[Wikimedia-l] Publication of WMF Affiliate agreements

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Publication of WMF Affiliate agreements

Fæ
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
--
[hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Publication of WMF Affiliate agreements

Lane Rasberry
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 <[hidden email]> 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
> --
> [hidden email] 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Publication of WMF Affiliate agreements

Laurentius-2
Il giorno mer, 23/01/2019 alle 11.37 -0500, Lane Rasberry ha scritto:
> [...] Likely entities to answer this could be the WMF board, because
> they recently granted voting rights to user groups

Actually there is no change in the board selection process so far: the
change is on the agenda of a board meeting next week [1]. The agenda
does not specify whether a specific amendment will be voted or it will
be only a discussion, nor whether the December proposal [2] has been
updated based on the comments received.
(It is good to see, by the way, that four trustees - Natalia,
María, Christophe and Dariusz - took part in the discussion on Meta)

Laurentius

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_agenda_2019-01
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws/December_2018_-_Affiliate-selected_trustees,_term_limits,_and_diversity

_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>