Le 04/08/2017 à 18:17, Gabriel Thullen a écrit :
What is important here is that trust has to be rebuilt between the chapter
members on one hand and the board & senior staff on the other hand.
The way I understand the situation is that the board has expelled a few
vocal opponents, a few board members have resigned, one staffer was fired
for refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had their
membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join
the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I
may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it up.
It far from sum-it-up.
There is also *very* disrespectful behavior from staff and management,
including
* non respect of "friendly space policy" and comments directed to a very
involved member with autistic traits such as "it is you who should adapt
and you need to grow up to become an adult"
* paternalistic behavior toward volunteers such as "you still have not
understood what I was saying. Let's meet face to face and I will explain
to you *again* so that you *really* get it"
* legal threats toward volunteers who ask questions
* referring to members in a very belittling way : "tartempion" or "pigiste"
* refusal to acknowledge authorship of action from volunteers (such as
"no author name in wiki newsletter")
* emails sent to board by members to "report issues" are immediately
forwarded to the management, making it impossible to safely and
confidentially discuss issues
* there has been cases of doxing by the management, using member private
data
* set up of a black list of members that should not receive support by
staff in spite of being members.
There is staff suffering, upon which it is difficult to comment
publicly, but is made quite obvious by the fact several staff members
joined and created a trade-union branch to be able to *defend* themselves.
There are multiple rumors reported by members of quite "generous"
expenses reimbursement. Yet unclear due to non access to financial data.
There are questions related to management using the resources and image
of the association, as well as WMF brand, to look for funding for a
mysterious entity no one knows anything about. Yet unanswered.
There are questions related to using resources of the association to
gain a elected position.
And a bunch of other things. Those would count as "one or two minor
details".
The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they are
related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with
fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us find
an issue to this crisis. (
http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)
Absolutely correct. Those were certifications (and done prior to most of
our current issues). For example, a certification will check that there
is a Conflict of Interest Policy in place. And yes there is one. So
there is certification.
What good is a COI policy when people do not report COI or when the
members of the committee do not have independance from those reporting
COI... that is another story. And this is when a governance audit can help.
It may be that if WMF asks for a financial audit, only WMF will get the
outcome.
Which is why we are currently voting so that the members get the RIGHT
to vote to ASK for a financial audit during the next General Assembly.
But the amount of energy we have to spend to simply TRY to get answers
is frankly just wrong.
Florence
I remain convinced that WMFR needs an independent governance audit, and the
results should be made available to the chapter members and to the staff.
Something drastic needs to be done so that this chapter can continue to
function. I also think that the members who have been expelled should be
allowed to rejoin the French chapter unconditionally. That is a goodwill
gesture that the current board can easily make and it will go a long way
towards finding a solution to this ridiculous situation.
The French press is starting to talk about what is going on at the French
Wikimedia chapter, are we all waiting for CNN to come in as well? For sure
that will get the WMF moving...
Best regards
Gabe
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Ilario Valdelli <valde...@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly
who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
Kind regards
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
