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 Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l