There is a flaw in the assumption that the current responsible person of
the chapter is the same person who was the recipient.

Example: WMAu applies for a grant to run a project in September that
project is finished but before I've written up a report I lose my seat on
the committee. If I choose to just walk away from the committee because of
what has taken place there is no way a report about the project could
written by someone else.  The new person tries to get it written after 12
months they too walk away from the committee,  a third person who may never
have met me nor know how to contact me becomes the responsible person.
Another 12 months goes by then the decision to progress to deregistration
happens.  This new responsible person is the one being held to account for
the information. Thats when the system falls over because this third person
can never address the compliance not only have we lost the community, we've
attributed blame to the wrong person on top of that we are taking punative
action the wrong person, the wider community and poisoning the external
opportunities for those who follow.  Such a process doesnt protect the
movements identity nor work in its best interest,  unless we change it
after a couple of more iterations of this process its going to create and
accelerate decline as no one will step up when help is needed.

Being professional is not just writing reports and counting number its also
about ensuring continuity over time to those external to our organisation.

On 26 April 2017 at 11:24, Nathan <> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > When individuals are discredited in this way, your option, you are
> judging
> > these people. That is in my opinion a mistake. You may judge a situation
> > and determine because of what you consider your responsibility to either
> > accept or no longer accept the existence of a chapter, whatever entity.
> > When you judge people and determine that you will not trust them in the
> > future to do good. You have a problem.
> >
> > It is exactly when a group is small that your priority must be in growing
> > the group and the quality of their interaction. By dismissing people
> > totally you achieve the opposite of what we want; that is representation
> of
> > our movement in the most optimal way.
> > Thanks,
> >       GerardM
> It seems very strange to me to discount the mere possibility that AffComm
> may, in the course of its work, discover that specific individuals are
> untrustworthy or impossible to work with - or that signals of such a status
> must be resolved before collaboration can continue. We don't exist in a
> world where entities matter but individuals do not. It would appear that
> AffComm is trying very hard not to publicly discredit any individuals. By
> senselessly ruling out that this could be true, you're unnecessarily
> pushing them to 'out' potential misconduct in a way that won't help the
> movement or any future Philippines-based affiliate.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>

President Wikimedia Australia
Photo Gallery:
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to