Thank you Natacha for the update on the French situation.
What would really make me happy this week would be to witness a goodwill or
wikilove gesture by the French board: let the members who were recently
expelled join up again so that we can hold some meaningful discussions.
Gabe

Le 8 août 2017 2:56 AM, "Natacha Rault" <n.ra...@me.com> a écrit :

> Dear All,
>
> More than a quarter of Wikimedia France’s members have requested that
> several topics be added and voted upon at he next general assembly to be
> held in september in order to reflect on the current governance issues.
>
> The board has just confirmed that the minimum of members requested to do
> this has now been reached, see here (in French) for more details
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/
> Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale/septembre_2017/Points_%
> C3%A0_ajouter_%C3%A0_l%27ordre_du_jour <https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Assembl%C3%A9e_g%C3%A9n%C3%
> A9rale/septembre_2017/Points_%C3%A0_ajouter_%C3%A0_l'ordre_du_jour>
>
> We hope that we will be able to achieve a sound democratic debate and
> start working towards a resolution of the problems recently encountered. I
> am personally really happy to see that a significant number of members have
> expressed ideas and worked collaboratively to express their point of view.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nattes à chat
>
> #whatmakesmehappythisweek
>
> > Le 4 août 2017 à 21:46, Devouard (gmail) <fdevou...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to