Since the first reports about Vasconcelos from WMPT to AffCom, before the 15 April General Assembly, we were asking AffCom for legal support to deal with the situation caused by Vasconcelos, as we are all volunteers and, unlike AffCom, we have no easy access to lawyers - or at least are unable to pay them. It was never provided. Instead, AffCom chose to put WMPT on the freezer for six months already, while continuously listening to the legal gibberish coming from the "other side", meaning Vasconcelos, a person that was repeatedly reported to AffCom for severe harassment against WMPT members. And during the whole process, AffCom was taking their own conclusions from that legal gibberish, and trying to reach a "middle point" between WMPT and Vasconcelos in a situation which is ruled by the law, like if that would ever be possible, or even advisable at all.
We had to do everything by ourselves with our limited resources, without any legal support facilitated by AffCom. We have extensively read the country law and many court cases dealing with associations General Assemblies, we have informally consulted lawyers and jurisconsults, we have done the best we could to appease AffCom without breaking any country laws. But, to me, everything would have been incredibly much easier, clearer and smoother if AffCom had since the beginning requested the legal expertise we were asking for. But apparently, at last, after six months of this purgatory, we finally are on the right path. Regards, Paulo Em 12/10/2018 04:46, "Kirill Lokshin" <kirill.loks...@gmail.com> escreveu: > The Affiliations Committee has no intention whatsoever of changing the > process; rather, we are simply trying to determine whether the conditions > that we originally set out have in fact been met. > > It would, perhaps, have been easier for everyone if we could have done this > without having to solicit specialized legal expertise, but the > circumstances seem to have unfortunately precluded a procedure whose > validity is obvious from a simple reading of the applicable rules. > > Regards, > Kirill > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:17 PM Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thank you for acknowledging the existence of this thread and the fact > that > > AffCom is still making some effort to bring the problem to a resolution. > It > > doesn't seem like it should be all that challenging, if one disputant is > a > > single individual and the other is a community of people led by those for > > whom they have repeatedly expressed support. > > > > If, as described, AffCom laid out a procedure by which one side could > > legitimize itself and then decided to revoke that procedure after much > work > > by those trying to follow it... AffCom could acknowledge an error and > > apologize. That you have described your proposed next step is at least > > progress in the right direction. > > > > In any case, I'm sure we all look forward to AffCom sharing the results > of > > its solicitation of advice with the Wikimedia public. > > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Kirill Lokshin <kirill.loks...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > As I believe we mentioned the last time this particular topic came up, > we > > > are unlikely to resolve the intricacies of Portuguese nonprofit law by > > > debating them on a mailing list. > > > > > > Gonçalo and his colleagues have quite clearly expressed their position: > > > they believe that the process by which they came to control Wikimedia > > > Portugal complies with the applicable provisions of Portuguese law. At > > the > > > same time, the other side in this conflict has expressed a contrary > > > position: that the process in question does *not* comply with those > > > provisions. > > > > > > The Affiliations Committee has obviously been unable to make any real > > > headway here, particularly as the dispute hinges in no small part on > > > interpretations of case law rather than a plain reading of the > applicable > > > legal codes; consequently, we've solicited advice from actual > Portuguese > > > legal experts, which we hope to receive in the near future. Until that > > > happens, however, we are not going to be able to bring this to closure, > > one > > > way or the other. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Kirill > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>
