Mailing List Archive

This is a tricky situation. I personally don't see a problem with non wikimedians helping out as long as they are working in accordance with the mission statement and are willing to work with Wikimedians.

Sincerely;
Geoffrey Plourde


Desculpem
a má tradução, eu não falam Português. Esta é uma situação delicada. Eu
pessoalmente não vejo um problema com wikimedians não ajudar, desde que
estejam trabalhando em conformidade com a declaração de missão e estão
dispostos a trabalhar com Wikimedians.

Atenciosamente;

Geoffrey Plourde





________________________________
From: Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:14:22 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians

I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in
mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the
original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion
mistakes.

Brazil have 8,514,877 km² of extesion and more of 190,000,000 inhabitants,
in 26 states[2]. Build a local chapter in Brazil is very complicated. Since
2006, that is the dream of some users, but they never have a significant
number of wikimedians living in a same geografic region.

In the beging of 2008, ist created a meta-wiki page to centralize the ideias
for a local chapter[3].
follow the example of the wikimedians in Portugal[4]. After that, people
that never edited in anyone project of wikimedia appears to participate.
That people are welcome and beging to work whit the brazilians wikimedians.
The time are past, the people interested but whitout free time are gone
(exactly like ist happened in every others times that the brazilian local
chapter have been discuss by the comunity). The people that never
participated before of the wikimedians projects ended up taking the front of
several efforts and achieved progress, include the aproval of Wikimedia[5].

The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the
participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event
is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it
clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia
project before. Mediators of the debate either.

A common concern in various wikipedians and wikimedians is on the future of
this local chapter. If they continue the current way, he will not be
composed of people from the Wikimedia projects, will only a support
organization with no one wikimedian. There is even the fear of Wikimedia's
name be used in an NGO ([[w:NGO]]) if it no more of an organizational issue
that receives money from the Brazilian government to carry out certain
activities, but in order not to hold agreed on how (such as those
investigated by Brazilian senators[7], do not know how it is in other
countries, but in Brazil the NGOs receive money from the government in
exchange for doing something that the government should do but can not).

My opinion on the subject: I am very against the local chapter of the
Brazilian continue current form. I would rather wait a few more years and
see it being done by wikimedians to see it being done for people who do not
participate in Wikimedia. If the desire of that people in help Wikimedia
Foundation is legitimate, I imagine that should open some other kind of
institution, but without using the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Should the Wikimedia Brazil continue the current form or should be aborted
for a little longer?

(other peoples have speak in similar terms of mine on the mailing list[1]. I
invited them to the foundation-l for addition views to this discussion, then
to this message, in wikimediabr-l disclose the existence of my questioning
here on foundation-l.)

[[:m:User:555]]


[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil
[3] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&action=history
[4] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&action=history
[5] -
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
[6] - http://wikibr.org/
[7] -
http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382

(thanks to [[:m:User:Beria]] for the translation!)

----

Message in Portuguese:

Vou tentar com meu limitado inglês relatar um problema que está sendo
discutido na lista de discussão sobre o local chapter brasileiro[1]. Anexo
ao final do texto em inglês o meu rascunho inicial em português, para tentar
reduzir ao máximo as possibilidades de falha de comunicação.

O Brasil possui 8,514,877 km² de extensão e mais de 190,000,000 de
habitantes, divididos em 26 estados[2]. Constituir um local chapter nele é
algo bastante trabalhoso: desde 2006 isso é almejado por alguns usuários,
mas jamais foi possível reunir uma quantia razoável de wikimedianos
experientes morando na mesma região geográfica.

No começo deste ano, foi criada uma página no Meta-Wiki para centralizar
esforços relativos à criação de um local chapter no Brasil[3], seguindo-se o
exemplo tomado pelos desejosos de um em Portugal[4]. Com a criação de tal
página sobre o brasileiro, apareceram pessoas que jamais editaram antes em
algum projeto Wikimedia interessadas em participar. Tais pessoas foram
inicialmente bem-acolhidas e começaram a trabalhar juntamente aos
wikimedianos brasileiros. O tempo foi passando, as pessoas entusiasmadas mas
sem disponibilidade de ajudar começaram a se afastar (tal como ocorrido em
todas as tentativas anteriores de discutir sobre o tema). As pessoas que
jamais participaram anteriormente de projetos Wikimedia acabaram tomando a
frente dos esforços e conseguido diversos progressos, inclusive o de ser
aprovarem os seus esforços perante a Wikimedia[5].

O mesmo grupo de não-Wikimedianos conseguiu organizar um evento que contou
com a participação do Jimmy Wales[6]. Imagino que o próprio Jimmy tenha
pensado que se tratavam de wikimedianos, por isso, antes de prosseguir,
quero deixar bem claro: as pessoas que organizaram tal evento jamais
participaram de algum projeto Wikimedia antes. Os mediadores do debate idem.

Uma preocupação comum em diversos wikipedistas e wikimedianos é sobre o
futuro de tal local chapter. Se ele continuar prosseguindo da forma atual,
ele não será composto por pessoas vindas dos projetos Wikimedia, será apenas
uma organização de apoio, sem ninguém das wikis. Há até mesmo o receio do
nome da Wikimedia ser utilizado em uma ONG ([[:w:NGO]]) que não passe de
mais uma organização problemática que recebe dinheiro do governo brasileiro
para executar determinadas atividades, mas que no fim não as realiza da
forma como acordada (tais como as investigadas pelos senadores brasileiros
[7]; não sei como é em outros países, mas no Brasil as NGOs recebem dinheiro
do governo em troca de fazer alguma coisa que o governo deveria fazer mas
não consegue).

Minha opinião sobre o tema: sou extremamente contra que o local chapter
brasileiro prossiga da forma atual. Preferia aguardar mais alguns anos e ver
ele sendo feito pelos wikimedianos do que por pessoas que não participam da
Wikimedia. Caso a vontade delas de ajudar a Wikimedia Foundation seja
legítima, imagino que deveriam abrir algum outro tipo de instituição, mas
sem usar a marca registrada da Wikimedia Foundation.

Deve a Wikimedia Brasil prosseguir da forma atual ou deve ser abortada por
mais algum tempo?

(Outras pessoas tem opinado de forma parecida à mim na lista de
discussão[1]. Convidei algumas delas para a foundation-l para opinarem nesta
discussão além de, em seguida à esta mensagem, divulgar na wikimediabr-l a
existência deste meu questionamento aqui na foundation-l.)

[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil
[3] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&action=history
[4] -
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&action=history
[5] -
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
[6] - http://wikibr.org/
[7] -
http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Regarding the subject of Brazil's local chapter, I would like to say a
few words.

I believe that the local chapter should be comprised of more than only
Wikimedians, after all, Wikimedia is much more than only Wikipedia. On
the other hand, since the local chapter's approval by the Chapter
Committee, a certain culture has been created, under pressure of the
non-Wikimedians, that editing in Wikipedia is harmful, that the
Wikimedians are a hindrance to Wikimedia, etc.

Besides, the statute that has been approved by the Chapter Committee
is not consensual among the Brazilian community [1] and, as of the
moment of its approval, it has been forbidden to discuss the subject
[2].

The approval of the local chapter has crystalized "in power" a certain
group of people. This group has been blocking both the discussions and
the consensus-reaching process, referring frequently to
non-Wikimedians as "we" and to Wikimedians as "them".

Allow me to fill you in on a Brazilian reality: around here NGOs are
quite often used for moneylaundering, political and even drug
trafficking-related purposes [3]. I am not implying that this is the
objective of such a group, but the appropriate cares must be taken so
that it won't happen to us.

Regarding the event with Jimbo, all Wikimedians with whom I talked
left with the impression that the local chapter is defending the end
of formal, academic education. Jimbo very appropriately stated that
Wikimedia does not defend such a thing, but no one has clearly come
forward with the local chapter's position.

Even worse: to discuss the positions of the local chapter is taboo [4]
(including threats of Wikimedians being blocked off the list [5]). The
members of this group which was crystalized as "head" of the local
chapter will not allow discussions about principles and have stated
that literally.

For the public and the press, a designated Wikimedia Brasil (Brazilian
Wikimedia), is the own Wikimedia Foundation [6]. Whitout the settings,
the principles, without decide what the Wikimedia Brasil defendes in
Brazil, the use of the name of the foundation can be extremely harmful
for this.

