networks so they have the
skills and resources to do all of the above.

James + Bodhisattwa:

The stated scope does include starting at home, w/ the rights of community
members, staff, and users of the projects; as well as those who might not
be able to engage in any of those ways.  I encourage you to share ideas you
have on how to build a stronger movement, supporting contributors and
identifying approaches to and successes in unionization (or other workplace
practice) for staffed parts of it.  Perhaps here
?

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 10:26 AM Richard Gaines 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Advocacy team is excited to announce the
> approval of the Human Rights Policy
> 
> by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 2021. Please read our blog post
> 
> about the policy and what it means for the Wikimedia Foundation’s work in
> the coming years on Diff. We invite you to join representatives of the
> Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams here
>  for a conversation hour tomorrow,
> 10 December, at 10:00 AM ET (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns,
> questions, or suggestions regarding this policy or how it will be
> implemented. The session will be recorded for later viewing and you may
> submit questions by email to myself (rgai...@wikimedia.org) and Ziski
> Putz (zp...@wikimedia.org) ahead of or following the conversation hour.
> Additional conversation hours on this policy will be made available in the
> coming weeks.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> *Ricky Gaines *(he/him/his)
> Senior Manager, Advocacy Audiences
> Wikimedia Foundation
> rgai...@wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/37DBZDJ2YUYBN7VARYYYUY62O53LAJ7T/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/R65HNMJVTDOAUTCMH32H4YKB37YPG5NU/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Lane Chance]

Apart from mindless news sources that regurgitated the Christies PR, more
recent journalism has in the headlines "triggers controversy", "editors
very mad", "some Wikipedians are pissed".

Of these, the presentation by Slate seems even-handed good quality
journalism, presenting the facts, the community response and getting direct
comments from Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation.

It seems unlikely that the Wikimedia Foundation board, the WMF governance
team, or the new Chief Executive could say that they handled this well, or
gave one of their own Trustees good advice. Many will flag this as an
obvious failure by the WMF board of trustees to be seen to exercise good
governance over their brand and reputation, certainly, it's not a "success".

References for quoted headlines:
*
https://slate.com/technology/2021/12/jimmy-wales-birth-of-wikipedia-nft-auction.html
*
https://newsable.asianetnews.com/technology/wikipedia-co-founder-jimmy-wales-announces-auction-of-his-first-edit-as-nft-gcw-r3ujni
*
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit


On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 18:38, Yair Rand  wrote:

> Criticism of the process:
> * No public consultation or even announcement was done before the policy
> was finalized. No opportunity to influence the outcome was given.
> * The policy was preceded by a human rights impact assessment,
> commissioned by the WMF. The report was given to the WMF in July, but has
> still not been made public.
> * No details are given on the mentioned "Human Rights Steering Committee",
> including structure or membership.
> * It looks like the policy wasn't even proofread before approval, and is
> exceedingly ambiguous in parts.
> * The policy is stated to act as a "North Star" guiding the efforts of
> other parts of the movement as well, ignoring the WMF's actual position
> relative to the other groups and where movement guidance actually comes
> from.
>
> Given the level of disassociation between this process and Wikimedia, it's
> hard to tell how to interpret these events. This looks to me like another
> example of the WMF simultaneously marginalizing itself from the movement
> while also pushing itself as a greater portion of activities. This is a
> problem.
>
> (The merits of the actual text are separate from the process issues, and
> this criticism should not be taken as a position on the correctness/value
> of such a policy.)
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 9 בדצמ׳ 2021 ב-10:25 מאת ‪Richard Gaines‬‏ <‪
> rgai...@wikimedia.org‬‏>:‬
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Advocacy team is excited to announce
>> the approval of the Human Rights Policy
>> 
>> by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 2021. Please read our blog post
>> 
>> about the policy and what it means for the Wikimedia Foundation’s work in
>> the coming years on Diff. We invite you to join representatives of the
>> Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams here
>>  for a conversation hour tomorrow,
>> 10 December, at 10:00 AM ET (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns,
>> questions, or suggestions regarding this policy or how it will be
>> implemented. The session will be recorded for later viewing and you may
>> submit questions by email to myself (rgai...@wikimedia.org) and Ziski
>> Putz (zp...@wikimedia.org) ahead of or following the conversation hour.
>> Additional conversation hours on this policy will be made available in the
>> coming weeks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> *Ricky Gaines *(he/him/his)
>> Senior Manager, Advocacy Audiences
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> rgai...@wikimedia.org
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/37DBZDJ2YUYBN7VARYYYUY62O53LAJ7T/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GPDWKPOTFL37XW22QF7GEMBE22AL4GFJ/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Bodhisattwa Mandal]

