I concur with Teles that a conflict resolution body would be very helpful to assist in the situations the AffCom has to deal. Though in the case of Wikimedia Portugal the conflict was limited to a unique individual harassing, stalking and sending legal and personal threats to several members of the chapter, such a body would probably have made the difference in helping the AffCom understand and properly deal with that situation.
I would also like to suggest allocating enough resources to the AffCom, so that they would be able to understand the law of the country where the affiliate is located. Something, I understand, is essential to the AFfCom's objective. After WMPT sent the AffCom all the applicable legislation and jurisprudence, to explain and fundament why a number of AffCom demands where absurd, or outright illegal under the Portuguese law, the AffCom replied that "*the AffCom does not have the resources to search through all the Portuguese legislation to find a permissive court decision*." I can even be sympathetic with the AffCom as a resourseless body of volunteers struggling to do their mission, but it also seems evident that such a body is very much unprepared to deal properly with any serious situation that may arise with the affiliates, and therefore unable to fulfill the mission they were created for. Paulo Lucas Teles <[email protected]> escreveu no dia quinta, 20/09/2018 à(s) 19:12: > The way AffCom deals with certain situations is clearly not transparent > enough for the Wikimedia environment. > > We have a situation in Brazil that remains unsolved and Affcom wouldn’t > even follow their own ways of dealing with it. > > Here is a clearer example: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps > > AffCom has created a page on Meta to discuss the issues, but it has been > ignored by them. And it’s like they have no need to answer. Regardless of > the many moments my group tried to solve the issues, even when being > ignored about important complaints, we were punished with de-recognition > with no warning. *No warning.* > > Is it really the proper way a group should be de-recognized? Despite being > one of the most active groups in the World, we were trying to solve the > problems. However, AffCom dealt with it in the easiest way, as if both > involved groups had done the same and should be punished the same way, > which is not correct. > > It is a matter of volunteer time? Being a volunteer body is not a reason > for being absent. If the body is unable to solve an issue, it should > declare itself unable and community can think of better ways of doing it. I > see that the only actions on AffCom are cutting relations and transfering > responsibilities to others when it comes to conflict resolution. Some > should solve the problems, otherwise they will be punished. > > I have been asking a lot elsewhere. What is the best way to discuss this > with community. Me and others trie to discuss with AffCom itself, but were > ignored. So, I wonder if there are others interested in discussing it, > because AffCom is not or don’t have the time, which is not that bad, but > then we should be addressed to anyone that would act properly. Should we > create a conflict resolution body to help AffCom? That may be the a good > start in my opinion, but let’s not keep it the way it is, for the best of > our community. > > Teles > > > > > Em qui, 20 de set de 2018 às 08:55, Paulo Santos Perneta < > [email protected]> escreveu: > > > Anyway, getting back to the more abstract case. > > > > I do not agree with total transparency to the "outside world" on > > communications between AffCom and the affiliate. As Lodewijk mentioned, > and > > we felt on our skins over here, sometimes (most of the time?) it does > more > > harm than good, at least in an initial phase of the process. > > > > I also do not believe that raising the spectre of "de-recognition" > before a > > vast audience, especially one directly connected to the chapter - > > especially before any communication has been attempted to the people in > > charge of the chapter - is helpful at all. If anything, it is highly > > counterproductive, sowing confusion and scaring partners and stakeholders > > away, creating a whole new problem the affiliate has to deal with, and > > actively contributing to the situation deterioration. I believe it should > > only be done as a last resource, when the chapter has been irresponsive > and > > the situation has been deteriorating significantly. > > > > In a first moment, and if it is working, silent backchannels and > backstage > > acting should be the way to go. However, I don't believe the AffCom has > any > > legitimacy to impose a vote of silence on an affiliate about his own > > situation, especially when misinformation and rumours about it are > > circulating around wildly. > > > > I absolutely agree this is not a simple issue, and we cannot expect the > > AffCom, who are a group of volunteers as many of us are, to know the > > answers to all of them, and to act perfectly. That's why a more public > and > > broader discussion among the Movement is needed about this. > > > > Paulo > > > > > > Paulo Santos Perneta <[email protected]> escreveu no dia quinta, > > 20/09/2018 à(s) 00:56: > > > > > I completely agree with Lodewijk here: Publishing such warnings could > > very > > > well in effect kill off the affiliate, and make the warning moot. > > > > > > This was, however, very much what the AffCom has done to Wikimedia > > > Portugal. In 18 May the AffCom has sent a message to the WMPT general > > > mailing list, which is for general information and includes our > partners > > > and people which are just interested in WMPT, not only associates. > > > > > > In that message the AffCom requested* "all members of the chapter to > > > cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve > > differences.*" > > > The so called "conflict" was nothing but a single individual sending > > legal > > > and personal threats against members of the chapter. this is the > > > information we had back then, this is what we had reported to teh > AffCom > > - > > > it still is the same information we have today, it has not changed. So > > the > > > AffCom told those on the receiving end to "cease from taking part in > this > > > conflict and to work to resolve differences". > > > > > > Then continued: "Y*ou may also officially request a conversation with > > > this committee to discuss a potential mediation plan, which we are more > > > than happy to help with.*" - no conversation with any of the three > > > members of the elected board took place before this message. So much > for > > > "hearing all parts". > > > > > > And continued: "*In the case of no interest in resolving your > differences > > > and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of > > WMPT*" > > > - Apparently we in the chapter should refrain from receiving menaces > and > > > threats from the single individual that was harassing us, or else the > > > chapter would be derecognized. How this would make any sense, I don't > > know. > > > > > > "*having taken into account also the low activity of the group, based > on > > > the the reports submitted.