More over everything, to participate and organize events, to
disseminate the culture of voluntary work, to realize classes about
the wiki, it is not necessary have a "name". Is it not necessary be
called "Wikimedia". Be sufficient the willingness, be sufficient just
the compromise.

In conclusion, I believe that the approval of the local chapter has
been harmful to the construction of the local chapter itself. I
believe that the only thing to do is to suspend temporarily the
approval, so that discussions can evolve again and we are able to
create, truly, a section able to build Wikimedia in Brazil.

Therefore, we can thinking and doing without haste, without pressure,
look for consensus and the collectivity.

-- Porantim

== Notes ==

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto_2

[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000296.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000357.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-October/000080.html

[3] http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/interna/0,,OI1689725-EI5030,00.html
http://www.baixinho.net/lavagem-de-dinheiro-ongs-no-brasil/
http://www.mp.al.gov.br/noticias/saiu_na_imprensa/Index.asp?vCod=4422
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u391773.shtml
http://www.cvm.gov.br/port/public/publ/ie_ufrj_cvm/Gisele_Fernandes_Cardoso_Mink.pdf
http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/noticias/2008/08/29/materia.2008-08-29.7700855230/view
http://noticias.pgr.mpf.gov.br/noticias-do-site/criminal/chega-a-justica-denuncia-do-mpf-al-contra-gestores-da-ong-oceanus/
http://frankherles.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/ongs-se-dedicam-ao-trafico-de-drogas/

[4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000301.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000310.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000316.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000351.html

[5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000328.html

[6] http://info.abril.com.br/aberto/infonews/102008/20102008-12.shl


----

= Message in Portuguese: =

----

Sobre o assunto do local chapter brasileiro, gostaria de dizer algumas palavras.

Creio que o local chapter deve ter mais do que Wikimedianos, afinal, a
Wikimédia é muito mais do que simplesmente a Wikipédia. Por outro
lado, desde a aprovação do local chapter pelo Chapter Comitee,
criou-se, pressionada pelos não-Wikimedianos, uma cultura de que
editar na Wikipédia é nocivo, que os Wikimedianos atrapalham a
Wikimedia, etc.

Além disso, o Estatuto aprovado pelo Chapter Comitee não é consenso
entre a comunidade brasileira [1] e, a partir do momento da aprovação
pela Wikimedia Foundation, discuti-lo tornou-se proibido [2].

A aprovação do local chapter acabou por cristalizar um grupo no
"poder". Tal grupo impede a discussão, impede a busca pelo consenso.
Frequentemente utilizam os termos "nós" para se referir aos
não-Wikimedianos e "eles" para se referir aos wikimedianos.

Deixem-me deixá-los a par de uma realidade brasileira: por aqui,
frequentemente as ONGs são usadas para lavagem de dinheiro, para fins
partidários e até para tráfico de drogas [3] . Não quero dizer que
esse é o objetivo de tal grupo, mas cuidados devem ser tomados para
que isso não aconteça conosco.

Sobre o evento com o Jimbo, todos os Wikimedistas com quem conversei
saíram com a impressão de que o local chapter defende o fim da
educação formal, acadêmica. O Jimbo colocou muito bem que a Wikimedia
não defende tal coisa, mas ninguém colocou claramente qual a posição
do local chapter.

Pior do que isso: discutir as posições do local chapter é um tabu[4]
(inclusive com ameças de bloqueio de wikimedianos da lista [5]). Os
membros do grupo que se cristalizou como "comando" do local chapter
não permitem discussões de princípio e já disseram isso literalmente.

Para o público e para a imprensa, a denominada Wikimedia Brasil
(Brazillian Wikimedia), é a própria Wikimedia Foundation [6]. Sem a
definição de posições, de princípios, sem decidir o que defendemos no
Brasil, a utilização do nome da fundação pode ser extremamente danoso
a esta.

Além de tudo isso, para participar e organizar eventos, para
disseminar a cultura do trabalho voluntário, para realizar cursos de
da plataforma Wiki, não é necessário ter um "nome", não é necessário
se chamar Wikimedia. Basta a vontade, basta o compromisso.

Concluindo, creio que a aprovação do local chapter foi nociva à
construção do próprio local chapter. Creio que a única coisa a se
fazer seja suspender temporariamente a aprovação. Assim, espero que as
discussões evoluam novamente e que possamos criar, realmente, uma
seção que construa, de fato, a Wikimedia no Brasil.

Assim, poderemos pensar e fazer sem pressa, sem pressão, buscando o
consenso e a coletividade.

-- Porantim



== Notas ==

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto_2

[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000296.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000357.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-October/000080.html

[3] http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/interna/0,,OI1689725-EI5030,00.html
http://www.baixinho.net/lavagem-de-dinheiro-ongs-no-brasil/
http://www.mp.al.gov.br/noticias/saiu_na_imprensa/Index.asp?vCod=4422
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u391773.shtml
http://www.cvm.gov.br/port/public/publ/ie_ufrj_cvm/Gisele_Fernandes_Cardoso_Mink.pdf
http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/noticias/2008/08/29/materia.2008-08-29.7700855230/view
http://noticias.pgr.mpf.gov.br/noticias-do-site/criminal/chega-a-justica-denuncia-do-mpf-al-contra-gestores-da-ong-oceanus/
http://frankherles.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/ongs-se-dedicam-ao-trafico-de-drogas/

[4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000301.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000310.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000316.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000351.html

