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

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

MZMcBride



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

Reply via email to