Hi,

I find a human rights policy based on major human rights documents of the
world very conflicting and equally amusing in an organization which grows
itself in an inherently exploitative system feeding on volunteer works.
While volunteers from around the world, who generate contents and
technologies every day, build partnerships to gather more human knowledge,
man different committees to make important decisions for the movement and
so on and without whom the Wikimedia movement would not exist at all, are
not remunerated in any way, forget ensuring minimum wage for their time and
effort or social protection, medical care etc. and the organization which
collects weath based on these people's works talk about Universal
Declaration of Human Rights whose Articles 23 and 25 say about right to
just and favorable remuneration, social protection, equal pay for equal
work etc. I would be very interested to see if this policy, mentioned as
North Star, can guide the movement addressing the conflicting and
complicated issue w.r.t. human rights in the future.

Regards,
Bodhisattwa

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021, 20:55 Richard Gaines  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Advocacy team is excited to announce the
> approval of the Human Rights Policy
> 
> by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 2021. Please read our blog post
> 
> about the policy and what it means for the Wikimedia Foundation’s work in
> the coming years on Diff. We invite you to join representatives of the
> Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams here
>  for a conversation hour tomorrow,
> 10 December, at 10:00 AM ET (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns,
> questions, or suggestions regarding this policy or how it will be
> implemented. The session will be recorded for later viewing and you may
> submit questions by email to myself (rgai...@wikimedia.org) and Ziski
> Putz (zp...@wikimedia.org) ahead of or following the conversation hour.
> Additional conversation hours on this policy will be made available in the
> coming weeks.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> *Ricky Gaines *(he/him/his)
> Senior Manager, Advocacy Audiences
> Wikimedia Foundation
> rgai...@wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/37DBZDJ2YUYBN7VARYYYUY62O53LAJ7T/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.o
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/V4CRVO2KAGZCIJ7KEQTE2KMTAZKMXM24/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Lane Chance]

Nice to hear about the excitement.

It looks like reading the policy and checking links in the supplied
document would take around 45 minutes to do thoroughly, plus joining the
meeting with the two WMF teams would take another hour. It is unfortunate
that the invitation is with less than 1 days notice, given a single
one-hour meeting which will be in the middle of the working day for most
volunteers, and as the document is already approved by the board, it seems
that anything a volunteer might say regardless how interesting, will have
no realistic chance of resulting in any changes being agreed.

Could the management responsible for this extremely short timeline and lack
of any previous consultation before approval (the document being made
public for the first time only hours before this email today, and only
after board approval in secret), explain why this is happening this way,
which will put off volunteer comments, and ensure that there will be very
little volunteer feedback?

Please ensure it is understood that a lack of volunteers turning up to the
meeting tomorrow, is a sign of exclusion by the WMF, not agreement, nor a
lack of interest in the issues that may arise from this publication.

Thank you.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 at 15:25, Richard Gaines  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Advocacy team is excited to announce the
> approval of the Human Rights Policy
> 
> by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 2021. Please read our blog post
> 
> about the policy and what it means for the Wikimedia Foundation’s work in
> the coming years on Diff. We invite you to join representatives of the
> Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams here
>  for a conversation hour tomorrow,
> 10 December, at 10:00 AM ET (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns,
> questions, or suggestions regarding this policy or how it will be
> implemented. The session will be recorded for later viewing and you may
> submit questions by email to myself (rgai...@wikimedia.org) and Ziski
> Putz (zp...@wikimedia.org) ahead of or following the conversation hour.
> Additional conversation hours on this policy will be made available in the
> coming weeks.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> *Ricky Gaines *(he/him/his)
> Senior Manager, Advocacy Audiences
> Wikimedia Foundation
> rgai...@wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/37DBZDJ2YUYBN7VARYYYUY62O53LAJ7T/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4ZHL77LV72C3AM2ZWK4KTPFJNRA4QNO6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[James Hare]

On Dec 9, 2021, 7:26 AM -0800, Richard Gaines , wrote:
> Hello,
> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Advocacy team is excited to announce the 
> approval of the Human Rights Policy by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 
> 2021. Please read our blog post about the policy and what it means for the 
> Wikimedia Foundation’s work in the coming years on Diff. We invite you to 
> join representatives of the Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights 
> teams here for a conversation hour tomorrow, 10 December, at 10:00 AM ET 
> (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns, questions, or suggestions 
> regarding this policy or how it will be implemented. The session will be 
> recorded for later viewing and you may submit questions by email to myself 
> (rgai...@wikimedia.org) and Ziski Putz (zp...@wikimedia.org) ahead of or 
> following the conversation hour. Additional conversation hours on this policy 
> will be made available in the coming weeks.
>
The text of the Wikimedia Foundation Human Rights Policy[0] states that their 
human rights commitments build on a series of international human rights 
instruments, one of which is the International Covenant on Economic, Social, 
and Cultural Rights.[1] Article 8 of that covenant reads, in part:



1. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure:

(a) The right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his 
choice, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, for the 
promotion and protection of his economic and social interests. No restrictions 
may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed by law 
and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national 
security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of 
others;

(b) The right of trade unions to establish national federations or 
confederations and the right of the latter to form or join international 
trade-union organizations;

(c) The right of trade unions to function freely subject to no limitations 
other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic 
society in the interests of national security or public order or for the 
protection of the rights and freedoms of others;

(d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the 
laws of the particular country.


If the Wikimedia Foundation is committed to the human rights documents it says 
it is committed to in its own human rights policy, it will support a workplace 
union election overseen by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, and support 
an equivalent process for workers outside the United States. Of course, I do 
not expect this support to materialize in any way.


[0] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Human_Rights_Policy

[1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx



Thank you,
James Hare
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2X6FH327SAA2YSTANCR3D6IVMJVQSO25/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Tito Dutta]

Greetings,
This is an interesting topic. I feel there is a slight possibility (some)
questions asked may be misunderstood as "questions against human right
(implementation)", which is not true. The questions are about the process,
and not on the subject.

The Diff blog post mentions: "Our Human Rights Policy relates to *all *of
the rights

listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
.." For
now I would like to bring the following thoughts to your kind attention.
1) By structure there is an inequality in the labour/intellect
remuneration model:
salaried and volunteers. That's fine. The super-amazing volunteer work by
thousands of people makes Wikimedia. I understand this structure. However,
from the aspect of "human rights" and "right to equality", how do you
explain and what are your thoughts on the unequal labor /intellect
remuneration process?
2) There are things like individual rights, right to life, and several
other things. Volunteers solve their necessities themselves and the
movement has nothing to do in it. In a different context we were told
medical insurance during the pandemic could not be given to volunteers as
there is "no formal association with volunteers"! Only because we are
talking about human rights, I am interested to know your thoughts on this.

[  Questions skipped, I hope the first two questions explain things]

L) Freedom of expression: opinion, religious expression etc we need to be
careful that they do not end up creating a problematic situation where we
have a neutral point of view, no advocacy rules also on some projects.

Please assume good faith,
ইতি,/Regards
টিটো দত্ত/User:Titodutta
(মাতৃভাষা থাক জীবন জুড়ে)


বৃহস্পতি, ৯ ডিসেম্বর, ২০২১ তারিখে ৮:৫৫ PM টায় তারিখে Richard Gaines <
rgai...@wikimedia.org> লিখেছেন:

> Hello,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Advocacy team is excited to announce the
> approval of the Human Rights Policy
> 
> by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 2021. Please read our blog post
> 
> about the policy and what it means for the Wikimedia Foundation’s work in
> the coming years on Diff. We invite you to join representatives of the
> Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams here
>  for a conversation hour tomorrow,
> 10 December, at 10:00 AM ET (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns,
> questions, or suggestions regarding this policy or how it will be
> implemented. The session will be recorded for later viewing and you may
> submit questions by email to myself (rgai...@wikimedia.org) and Ziski
> Putz (zp...@wikimedia.org) ahead of or following the conversation hour.
> Additional conversation hours on this policy will be made available in the
> coming weeks.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> *Ricky Gaines *(he/him/his)
> Senior Manager, Advocacy Audiences
> Wikimedia Foundation
> rgai...@wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/37DBZDJ2YUYBN7VARYYYUY62O53LAJ7T/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VX2S7ZN5BJAXQHD4VNWAJBIAW5UX3PQC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Andreas Kolbe]

Given the topic of human rights, I would like to point out that we have not
had any reply on what happened to the $500k UAE award Jimmy Wales pledged
he would use – every last penny – for human rights work with his Jimmy
Wales Foundation.

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/jimmy-wales-uae-prize-money/

According to the Foundation's filed paperwork, only a far smaller amount
ever arrived with said Foundation. It would be good to know that the
remainder, too, was used in line with the public pledge made at the time.