[5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000328.html

[6] http://info.abril.com.br/aberto/infonews/102008/20102008-12.shl


2008/11/23 Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com>
>
> I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in
> mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the
> original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion
> mistakes.
>
> Brazil have 8,514,877 km² of extesion and more of 190,000,000 inhabitants,
> in 26 states[2]. Build a local chapter in Brazil is very complicated. Since
> 2006, that is the dream of some users, but they never have a significant
> number of wikimedians living in a same geografic region.
>
> In the beging of 2008, ist created a meta-wiki page to centralize the ideias
> for a local chapter[3].
> follow the example of the wikimedians in Portugal[4]. After that, people
> that never edited in anyone project of wikimedia appears to participate.
> That people are welcome and beging to work whit the brazilians wikimedians.
> The time are past, the people interested but whitout free time are gone
> (exactly like ist happened in every others times that the brazilian local
> chapter have been discuss by the comunity). The people that never
> participated before of the wikimedians projects ended up taking the front of
> several efforts and achieved progress, include the aproval of Wikimedia[5].
>
> The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the
> participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event
> is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it
> clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia
> project before. Mediators of the debate either.
>
> A common concern in various wikipedians and wikimedians is on the future of
> this local chapter. If they continue the current way, he will not be
> composed of people from the Wikimedia projects, will only a support
> organization with no one wikimedian. There is even the fear of Wikimedia's
> name be used in an NGO ([[w:NGO]]) if it no more of an organizational issue
> that receives money from the Brazilian government to carry out certain
> activities, but in order not to hold agreed on how (such as those
> investigated by Brazilian senators[7], do not know how it is in other
> countries, but in Brazil the NGOs receive money from the government in
> exchange for doing something that the government should do but can not).
>
> My opinion on the subject: I am very against the local chapter of the
> Brazilian continue current form. I would rather wait a few more years and
> see it being done by wikimedians to see it being done for people who do not
> participate in Wikimedia. If the desire of that people in help Wikimedia
> Foundation is legitimate, I imagine that should open some other kind of
> institution, but without using the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Should the Wikimedia Brazil continue the current form or should be aborted
> for a little longer?
>
> (other peoples have speak in similar terms of mine on the mailing list[1]. I
> invited them to the foundation-l for addition views to this discussion, then
> to this message, in wikimediabr-l disclose the existence of my questioning
> here on foundation-l.)
>
> [[:m:User:555]]
>
>
> [1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/
> [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil
> [3] -
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&action=history
> [4] -
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&action=history
> [5] -
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
> [6] - http://wikibr.org/
> [7] -
> http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
>
> (thanks to [[:m:User:Beria]] for the translation!)
>
> ----
>
> Message in Portuguese:
>
> Vou tentar com meu limitado inglês relatar um problema que está sendo
> discutido na lista de discussão sobre o local chapter brasileiro[1]. Anexo
> ao final do texto em inglês o meu rascunho inicial em português, para tentar
> reduzir ao máximo as possibilidades de falha de comunicação.
>
> O Brasil possui 8,514,877 km² de extensão e mais de 190,000,000 de
> habitantes, divididos em 26 estados[2]. Constituir um local chapter nele é
> algo bastante trabalhoso: desde 2006 isso é almejado por alguns usuários,
> mas jamais foi possível reunir uma quantia razoável de wikimedianos
> experientes morando na mesma região geográfica.
>
> No começo deste ano, foi criada uma página no Meta-Wiki para centralizar
> esforços relativos à criação de um local chapter no Brasil[3], seguindo-se o
> exemplo tomado pelos desejosos de um em Portugal[4]. Com a criação de tal
> página sobre o brasileiro, apareceram pessoas que jamais editaram antes em
> algum projeto Wikimedia interessadas em participar. Tais pessoas foram
> inicialmente bem-acolhidas e começaram a trabalhar juntamente aos
> wikimedianos brasileiros. O tempo foi passando, as pessoas entusiasmadas mas
> sem disponibilidade de ajudar começaram a se afastar (tal como ocorrido em
> todas as tentativas anteriores de discutir sobre o tema). As pessoas que
> jamais participaram anteriormente de projetos Wikimedia acabaram tomando a
> frente dos esforços e conseguido diversos progressos, inclusive o de ser
> aprovarem os seus esforços perante a Wikimedia[5].
>
> O mesmo grupo de não-Wikimedianos conseguiu organizar um evento que contou
> com a participação do Jimmy Wales[6]. Imagino que o próprio Jimmy tenha
> pensado que se tratavam de wikimedianos, por isso, antes de prosseguir,
> quero deixar bem claro: as pessoas que organizaram tal evento jamais
> participaram de algum projeto Wikimedia antes. Os mediadores do debate idem.
>
> Uma preocupação comum em diversos wikipedistas e wikimedianos é sobre o
> futuro de tal local chapter. Se ele continuar prosseguindo da forma atual,
> ele não será composto por pessoas vindas dos projetos Wikimedia, será apenas
> uma organização de apoio, sem ninguém das wikis. Há até mesmo o receio do
> nome da Wikimedia ser utilizado em uma ONG ([[:w:NGO]]) que não passe de
> mais uma organização problemática que recebe dinheiro do governo brasileiro
> para executar determinadas atividades, mas que no fim não as realiza da
> forma como acordada (tais como as investigadas pelos senadores brasileiros
> [7]; não sei como é em outros países, mas no Brasil as NGOs recebem dinheiro
> do governo em troca de fazer alguma coisa que o governo deveria fazer mas
> não consegue).
>
> Minha opinião sobre o tema: sou extremamente contra que o local chapter
> brasileiro prossiga da forma atual. Preferia aguardar mais alguns anos e ver
> ele sendo feito pelos wikimedianos do que por pessoas que não participam da
> Wikimedia. Caso a vontade delas de ajudar a Wikimedia Foundation seja
> legítima, imagino que deveriam abrir algum outro tipo de instituição, mas
> sem usar a marca registrada da Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Deve a Wikimedia Brasil prosseguir da forma atual ou deve ser abortada por
> mais algum tempo?
>
> (Outras pessoas tem opinado de forma parecida à mim na lista de
> discussão[1]. Convidei algumas delas para a foundation-l para opinarem nesta
> discussão além de, em seguida à esta mensagem, divulgar na wikimediabr-l a
> existência deste meu questionamento aqui na foundation-l.)
>
> [1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/
> [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil
> [3] -
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&action=history
> [4] -
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&action=history
> [5] -
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
> [6] - http://wikibr.org/
> [7] -
> http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The problem Geoffrey, is that the non wikimedians are the "owers" of the
brazilian chapter. The opinion and ideias od the wikimedians are ignorate
and the wikimedians are hostilized[1].

I one of the people that the Luiz said when tell that the wikimedians help
the non wikimedians to be welcome. But i don't realize that my action will
became in that situacion.

I agree whit Luiz. Or the both (wikimedians and non wikimedians) works
together, or is better to wait for do that right.

-- Béria Lima
[[meta:User:Beria]]
[[pt:Usuário:Beria]]

[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000377.html

===================================
In portuguese:

O problema Geoffrey, é que os não wikimedianos se tornaram "donos" do
chapter brasileiro. As ideias e opiniões dos wikimedistas são ignoradas e
estes são hostilizados[1].

Eu fui uma das pessoas que o Luiz citou quando disse que os wikimedistas
ajudaram os não wikimedistas a serem bem-vindos. Mas eu não imaginei que a
minha ação ia acabar nesta situação.

Eu concordo com o Luiz. Ou os dois (wikimedistas e não wikimedistas)
trabalham juntos, ou é melhor esperar para fazer isto direito.

-- Béria Lima
[[meta:User:Beria]]
[[pt:Usuário:Beria]]

[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000377.html

2008/11/23 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>

> This is a tricky situation. I personally don't see a problem with non
> wikimedians helping out as long as they are working in accordance with the
> mission statement and are willing to work with Wikimedians.
>
> Sincerely;
> Geoffrey Plourde
>
>
> Desculpem
> a má tradução, eu não falam Português. Esta é uma situação delicada. Eu
> pessoalmente não vejo um problema com wikimedians não ajudar, desde que
> estejam trabalhando em conformidade com a declaração de missão e estão
> dispostos a trabalhar com Wikimedians.
>
> Atenciosamente;
>
> Geoffrey Plourde
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:14:22 PM
> Subject: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
>
> I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in
> mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the
> original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion
> mistakes.
>
> Brazil have 8,514,877 km² of extesion and more of 190,000,000 inhabitants,
> in 26 states[2]. Build a local chapter in Brazil is very complicated. Since
> 2006, that is the dream of some users, but they never have a significant
> number of wikimedians living in a same geografic region.
>
> In the beging of 2008, ist created a meta-wiki page to centralize the
> ideias
> for a local chapter[3].
> follow the example of the wikimedians in Portugal[4]. After that, people
> that never edited in anyone project of wikimedia appears to participate.
> That people are welcome and beging to work whit the brazilians wikimedians.
> The time are past, the people interested but whitout free time are gone
> (exactly like ist happened in every others times that the brazilian local
> chapter have been discuss by the comunity). The people that never
> participated before of the wikimedians projects ended up taking the front
> of
> several efforts and achieved progress, include the aproval of Wikimedia[5].
>
> The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the
> participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event
> is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it
> clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia
> project before. Mediators of the debate either.
>
> A common concern in various wikipedians and wikimedians is on the future of
> this local chapter. If they continue the current way, he will not be
> composed of people from the Wikimedia projects, will only a support
> organization with no one wikimedian. There is even the fear of Wikimedia's
> name be used in an NGO ([[w:NGO]]) if it no more of an organizational issue
> that receives money from the Brazilian government to carry out certain
> activities, but in order not to hold agreed on how (such as those
> investigated by Brazilian senators[7], do not know how it is in other
> countries, but in Brazil the NGOs receive money from the government in
> exchange for doing something that the government should do but can not).
>
> My opinion on the subject: I am very against the local chapter of the
> Brazilian continue current form. I would rather wait a few more years and
> see it being done by wikimedians to see it being done for people who do not
> participate in Wikimedia. If the desire of that people in help Wikimedia
> Foundation is legitimate, I imagine that should open some other kind of
> institution, but without using the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Should the Wikimedia Brazil continue the current form or should be aborted
> for a little longer?
>
> (other peoples have speak in similar terms of mine on the mailing list[1].
> I
> invited them to the foundation-l for addition views to this discussion,
> then
> to this message, in wikimediabr-l disclose the existence of my questioning
> here on foundation-l.)
>
> [[:m:User:555]]
>
>
> [1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/
> [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil
> [3] -
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&action=history
> [4] -
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&action=history
> [5] -
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
> [6] - http://wikibr.org/
> [7] -
> http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
>
> (thanks to [[:m:User:Beria]] for the translation!)
>
> ----
>
> Message in Portuguese:
>
> Vou tentar com meu limitado inglês relatar um problema que está sendo
> discutido na lista de discussão sobre o local chapter brasileiro[1]. Anexo
> ao final do texto em inglês o meu rascunho inicial em português, para
> tentar
> reduzir ao máximo as possibilidades de falha de comunicação.
>
> O Brasil possui 8,514,877 km² de extensão e mais de 190,000,000 de
> habitantes, divididos em 26 estados[2]. Constituir um local chapter nele é
> algo bastante trabalhoso: desde 2006 isso é almejado por alguns usuários,
> mas jamais foi possível reunir uma quantia razoável de wikimedianos
> experientes morando na mesma região geográfica.
>
> No começo deste ano, foi criada uma página no Meta-Wiki para centralizar
> esforços relativos à criação de um local chapter no Brasil[3], seguindo-se
> o
> exemplo tomado pelos desejosos de um em Portugal[4]. Com a criação de tal
> página sobre o brasileiro, apareceram pessoas que jamais editaram antes em
> algum projeto Wikimedia interessadas em participar. Tais pessoas foram
> inicialmente bem-acolhidas e começaram a trabalhar juntamente aos
> wikimedianos brasileiros. O tempo foi passando, as pessoas entusiasmadas
> mas
> sem disponibilidade de ajudar começaram a se afastar (tal como ocorrido em
> todas as tentativas anteriores de discutir sobre o tema). As pessoas que
> jamais participaram anteriormente de projetos Wikimedia acabaram tomando a
> frente dos esforços e conseguido diversos progressos, inclusive o de ser
> aprovarem os seus esforços perante a Wikimedia[5].
>
> O mesmo grupo de não-Wikimedianos conseguiu organizar um evento que contou
> com a participação do Jimmy Wales[6]. Imagino que o próprio Jimmy tenha
> pensado que se tratavam de wikimedianos, por isso, antes de prosseguir,
> quero deixar bem claro: as pessoas que organizaram tal evento jamais
> participaram de algum projeto Wikimedia antes. Os mediadores do debate
> idem.
>
> Uma preocupação comum em diversos wikipedistas e wikimedianos é sobre o
> futuro de tal local chapter. Se ele continuar prosseguindo da forma atual,
> ele não será composto por pessoas vindas dos projetos Wikimedia, será
> apenas
> uma organização de apoio, sem ninguém das wikis. Há até mesmo o receio do
> nome da Wikimedia ser utilizado em uma ONG ([[:w:NGO]]) que não passe de
> mais uma organização problemática que recebe dinheiro do governo brasileiro
> para executar determinadas atividades, mas que no fim não as realiza da
> forma como acordada (tais como as investigadas pelos senadores brasileiros
> [7]; não sei como é em outros países, mas no Brasil as NGOs recebem
> dinheiro
> do governo em troca de fazer alguma coisa que o governo deveria fazer mas
> não consegue).
>
> Minha opinião sobre o tema: sou extremamente contra que o local chapter
> brasileiro prossiga da forma atual. Preferia aguardar mais alguns anos e
> ver
> ele sendo feito pelos wikimedianos do que por pessoas que não participam da
> Wikimedia. Caso a vontade delas de ajudar a Wikimedia Foundation seja
> legítima, imagino que deveriam abrir algum outro tipo de instituição, mas
> sem usar a marca registrada da Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Deve a Wikimedia Brasil prosseguir da forma atual ou deve ser abortada por
> mais algum tempo?
>
> (Outras pessoas tem opinado de forma parecida à mim na lista de
> discussão[1]. Convidei algumas delas para a foundation-l para opinarem
> nesta
> discussão além de, em seguida à esta mensagem, divulgar na wikimediabr-l a
> existência deste meu questionamento aqui na foundation-l.)
>
> [1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/
> [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil
> [3] -
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&action=history
> [4] -
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&action=history
> [5] -
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
> [6] - http://wikibr.org/
> [7] -
> http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Luiz Augusto wrote:
> The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the
> participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event
> is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it
> clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia
> project before. Mediators of the debate either.

