It does not surprises me in the least the AffCom had forced other affiliates to "negotiate" with reported harassers.
On the message sent to the associates of WMPT in 18 May, the AffCom demanded "*all members of the chapter to cease from taking part in this conflict and to work to resolve differences*" with the reported individual that was threatening, stalking and harassing them. They also offered "*to discuss a potential mediation plan*" between the chapter and the harasser, as if such a situation needed any "mediation" at all. Furthermore, they threatened with de-recognition, in case the harasser was not appeased: "*In the case of no interest in resolving your differences and moving forward, this committee may consider the de-recognition of WMPT*". it's always worth recalling that this was a situation of an entire chapter vs. a rogue individual, a non-Wikimedian, who was harassing, stalking and threatening a number of its members. Paulo Chico Venancio <[email protected]> escreveu no dia quarta, 26/09/2018 à(s) 00:13: > While I cannot speak to the legality of these actions, Affcom's demand that > we (Brazilian affiliates) meet with reported harassers was very troubling > to me. The fact that despite our agreement with that baffling condition no > actual mediation took place, Affcom refused to engage with communications, > and then issued false statements about this[1] is even more concerning. > > [1] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Brazil_Next_Steps > > Chico Venancio > > 2018-09-25 19:42 GMT-03:00 Paulo Santos Perneta <[email protected]>: > > > Two illegal requests, to be more precise. > > > > Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15 > > April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese > > law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly, > > was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to > > fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they > > doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking > > decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood. > > > > Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General > > Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely > the > > former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That > too > > is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally > > elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head > of > > the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that > conveys a > > General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General > > Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some > > external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent > > General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would > have > > been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had > not > > any right to do that. > > > > Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April > > General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer > knowledgeable > > of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General > > Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere > imposition > > of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its > tax > > form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal > > representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade > > Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the > > association bank account. > > > > Paulo > > > > > > > > > > Pine W <[email protected]> escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) > 22:01: > > > > > I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or > neglect > > > their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing > > > trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that > > AffCom > > > is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am > > > concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that > should > > > be addressed. > > > > > > As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of > these > > > actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to > > evaluate > > > AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give > me > > > cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom > > made > > > an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal > > > research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making > > > requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that > AffCom > > > has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF > > Legal. > > > > > > Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the > > end > > > of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern > > > potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I > think > > > that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good > and > > > bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in > > > sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the > > > situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to > > discontinue > > > a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning > letter > > > was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a > > temporary > > > setback from which the affiliate can recover. > > > > > > I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an > > > affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and > > people > > > can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and > > > continuous self-improvement. > > > > > > One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they > are > > > primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My > > impression > > > is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and > > dedication > > > from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general > is > > an > > > interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts > > about > > > how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are > generously > > > volunteering their limited time. > > > > > > 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>
