I agree that this is a problematic issue which someone should answer.
Likely entities to answer this could be the WMF board, because they
recently granted voting rights to user groups, or the Affiliations
Committee, which instituted the practices of privacy in applying to be a
user group.

I expect that all of this is a bureaucratic misunderstanding that probably
arose from WMF staff rather than Wikimedia community management in the
Wikimedia affiliate application process.

In answer to Fae, no, the agreements are not available, because the
application process is intentionally private, off-wiki, and only to be
known to the WMF and the in confidence to the Affiliations Committee.

I made similar points here
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws/December_2018_-_Affiliate-selected_trustees,_term_limits,_and_diversity#User_groups_are_unknown_to_Wikimedia_community

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_Committee#No_more_private_user_group_applications
!





On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 7:41 AM Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It appears that Affiliate agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation are
> not published on-wiki in a consistent way.[1]
>
> Though the standard templates are available, these have varied over
> time, so at a minimum to understand which Chapter/Thorg/User Group has
> currently agreed which legally binding statement, there should be an
> indication or link to the specific version. The templates have to be
> customized, and this may include some legally meaningful changes, not
> just bureaucratic ones.
>
> As an example, the table of 108 User Groups, simply gives the names of
> the groups. It would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to
> work out exactly when each signed up to the UG agreement, or confirm
> which User Groups legally signed up to the post May 2015 version that
> makes compliance with the Code of Conduct mandatory. As a second
> example, tracking down the UK Chapter agreement,[2] a customized one
> was agreed by the WMF and WMUK, but when I followed the 'official'
> links, the version I was directed to was a 2009 draft version on the
> UK Chapter wiki (no copy on Meta), which appears unlikely to be the
> current chapters agreement due to a fairly obvious drafting error.
>
> Could the Affiliates Committee look into this as a matter of its
> necessary and tracked administration of a correct public record,
> rather than relying on it happening ad hoc?
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> Links
> 1.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Agreements
> 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter_agreements
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>



-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
_______________________________________________
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