I would like to say quite quickly that I was not misled in any way. And
based on my personal experiences in Brazil talking to people, I think
that this problem can be resolved without any difficulty.

I think it is a mistake to have a chapter without a strong participation
and support of the editing community, but I also think it is a mistake
to assume that the main people organizing it have to be from the editing
community, nor to assume that one needs a certain "edit count" in order
to be able to do a great job.

What I strongly encourage is a series of local meetups - soon! Like,
this Friday, why don't people get together in person in Sao Paulo and
perhaps Rio or wherever the most people can be gotten together, to meet
each other and talk about this.

Thomas, who made most of the arrangements for my visit, spoke a great
deal about community involvement, he was quite clear with me that he is
not a very active Wikipedian, but at the same time, he was friendly,
open, professional, and eager to expand our activities in Brazil. It
seems really unnecessary to me that there should be any conflict.

In case anyone is wondering, when I asked Thomas about who should be
head of the Wikimedia chapter in Brazil, he was quite clear that he
doesn't think it should be him. Anyone who imagines this to be some
kind of power play does not know Thomas - I encourage you to meet him.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Luiz Augusto wrote:
> I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in
> mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the
> original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion
> mistakes.

Hello,

Thank you for the feedback. I can not really give an opinion on the case
raised, for I do not read portuguese, but your report brought a couple
of comments to my mind.

First, is that wrong that a chapter is made in majority or entirety by
non-editors ? I would tend to think it is unfortunate, but not wrong. A
person may be part of the wikimedia mouvement without editing a lot. The
person may be a developer, or help the chapter develop its fundraising
abilities, or be a political beast and so on.

The main risk is indeed that the chapter board (or its membership) act
in ways that are inappropriate for the global good, in not believing or
even worshipping our values. I would also tend to consider as an
obligation to participate to the global wikimedia mouvement.

Wikimedia Brasil is still very new, so they should be given time.

But over time, I would expect that every chapter should respect certain
obligations, such as
- being on the internal mailing list
- providing a monthly activity report to WMF and other chapters
- having introduced itself to the other chapters
- etc...

I am not quite sure if there are any obligations right now beyond the
approval of bylaws. I believe there should be. Failing to provide montly
reports but only a report once every two months, should not be a valid
argument to cancel the agreement to be called a wikimedia chapters.
However, failing to interact with the rest of the organization during
several months should be.

At some point in the future, I believe chapters and WMF should discuss
together more seriously of what define "being a wikimedia chapter", and
include once every year or couple of years, a review to define if the
chapter should still be called a chapter. I also think this review
should not be provided uniquely by the WMF (through a staff member or a
commission such as the chapter committee), but should be provided by a
commission including both WMF people and a selection of chapter people.
If a chapter fails in its behavior (either because of lack of activity,
or because it preaches the wrong thing, or because of misuse of funds or
other reasons), the impact will be on all organizations, not WMF only.

We are probably still a little bit too young to establish strict rules,
but I think 2009 might not be such a bad idea to start establishing
obligations for all parties to respect, as well as procedure to check if
obligations are followed and procedures to remove a problematic chapter.

That sounds perhaps harsh to say that, but being a "wikimedia chapter"
is not being an island in the middle of the ocean. It is being part of
an archipelago. Each island activity depends on and impact other islands.

Ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

So as I understand it, the concern is due to Wikimedia becoming an NGO and possibly being used for illicit activities? If that is the case, then there is a cause for concern which I think could be handled by auditing requirements. However I would think that Chapcom would be the ones with the experience to address this.

Sincerely;

Geoffrey Plourde


Então, se bem entendi, a preocupação se deve a Wikimedia tornar-se uma
ONG e, possivelmente, a ser utilizado para atividades ilícitas? Se for
esse o caso, então é um motivo de preocupação que eu penso que poderia
ser processada por exigências de auditoria. No entanto eu acho que
seria Chapcom seriam as únicas que possuem a experiência para resolver
esta questão.

Atenciosamente;

Geoffrey Plourde


________________________________
From: Porantim <porantim@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>; Mailing list do Capítulo brasileiro da Wikimedia. <wikimediabr-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:30:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians

Regarding the subject of Brazil's local chapter, I would like to say a
few words.

I believe that the local chapter should be comprised of more than only
Wikimedians, after all, Wikimedia is much more than only Wikipedia. On
the other hand, since the local chapter's approval by the Chapter
Committee, a certain culture has been created, under pressure of the
non-Wikimedians, that editing in Wikipedia is harmful, that the
Wikimedians are a hindrance to Wikimedia, etc.

Besides, the statute that has been approved by the Chapter Committee
is not consensual among the Brazilian community [1] and, as of the
moment of its approval, it has been forbidden to discuss the subject
[2].

The approval of the local chapter has crystalized "in power" a certain
group of people. This group has been blocking both the discussions and
the consensus-reaching process, referring frequently to
non-Wikimedians as "we" and to Wikimedians as "them".