For further details see my earlier post to this mailing list:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PKXEHWGOHOHZPYN7T2JBNJTTTHIFZJWW/

Andreas

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:38 PM Yair Rand  wrote:

> Criticism of the process:
> * No public consultation or even announcement was done before the policy
> was finalized. No opportunity to influence the outcome was given.
> * The policy was preceded by a human rights impact assessment,
> commissioned by the WMF. The report was given to the WMF in July, but has
> still not been made public.
> * No details are given on the mentioned "Human Rights Steering Committee",
> including structure or membership.
> * It looks like the policy wasn't even proofread before approval, and is
> exceedingly ambiguous in parts.
> * The policy is stated to act as a "North Star" guiding the efforts of
> other parts of the movement as well, ignoring the WMF's actual position
> relative to the other groups and where movement guidance actually comes
> from.
>
> Given the level of disassociation between this process and Wikimedia, it's
> hard to tell how to interpret these events. This looks to me like another
> example of the WMF simultaneously marginalizing itself from the movement
> while also pushing itself as a greater portion of activities. This is a
> problem.
>
> (The merits of the actual text are separate from the process issues, and
> this criticism should not be taken as a position on the correctness/value
> of such a policy.)
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 9 בדצמ׳ 2021 ב-10:25 מאת ‪Richard Gaines‬‏ <‪
> rgai...@wikimedia.org‬‏>:‬
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Advocacy team is excited to announce
>> the approval of the Human Rights Policy
>> 
>> by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 2021. Please read our blog post
>> 
>> about the policy and what it means for the Wikimedia Foundation’s work in
>> the coming years on Diff. We invite you to join representatives of the
>> Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams here
>>  for a conversation hour tomorrow,
>> 10 December, at 10:00 AM ET (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns,
>> questions, or suggestions regarding this policy or how it will be
>> implemented. The session will be recorded for later viewing and you may
>> submit questions by email to myself (rgai...@wikimedia.org) and Ziski
>> Putz (zp...@wikimedia.org) ahead of or following the conversation hour.
>> Additional conversation hours on this policy will be made available in the
>> coming weeks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> *Ricky Gaines *(he/him/his)
>> Senior Manager, Advocacy Audiences
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> rgai...@wikimedia.org
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/37DBZDJ2YUYBN7VARYYYUY62O53LAJ7T/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GPDWKPOTFL37XW22QF7GEMBE22AL4GFJ/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NUNSZRBG5KIRTJTADKUQNKXKOVQRKG5V/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Yair Rand]

Criticism of the process:
* No public consultation or even announcement was done before the policy
was finalized. No opportunity to influence the outcome was given.
* The policy was preceded by a human rights impact assessment, commissioned
by the WMF. The report was given to the WMF in July, but has still not been
made public.
* No details are given on the mentioned "Human Rights Steering Committee",
including structure or membership.
* It looks like the policy wasn't even proofread before approval, and is
exceedingly ambiguous in parts.
* The policy is stated to act as a "North Star" guiding the efforts of
other parts of the movement as well, ignoring the WMF's actual position
relative to the other groups and where movement guidance actually comes
from.

Given the level of disassociation between this process and Wikimedia, it's
hard to tell how to interpret these events. This looks to me like another
example of the WMF simultaneously marginalizing itself from the movement
while also pushing itself as a greater portion of activities. This is a
problem.

(The merits of the actual text are separate from the process issues, and
this criticism should not be taken as a position on the correctness/value
of such a policy.)

-- Yair Rand

‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 9 בדצמ׳ 2021 ב-10:25 מאת ‪Richard Gaines‬‏ <‪
rgai...@wikimedia.org‬‏>:‬

> Hello,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation’s Global Advocacy team is excited to announce the
> approval of the Human Rights Policy
> 
> by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 2021. Please read our blog post
> 
> about the policy and what it means for the Wikimedia Foundation’s work in
> the coming years on Diff. We invite you to join representatives of the
> Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams here
>  for a conversation hour tomorrow,
> 10 December, at 10:00 AM ET (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns,
> questions, or suggestions regarding this policy or how it will be
> implemented. The session will be recorded for later viewing and you may
> submit questions by email to myself (rgai...@wikimedia.org) and Ziski
> Putz (zp...@wikimedia.org) ahead of or following the conversation hour.
> Additional conversation hours on this policy will be made available in the
> coming weeks.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> *Ricky Gaines *(he/him/his)
> Senior Manager, Advocacy Audiences
> Wikimedia Foundation
> rgai...@wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/37DBZDJ2YUYBN7VARYYYUY62O53LAJ7T/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GPDWKPOTFL37XW22QF7GEMBE22AL4GFJ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org