*" - this bit is fair. Wikimedia Portugal was > > > kind of comatose for many years - basically since the individual who is > > now > > > harassing us - a non Wikimedian - became president. What is not fair is > > > that all this pressure comes precisely after we finished taking all the > > > necessary steps to fix that mess that had been forming since 2014 at > > least. > > > We had just fixed our stuff, and the missing report was about to be > sent > > - > > > and the AffCom knew it perfectly, I personally told them that in > Berlin - > > > when this message was sent. > > > > > > It then demanded what what seems to be a vote of silence about this > > > matter, reducing discussions about it to the AffCom list, which was now > > > apparently lifted by Kirill: "*In addition to this, we request that all > > > communications regarding he present situation be routed directly to the > > > AffCom discussion list ([email protected] > > > <[email protected]>) rather than various personal > > communications > > > channels.*" > > > > > > And they finally ended with a demand which was plainly illegal under > the > > > Portuguese law: "*Please also, refrain from presenting oneself as > > > representative of Wikimedia Portugal until this situation is > resolved.*" > > > Wikimedia Portugal by then was - as it is now - a registered > Association > > of > > > full right in Portugal, with an elected board validated according to > the > > > law, and that board cannot "refrain to present itself as such" on the > > > course of it's obligations to the state and the law (tax records, > > > registration updates, etc.) > > > > > > I recall, this was sent by the AffCom to the general list of Wikimedia > > > Portugal, without any previous warning or contact that would hint about > > > such a thing, generating surprise, questions and apprehension among the > > > people in that list. > > > > > > I don't believe this is OK. I don't believe the AffCom was correct in > > > doing this this way. > > > > > > Paulo > > > > > > (This is only my personal opinion, I'm not writing in the name of WMPT, > > > but merely as a member of the chapter who has passed through all that) > > > > > > > > > > > > effe iets anders <[email protected]> escreveu no dia quarta, > > > 19/09/2018 à(s) 22:28: > > > > > >> As always, it is complicated. While there are benefits to extreme > > >> transparency, there are also very real downsides. Depending on the > > culture > > >> in the country, being overly public in the 'warning phase' can have > the > > >> result that partners will pull out of agreements, donations will be > held > > >> back and volunteers good name get damaged (and withdraw from the > > >> organization). Publishing such warnings could very well in effect kill > > off > > >> the affiliate, and make the warning moot. Another side effect of going > > >> public with such warnings is that people get real defensive. This is > > >> already sensitive when you involve all members, but this gets even > worse > > >> when you involve the whole world. > > >> > > >> Efforts of AffCom should not focus (imho) on sanctions or punishing, > but > > >> rather on adjusting the processes and practices of the organization to > > >> align with movement values and directions. Diplomacy often requires > some > > >> silence - and as long as AffCom still sees hope that the organization > > can > > >> adjust and repair - I'm all for it that they use silent backchannels. > > >> Admitting to the problem is required to start fixing it - and such > > >> admission is usually easier achieved in private. > > >> > > >> A community that tried to get maximum effective affiliates needs to > > find > > >> a > > >> healthy balance between transparency and diplomacy. Where exactly that > > >> balance is to be found, it a complicated question though. > > >> > > >> Lodewijk > > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:15 AM Isarra Yos <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they > did > > or > > >> > didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been > heading > > >> > in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar - > > >> > often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and > > >> > handled consistently, there need not be shame in it. > > >> > > > >> > On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote: > > >> > > I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my > > main > > >> > > feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the > public > > >> > > interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or > > an > > >> > > investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply > because > > >> it is > > >> > > bad news or embarrassing news. > > >> > > > > >> > > There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such > as > > >> > > preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying > > >> information > > >> > > that has not been made public. The potential for negative > publicity > > if > > >> > > information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate, > > >> isn't > > >> > > sufficient justification for keeping information private. > > >> > > > > >> > > Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept > > >> > private. > > >> > > One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be > > >> public > > >> > is > > >> > > that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in > > this > > >> > > case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against > > favoritism, > > >> > > negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in > > >> > general. > > >> > > I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions > of > > >> > > affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom > > to > > >> set > > >> > > an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good > or > > >> bad. > > >> > > > > >> > > Pine > > >> > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > >> > > 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: [email protected] > > >> > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > >> , > > >> > <mailto:[email protected] > ?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: [email protected] > > >> > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > , > > >> > <mailto:[email protected] > ?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: [email protected] > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > , > > >> <mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > -- > Steward for Wikimedia projects. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and > Wikimedia Commons. > Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity. > > +55 (71) 99707 6409 > _______________________________________________ > 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: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?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: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