Allow me to fill you in on a Brazilian reality: around here NGOs are
quite often used for moneylaundering, political and even drug
trafficking-related purposes [3]. I am not implying that this is the
objective of such a group, but the appropriate cares must be taken so
that it won't happen to us.

Regarding the event with Jimbo, all Wikimedians with whom I talked
left with the impression that the local chapter is defending the end
of formal, academic education. Jimbo very appropriately stated that
Wikimedia does not defend such a thing, but no one has clearly come
forward with the local chapter's position.

Even worse: to discuss the positions of the local chapter is taboo [4]
(including threats of Wikimedians being blocked off the list [5]). The
members of this group which was crystalized as "head" of the local
chapter will not allow discussions about principles and have stated
that literally.

For the public and the press, a designated Wikimedia Brasil (Brazilian
Wikimedia), is the own Wikimedia Foundation [6]. Whitout the settings,
the principles, without decide what the Wikimedia Brasil defendes in
Brazil, the use of the name of the foundation can be extremely harmful
for this.

More over everything, to participate and organize events, to
disseminate the culture of voluntary work, to realize classes about
the wiki, it is not necessary have a "name". Is it not necessary be
called "Wikimedia". Be sufficient the willingness, be sufficient just
the compromise.

In conclusion, I believe that the approval of the local chapter has
been harmful to the construction of the local chapter itself. I
believe that the only thing to do is to suspend temporarily the
approval, so that discussions can evolve again and we are able to
create, truly, a section able to build Wikimedia in Brazil.

Therefore, we can thinking and doing without haste, without pressure,
look for consensus and the collectivity.

-- Porantim

== Notes ==

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto_2

[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000296.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000357.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-October/000080.html

[3] http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/interna/0,,OI1689725-EI5030,00.html
http://www.baixinho.net/lavagem-de-dinheiro-ongs-no-brasil/
http://www.mp.al.gov.br/noticias/saiu_na_imprensa/Index.asp?vCod=4422
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u391773.shtml
http://www.cvm.gov.br/port/public/publ/ie_ufrj_cvm/Gisele_Fernandes_Cardoso_Mink.pdf
http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/noticias/2008/08/29/materia.2008-08-29.7700855230/view
http://noticias.pgr.mpf.gov.br/noticias-do-site/criminal/chega-a-justica-denuncia-do-mpf-al-contra-gestores-da-ong-oceanus/
http://frankherles.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/ongs-se-dedicam-ao-trafico-de-drogas/

[4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000301.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000310.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000316.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000351.html

[5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000328.html

[6] http://info.abril.com.br/aberto/infonews/102008/20102008-12.shl


----

= Message in Portuguese: =

----

Sobre o assunto do local chapter brasileiro, gostaria de dizer algumas palavras.

Creio que o local chapter deve ter mais do que Wikimedianos, afinal, a
Wikimédia é muito mais do que simplesmente a Wikipédia. Por outro
lado, desde a aprovação do local chapter pelo Chapter Comitee,
criou-se, pressionada pelos não-Wikimedianos, uma cultura de que
editar na Wikipédia é nocivo, que os Wikimedianos atrapalham a
Wikimedia, etc.

Além disso, o Estatuto aprovado pelo Chapter Comitee não é consenso
entre a comunidade brasileira [1] e, a partir do momento da aprovação
pela Wikimedia Foundation, discuti-lo tornou-se proibido [2].

A aprovação do local chapter acabou por cristalizar um grupo no
"poder". Tal grupo impede a discussão, impede a busca pelo consenso.
Frequentemente utilizam os termos "nós" para se referir aos
não-Wikimedianos e "eles" para se referir aos wikimedianos.

Deixem-me deixá-los a par de uma realidade brasileira: por aqui,
frequentemente as ONGs são usadas para lavagem de dinheiro, para fins
partidários e até para tráfico de drogas [3] . Não quero dizer que
esse é o objetivo de tal grupo, mas cuidados devem ser tomados para
que isso não aconteça conosco.

Sobre o evento com o Jimbo, todos os Wikimedistas com quem conversei
saíram com a impressão de que o local chapter defende o fim da
educação formal, acadêmica. O Jimbo colocou muito bem que a Wikimedia
não defende tal coisa, mas ninguém colocou claramente qual a posição
do local chapter.

Pior do que isso: discutir as posições do local chapter é um tabu[4]
(inclusive com ameças de bloqueio de wikimedianos da lista [5]). Os
membros do grupo que se cristalizou como "comando" do local chapter
não permitem discussões de princípio e já disseram isso literalmente.

Para o público e para a imprensa, a denominada Wikimedia Brasil
(Brazillian Wikimedia), é a própria Wikimedia Foundation [6]. Sem a
definição de posições, de princípios, sem decidir o que defendemos no
Brasil, a utilização do nome da fundação pode ser extremamente danoso
a esta.

Além de tudo isso, para participar e organizar eventos, para
disseminar a cultura do trabalho voluntário, para realizar cursos de
da plataforma Wiki, não é necessário ter um "nome", não é necessário
se chamar Wikimedia. Basta a vontade, basta o compromisso.

Concluindo, creio que a aprovação do local chapter foi nociva à
construção do próprio local chapter. Creio que a única coisa a se
fazer seja suspender temporariamente a aprovação. Assim, espero que as
discussões evoluam novamente e que possamos criar, realmente, uma
seção que construa, de fato, a Wikimedia no Brasil.

Assim, poderemos pensar e fazer sem pressa, sem pressão, buscando o
consenso e a coletividade.

-- Porantim



== Notas ==

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto_2

[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000296.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000357.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-October/000080.html

[3] http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/interna/0,,OI1689725-EI5030,00.html
http://www.baixinho.net/lavagem-de-dinheiro-ongs-no-brasil/
http://www.mp.al.gov.br/noticias/saiu_na_imprensa/Index.asp?vCod=4422
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u391773.shtml
http://www.cvm.gov.br/port/public/publ/ie_ufrj_cvm/Gisele_Fernandes_Cardoso_Mink.pdf
http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/noticias/2008/08/29/materia.2008-08-29.7700855230/view
http://noticias.pgr.mpf.gov.br/noticias-do-site/criminal/chega-a-justica-denuncia-do-mpf-al-contra-gestores-da-ong-oceanus/
http://frankherles.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/ongs-se-dedicam-ao-trafico-de-drogas/

[4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000301.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000310.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000316.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000351.html

