Vishnu,

//Other than the 2 year Grant Agreement CIS has not signed any other
separate MoU with WMF.//

I checked with the WMF Grants team if the grant agreement I have signed
with them is confidential.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/Ravidreams_-_Tamil_Wikimedians/TamilWiki_10_years#Is_the_grant_agreement_confidential.3F

Their response doesn't hint at legal contracts, confidentiality, bad
precedents etc., and instead I get gladly pointed to a sample grant
agreement.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Example_project_grant_agreement_for_groups_and_organizations

The example grant agreement notes as follows:

//This type of grant agreement is used by WMF to make grants to both
incorporated nonprofit organizations and nonincorporated groups. Some
requirements in the agreement are specific to organizations and other
requirements are specific to groups//

I assume CIS comes under nonprofit organizations group as defined above.

You say that CIS has not signed any other contract besides the 2 year grant
agreement but Asaf repeatedly uses the word "contract" in his explanation
at

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2013-November/010603.html

//"We (i.e. WMF) will not be sharing that agreement, on principle: not
because there's anything secret or damning in it, but because we do not
want to create a misleading precedent that may set the expectation that all
WMF contracts are subject to community review. This isn't, and cannot be,
the case. We likewise do not expect Chapters or other partners to publicly
share contracts...".//

Given the context that you are a working partner of WMF, then we have to
assume that this grant agreement is your contract defining the terms and
conditions of your working relationship with WMF.

So, please let us not use the misleading term grant agreement for this
document you have signed with WMF.

Talking about bad precedents, the CIS partnership is itself one such bad
precedent which is evident from the fact that WMF won't be repeating this
model of partnerships in future.

The only way to gain the trust of the community is to make an exeption and
share this contract with the community. If not in public, at least in
private communication with other important stakeholders in the community.
(Say WMIN and FDC).

If WMF is unable to make this exception, then their exception making CIS
eligible for FDC through a board resolution can only be seen as a bias.

It is not the questions you choose to answer that boosts the trust but the
questions you choose to ignore and choose to remain silent that reduces the
trust.

* What are the terms and conditions of your working relationship with WMF?
* What is the exit clause?
* Were you asked to work on specific programs like Wikipedia education
programs which you sell to naive communities as their needs?

These are some important questions that are left unanswered.

I wouldn't blame CIS. In fact, as you have mentioned in many places, you
are way more transparent and responsive than WMF and I genuinely appreciate
your effort and patience.

It is sad and ironic that WMF chooses to work this way. WMF is noble in
their mission of increasing global south participation but they are failing
miserably in executing it.

Ravi
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l

Reply via email to