[5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000328.html

[6] http://info.abril.com.br/aberto/infonews/102008/20102008-12.shl


2008/11/23 Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com>
>
> I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in
> mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the
> original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion
> mistakes.
>
> Brazil have 8,514,877 km² of extesion and more of 190,000,000 inhabitants,
> in 26 states[2]. Build a local chapter in Brazil is very complicated. Since
> 2006, that is the dream of some users, but they never have a significant
> number of wikimedians living in a same geografic region.
>
> In the beging of 2008, ist created a meta-wiki page to centralize the ideias
> for a local chapter[3].
> follow the example of the wikimedians in Portugal[4]. After that, people
> that never edited in anyone project of wikimedia appears to participate.
> That people are welcome and beging to work whit the brazilians wikimedians.
> The time are past, the people interested but whitout free time are gone
> (exactly like ist happened in every others times that the brazilian local
> chapter have been discuss by the comunity). The people that never
> participated before of the wikimedians projects ended up taking the front of
> several efforts and achieved progress, include the aproval of Wikimedia[5].
>
> The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the
> participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event
> is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it
> clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia
> project before. Mediators of the debate either.
>
> A common concern in various wikipedians and wikimedians is on the future of
> this local chapter. If they continue the current way, he will not be
> composed of people from the Wikimedia projects, will only a support
> organization with no one wikimedian. There is even the fear of Wikimedia's
> name be used in an NGO ([[w:NGO]]) if it no more of an organizational issue
> that receives money from the Brazilian government to carry out certain
> activities, but in order not to hold agreed on how (such as those
> investigated by Brazilian senators[7], do not know how it is in other
> countries, but in Brazil the NGOs receive money from the government in
> exchange for doing something that the government should do but can not).
>
> My opinion on the subject: I am very against the local chapter of the
> Brazilian continue current form. I would rather wait a few more years and
> see it being done by wikimedians to see it being done for people who do not
> participate in Wikimedia. If the desire of that people in help Wikimedia
> Foundation is legitimate, I imagine that should open some other kind of
> institution, but without using the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Should the Wikimedia Brazil continue the current form or should be aborted
> for a little longer?
>
> (other peoples have speak in similar terms of mine on the mailing list[1]. I
> invited them to the foundation-l for addition views to this discussion, then
> to this message, in wikimediabr-l disclose the existence of my questioning
> here on foundation-l.)
>
> [[:m:User:555]]
>
>
> [1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/
> [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil
> [3] -
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&action=history
> [4] -
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&action=history
> [5] -
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
> [6] - http://wikibr.org/
> [7] -
> http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
>
> (thanks to [[:m:User:Beria]] for the translation!)
>
> ----
>
> Message in Portuguese:
>
> Vou tentar com meu limitado inglês relatar um problema que está sendo
> discutido na lista de discussão sobre o local chapter brasileiro[1]. Anexo
> ao final do texto em inglês o meu rascunho inicial em português, para tentar
> reduzir ao máximo as possibilidades de falha de comunicação.
>
> O Brasil possui 8,514,877 km² de extensão e mais de 190,000,000 de
> habitantes, divididos em 26 estados[2]. Constituir um local chapter nele é
> algo bastante trabalhoso: desde 2006 isso é almejado por alguns usuários,
> mas jamais foi possível reunir uma quantia razoável de wikimedianos
> experientes morando na mesma região geográfica.
>
> No começo deste ano, foi criada uma página no Meta-Wiki para centralizar
> esforços relativos à criação de um local chapter no Brasil[3], seguindo-se o
> exemplo tomado pelos desejosos de um em Portugal[4]. Com a criação de tal
> página sobre o brasileiro, apareceram pessoas que jamais editaram antes em
> algum projeto Wikimedia interessadas em participar. Tais pessoas foram
> inicialmente bem-acolhidas e começaram a trabalhar juntamente aos
> wikimedianos brasileiros. O tempo foi passando, as pessoas entusiasmadas mas
> sem disponibilidade de ajudar começaram a se afastar (tal como ocorrido em
> todas as tentativas anteriores de discutir sobre o tema). As pessoas que
> jamais participaram anteriormente de projetos Wikimedia acabaram tomando a
> frente dos esforços e conseguido diversos progressos, inclusive o de ser
> aprovarem os seus esforços perante a Wikimedia[5].
>
> O mesmo grupo de não-Wikimedianos conseguiu organizar um evento que contou
> com a participação do Jimmy Wales[6]. Imagino que o próprio Jimmy tenha
> pensado que se tratavam de wikimedianos, por isso, antes de prosseguir,
> quero deixar bem claro: as pessoas que organizaram tal evento jamais
> participaram de algum projeto Wikimedia antes. Os mediadores do debate idem.
>
> Uma preocupação comum em diversos wikipedistas e wikimedianos é sobre o
> futuro de tal local chapter. Se ele continuar prosseguindo da forma atual,
> ele não será composto por pessoas vindas dos projetos Wikimedia, será apenas
> uma organização de apoio, sem ninguém das wikis. Há até mesmo o receio do
> nome da Wikimedia ser utilizado em uma ONG ([[:w:NGO]]) que não passe de
> mais uma organização problemática que recebe dinheiro do governo brasileiro
> para executar determinadas atividades, mas que no fim não as realiza da
> forma como acordada (tais como as investigadas pelos senadores brasileiros
> [7]; não sei como é em outros países, mas no Brasil as NGOs recebem dinheiro
> do governo em troca de fazer alguma coisa que o governo deveria fazer mas
> não consegue).
>
> Minha opinião sobre o tema: sou extremamente contra que o local chapter
> brasileiro prossiga da forma atual. Preferia aguardar mais alguns anos e ver
> ele sendo feito pelos wikimedianos do que por pessoas que não participam da
> Wikimedia. Caso a vontade delas de ajudar a Wikimedia Foundation seja
> legítima, imagino que deveriam abrir algum outro tipo de instituição, mas
> sem usar a marca registrada da Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Deve a Wikimedia Brasil prosseguir da forma atual ou deve ser abortada por
> mais algum tempo?
>
> (Outras pessoas tem opinado de forma parecida à mim na lista de
> discussão[1]. Convidei algumas delas para a foundation-l para opinarem nesta
> discussão além de, em seguida à esta mensagem, divulgar na wikimediabr-l a
> existência deste meu questionamento aqui na foundation-l.)
>
> [1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/
> [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil
> [3] -
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&action=history
> [4] -
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&action=history
> [5] -
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
> [6] - http://wikibr.org/
> [7] -
> http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I personally believe that no one should be marginalized in making this chapter a reality. If non Wikimedians are dedicated enough to assist then they should be welcomed as brothers and sisters. The reports of marginalization do disturb me although I am not qualified to render an opinion in this area due to lack of experience. I would strongly recommend that these concerns be forwarded to the Chapters Committee for use in chapter approval and as something to keep an eye on. If worse comes to worse, I think a section of the bylaws prohibiting marginalization would do the trick. Also, due to the concerns about NGOs, a auditing provision might be necessary, although I trust that many of these non Wikimedians are sincere in their desire.

Sincerely;

Geoffrey Plourde

Pessoalmente, acredito que ninguém deve ser marginalizado em fazer
neste capítulo uma realidade. Se não Wikimedians são dedicadas a ajudar
o suficiente, então elas devem ser acolhidos como irmãos e irmãs. Os
relatórios de marginalização fazer-me embora perturbem não estou
qualificado para prestar um parecer nesta área devido à falta de
experiência. Gostaria de recomendar vivamente que essas preocupações
sejam transmitidos ao Comité para utilização nos capítulos capítulo
aprovação e como algo a manter um olho em. Se vem para pior pior, acho
que uma seção do Estatuto proíbe marginalização faria o truque. Também,
devido a preocupações com a ONG, uma provisão de auditoria possam ser
necessários, embora eu confio que muitas delas não estão Wikimedians
sincero no seu desejo.

Atenciosamente;

Geoffrey Plourde




________________________________
From: Béria Lima <berialima@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:45:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians

The problem Geoffrey, is that the non wikimedians are the "owers" of the
brazilian chapter. The opinion and ideias od the wikimedians are ignorate
and the wikimedians are hostilized[1].

I one of the people that the Luiz said when tell that the wikimedians help
the non wikimedians to be welcome. But i don't realize that my action will
became in that situacion.

I agree whit Luiz. Or the both (wikimedians and non wikimedians) works
together, or is better to wait for do that right.

-- Béria Lima
[[meta:User:Beria]]
[[pt:Usuário:Beria]]

[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000377.html

===================================
In portuguese:

O problema Geoffrey, é que os não wikimedianos se tornaram "donos" do
chapter brasileiro. As ideias e opiniões dos wikimedistas são ignoradas e
estes são hostilizados[1].

Eu fui uma das pessoas que o Luiz citou quando disse que os wikimedistas
ajudaram os não wikimedistas a serem bem-vindos. Mas eu não imaginei que a
minha ação ia acabar nesta situação.

Eu concordo com o Luiz. Ou os dois (wikimedistas e não wikimedistas)
trabalham juntos, ou é melhor esperar para fazer isto direito.

-- Béria Lima
[[meta:User:Beria]]
[[pt:Usuário:Beria]]

[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2008-November/000377.html

2008/11/23 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>

> This is a tricky situation. I personally don't see a problem with non
> wikimedians helping out as long as they are working in accordance with the
> mission statement and are willing to work with Wikimedians.
>
> Sincerely;
> Geoffrey Plourde
>
>
> Desculpem
> a má tradução, eu não falam Português. Esta é uma situação delicada. Eu
> pessoalmente não vejo um problema com wikimedians não ajudar, desde que
> estejam trabalhando em conformidade com a declaração de missão e estão
> dispostos a trabalhar com Wikimedians.
>
> Atenciosamente;
>
> Geoffrey Plourde
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Luiz Augusto <lugusto@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:14:22 PM
> Subject: [Foundation-l] A local chapter without Wikimedians
>
> I will try whit my poor enghish report a problem that are in discuss in
> mailling list of the brazilian chapter[1]. In the end of this text, are the
> original text in portuguese, for try to minimalize the comunicacion
> mistakes.
>
> Brazil have 8,514,877 km² of extesion and more of 190,000,000 inhabitants,
> in 26 states[2]. Build a local chapter in Brazil is very complicated. Since
> 2006, that is the dream of some users, but they never have a significant
> number of wikimedians living in a same geografic region.
>
> In the beging of 2008, ist created a meta-wiki page to centralize the
> ideias
> for a local chapter[3].
> follow the example of the wikimedians in Portugal[4]. After that, people
> that never edited in anyone project of wikimedia appears to participate.
> That people are welcome and beging to work whit the brazilians wikimedians.
> The time are past, the people interested but whitout free time are gone
> (exactly like ist happened in every others times that the brazilian local
> chapter have been discuss by the comunity). The people that never
> participated before of the wikimedians projects ended up taking the front
> of
> several efforts and achieved progress, include the aproval of Wikimedia[5].
>
> The same group of no-wikimedians managed to organize an event with the
> participation of Jimmy Wales[6]. I imagine that Jimmy think that the event
> is realize by wikimedians, therefore, before proceeding, let me make it
> clear: people who organized that event never participated in any Wikimedia
> project before. Mediators of the debate either.
>
> A common concern in various wikipedians and wikimedians is on the future of
> this local chapter. If they continue the current way, he will not be
> composed of people from the Wikimedia projects, will only a support
> organization with no one wikimedian. There is even the fear of Wikimedia's
> name be used in an NGO ([[w:NGO]]) if it no more of an organizational issue
> that receives money from the Brazilian government to carry out certain
> activities, but in order not to hold agreed on how (such as those
> investigated by Brazilian senators[7], do not know how it is in other
> countries, but in Brazil the NGOs receive money from the government in
> exchange for doing something that the government should do but can not).
>
> My opinion on the subject: I am very against the local chapter of the
> Brazilian continue current form. I would rather wait a few more years and
> see it being done by wikimedians to see it being done for people who do not
> participate in Wikimedia. If the desire of that people in help Wikimedia
> Foundation is legitimate, I imagine that should open some other kind of
> institution, but without using the trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Should the Wikimedia Brazil continue the current form or should be aborted
> for a little longer?
>
> (other peoples have speak in similar terms of mine on the mailing list[1].
> I
> invited them to the foundation-l for addition views to this discussion,
> then
> to this message, in wikimediabr-l disclose the existence of my questioning
> here on foundation-l.)
>
> [[:m:User:555]]
>
>
> [1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/
> [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil
> [3] -
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&action=history
> [4] -
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&action=history
> [5] -
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
> [6] - http://wikibr.org/
> [7] -
> http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
>
> (thanks to [[:m:User:Beria]] for the translation!)
>
> ----
>
> Message in Portuguese:
>
> Vou tentar com meu limitado inglês relatar um problema que está sendo
> discutido na lista de discussão sobre o local chapter brasileiro[1]. Anexo
> ao final do texto em inglês o meu rascunho inicial em português, para
> tentar
> reduzir ao máximo as possibilidades de falha de comunicação.
>
> O Brasil possui 8,514,877 km² de extensão e mais de 190,000,000 de
> habitantes, divididos em 26 estados[2]. Constituir um local chapter nele é
> algo bastante trabalhoso: desde 2006 isso é almejado por alguns usuários,
> mas jamais foi possível reunir uma quantia razoável de wikimedianos
> experientes morando na mesma região geográfica.
>
> No começo deste ano, foi criada uma página no Meta-Wiki para centralizar
> esforços relativos à criação de um local chapter no Brasil[3], seguindo-se
> o
> exemplo tomado pelos desejosos de um em Portugal[4]. Com a criação de tal
> página sobre o brasileiro, apareceram pessoas que jamais editaram antes em
> algum projeto Wikimedia interessadas em participar. Tais pessoas foram
> inicialmente bem-acolhidas e começaram a trabalhar juntamente aos
> wikimedianos brasileiros. O tempo foi passando, as pessoas entusiasmadas
> mas
> sem disponibilidade de ajudar começaram a se afastar (tal como ocorrido em
> todas as tentativas anteriores de discutir sobre o tema). As pessoas que
> jamais participaram anteriormente de projetos Wikimedia acabaram tomando a
> frente dos esforços e conseguido diversos progressos, inclusive o de ser
> aprovarem os seus esforços perante a Wikimedia[5].
>
> O mesmo grupo de não-Wikimedianos conseguiu organizar um evento que contou
> com a participação do Jimmy Wales[6]. Imagino que o próprio Jimmy tenha
> pensado que se tratavam de wikimedianos, por isso, antes de prosseguir,
> quero deixar bem claro: as pessoas que organizaram tal evento jamais
> participaram de algum projeto Wikimedia antes. Os mediadores do debate
> idem.
>
> Uma preocupação comum em diversos wikipedistas e wikimedianos é sobre o
> futuro de tal local chapter. Se ele continuar prosseguindo da forma atual,
> ele não será composto por pessoas vindas dos projetos Wikimedia, será
> apenas
> uma organização de apoio, sem ninguém das wikis. Há até mesmo o receio do
> nome da Wikimedia ser utilizado em uma ONG ([[:w:NGO]]) que não passe de
> mais uma organização problemática que recebe dinheiro do governo brasileiro
> para executar determinadas atividades, mas que no fim não as realiza da
> forma como acordada (tais como as investigadas pelos senadores brasileiros
> [7]; não sei como é em outros países, mas no Brasil as NGOs recebem
> dinheiro
> do governo em troca de fazer alguma coisa que o governo deveria fazer mas
> não consegue).
>
> Minha opinião sobre o tema: sou extremamente contra que o local chapter
> brasileiro prossiga da forma atual. Preferia aguardar mais alguns anos e
> ver
> ele sendo feito pelos wikimedianos do que por pessoas que não participam da
> Wikimedia. Caso a vontade delas de ajudar a Wikimedia Foundation seja
> legítima, imagino que deveriam abrir algum outro tipo de instituição, mas
> sem usar a marca registrada da Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Deve a Wikimedia Brasil prosseguir da forma atual ou deve ser abortada por
> mais algum tempo?
>
> (Outras pessoas tem opinado de forma parecida à mim na lista de
> discussão[1]. Convidei algumas delas para a foundation-l para opinarem
> nesta
> discussão além de, em seguida à esta mensagem, divulgar na wikimediabr-l a
> existência deste meu questionamento aqui na foundation-l.)
>
> [1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/
> [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil
> [3] -
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil&dir=prev&action=history
> [4] -
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Portugal&dir=prev&action=history
> [5] -
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil
> [6] - http://wikibr.org/
> [7] -
> http://www.senado.gov.br/sf/atividade/Comissoes/consComCPI.asp?com=1382
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/11/24 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>:
> I personally believe that no one should be marginalized in making this chapter a reality. If non Wikimedians are dedicated enough to >assist then they should be welcomed as brothers and sisters. The reports of marginalization do disturb me although I am not qualified >to render an opinion in this area due to lack of experience. I would strongly recommend that these concerns be forwarded to the >Chapters Committee for use in chapter approval and as something to keep an eye on.

ChapCom has now been made aware of this and we'll certainly discuss it.

Michael

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I believe that my English is worse than I imagined... because nobody
understands what I said. I'll try to explain...

Your problem (mine and of the boys) is NOT that have non wikimedians in
brazilian chapter. Is because that non wikimedians hostilize every
wikimedian and don't permite anyone discussion... every is taboo.

Someone said for we change the bylaws to protect Wikimedia Brasil. We try
that, but every time when we tried... We have been silenced with the
argument: "The Wikimedia approved the bylaws of the way that is"

Another problem is that the wikipedists do not recognize the wikimedia
Brazil as a representative theirs. Only in the city of São Paulo there are
more than 50 wikipedists... and none of them is working in Wikimedia Brasil
(except me and others 3 boys) and how we call other... if we are harassed,
who ensures to the other wikipedists won't be?

-- Béria Lima
[[meta:User:Beria]]
[[pt:Usuário:Beria]]

==== In Portuguese ====

Acredito que meu inglês é pior do que eu imaginava... ninguém entendeu o que
eu quis dizer.

Nosso problema (meu e dos meninos) NÃO é que hajam não wikimedistas na
Wikimedia Brasil. E sim por que os não wikimedistas hostilizam os
wikimedistas e não permitem nenhum debate... tudo é tabu.

Alguém disse para mudarmos o estatuto para proteger a Wikimedia Brasil.
Tentamos fazer isto, mas cada vez que tentámos... temos sido silenciado com
o argumento: "A Wikimedia aprovou o estatuto da forma que está".

Outro problema é que o wikipedistas não reconhecem a Wikimedia Brasil como a
representante deles. Só na cidade de São Paulo há mais de 50 wikipedistas...
e nenhum deles está trabalhando na Wikimedia Brasil (exceto eu e outros 3
meninos) e como chamaremos outros... se nós somos perseguidos, que garante
aos outros wikipedistas que eles não o serão?

-- Béria Lima
[[meta:User:Beria]]
[[pt:Usuário:Beria]]


2008/11/24 Michael Bimmler <mbimmler@gmail.com>

> 2008/11/24 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com>:
> > I personally believe that no one should be marginalized in making this
> chapter a reality. If non Wikimedians are dedicated enough to >assist then
> they should be welcomed as brothers and sisters. The reports of
> marginalization do disturb me although I am not qualified >to render an
> opinion in this area due to lack of experience. I would strongly recommend
> that these concerns be forwarded to the >Chapters Committee for use in
> chapter approval and as something to keep an eye on.
>
> ChapCom has now been made aware of this and we'll certainly discuss it.
>
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
_____
Béria Lima (Beh)
(11) 9286-2121
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Béria Lima <berialima@gmail.com> wrote:

> Someone said for we change the bylaws to protect Wikimedia Brasil. We try
> that, but every time when we tried... We have been silenced with the
> argument: "The Wikimedia approved the bylaws of the way that is"
>

Let me just make this clear: Wikimedia Brasil is absolutely free to
change its bylaws as much and as often as it wants. However, it would
be good practice to submit the proposed changes (before the vote!) to
ChapCom and we will give notice if we intend to "veto" them (I mean,
obviously we can't veto them in a legal sense but we can put the
chapter on notice that if the chapter *does* make the changes, we
might have to review their chapter status). Mind you, ChapCom is
unlikely to veto procedural rearrangements like "The budget needs to
be approved by 2/3 vote" instead of simple majority vote, but if a
chapter changes its main aim to "support the independence of province
X", we will presumably want to interfere. This does NOT mean that
chapters cannot change their bylaws.

But good point actually, I think we're not actively soliciting notices
of bylaws changes at the moment. I'll bring this up...

Michael

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> Your problem (mine and of the boys) is NOT that have non wikimedians in
> brazilian chapter. Is because that non wikimedians hostilize every
> wikimedian and don't permite anyone discussion... every is taboo.

What kind of organisation is Wikimedia Brazil? Do members not have
legal rights? The way the new Wikimedia UK is being set up, if the
members weren't happy with the way it was being run they could demand
a general meeting and elect a new board (and if the current board
refused to comply the members could take legal action). Is there no
equivalent for the way you are set up? Or is the problem that a
majority of members, not just the board, are non-Wikimedians? In which
case, the answer is to recruit more Wikimedians as members.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Béria Lima <berialima@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Someone said for we change the bylaws to protect Wikimedia Brasil. We try
> > that, but every time when we tried... We have been silenced with the
> > argument: "The Wikimedia approved the bylaws of the way that is"
> >
>
> Let me just make this clear: Wikimedia Brasil is absolutely free to
> change its bylaws as much and as often as it wants. However, it would
> be good practice to submit the proposed changes (before the vote!) to
> ChapCom and we will give notice if we intend to "veto" them (I mean,
> obviously we can't veto them in a legal sense but we can put the
> chapter on notice that if the chapter *does* make the changes, we
> might have to review their chapter status). Mind you, ChapCom is
> unlikely to veto procedural rearrangements like "The budget needs to
> be approved by 2/3 vote" instead of simple majority vote, but if a
> chapter changes its main aim to "support the independence of province
> X", we will presumably want to interfere. This does NOT mean that
> chapters cannot change their bylaws.
>
> But good point actually, I think we're not actively soliciting notices
> of bylaws changes at the moment. I'll bring this up...


I believe under the Chapters Agreement the WMF and the chapters have to
notify each other if there are substantial changes planned in their bylaws,
but not of all changes [in my interpretation].

"7.2. The Chapter shall be required to advise the Foundation of any planned
or actual change in the bylaws or status of the Chapter which might affect
the Foundation or the continued existence or effectiveness of this contract.

7.3. The Foundation shall be required to advise the Chapter of any planned
or actual change in the bylaws or status of the Foundation which might
affect the Chapter or the continued existence or effectiveness of this
agreement."

In the period between the Board approval (or even ChapCom approval) and the
signing of the Chapters Agreement there is currently no explicit mention of
such notifications to be necessary; although they should constitute good
practice.

(In my view the to-be chapters might be afraid to mention any changes to the
ChapCom after they have approved them and the Board have not yet, not to
extend the approval process with some more months until the next scheduled
Board meeting takes place. I know, speed should not be an issue, but seeing
as all members of the ChapCom need to vote on the bylaws any re-vote would
significantly extend the approval time, and [following the proposed
procedure] postpone the registration of the chapter with the authorities,
and this in time would have a detrimental effect on the community [.who have
to wait a loger time before they can actually start working on chapter
business])
I would not object if it was explicitly stated on the ChapCom's page on meta
that the ChapCom should be notified of changes to the bylaws even after they
have approved a version of it, on the other hand it should be clearly stated
as well what authorisation the ChapCom would have to revoke their
approval (before and after the Board's resolution of actual approval) after
such a notification, if they do not like it.

Best regards,
Bence Damokos
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Béria Lima <berialima@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your problem (mine and of the boys) is NOT that have non wikimedians in
> brazilian chapter. Is because that non wikimedians hostilize every
> wikimedian and don't permite anyone discussion... every is taboo.

The problem is that there isn't any real way to judge these situations
prior to chapcom approval. When we get bylaws from a chapter group, we
only know the things that we've been told about the organization, and
the things we've heard by chance. We don't do any kind of
investigation, or go out of our way to solicit feedback from the
community. We also don't have a strict requirement that new chapters
contain any number of active wikimedians. Red flags obviously go up if
we find a group that doesn't contain any, but I'm not sure such a
group couldn't get approved if they tried hard enough under the
current system.

Something like a public hearing over all new bylaws would help to
eliminate these problems, assuming active wikimedians attended such
meetings and raised objections. Of course, having to schedule and
organize such a meeting, even a virtual one over IRC, would
dramatically increase the amount of time that it takes for bylaws to
clear the committee. The Brazil group would have even made this more
difficult because they made it clear to us that they were under time
pressure due to Jimmy's visit. So many chapters have told us that
significant delays in approval by the chapcom and the board have a
chilling effect on a chapter, sometimes an insurmountable one because
of lost enthusiasm and momentum.

The closest solution that I can imagine, and I'm not speaking as a
chapcom member right now, would be to create chapters in some sort of
probationary status for a year or so, before they become "official".
This way we could identify those groups that don't meet our
expectations in practice (as opposed to the "on paper" review they get
now) and rescind their status because of that. It might be worthwhile
for the community to review exactly what requirements are needed to
become and to remain a chapter.

> Someone said for we change the bylaws to protect Wikimedia Brasil. We try
> that, but every time when we tried... We have been silenced with the
> argument: "The Wikimedia approved the bylaws of the way that is"

Chapters are independent organizations and do not need chapcom/WMF
approval to change their bylaws. As Michael says, we usually like to
hear about changes, just as we like to hear about any other news from
chapters. If we become aware of changes that are highly negative we
might review them to see that the chapter still meets our
expectations, but this has never happened so I am only speculating. We
simply don't have the infrastructure to keep track of every change
made by every chapter to their bylaws, their operating procedures, or
their membership composition.

The chapcom is definitely going to discuss this issue, but lots of
feedback and ideas will be appreciated.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Bence Damokos <bdamokos@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I believe under the Chapters Agreement the WMF and the chapters have to
> notify each other if there are substantial changes planned in their bylaws,
> but not of all changes [in my interpretation].
>
> "7.2. The Chapter shall be required to advise the Foundation of any planned
> or actual change in the bylaws or status of the Chapter which might affect
> the Foundation or the continued existence or effectiveness of this contract.
>
> 7.3. The Foundation shall be required to advise the Chapter of any planned
> or actual change in the bylaws or status of the Foundation which might
> affect the Chapter or the continued existence or effectiveness of this
> agreement."
>

Indeed, but this is really worded quite narrowly and, to my knowledge,
ChapCom never received such an advisory yet (neither did individual
chapters from the Foundation). What I suggest is that generally, all
chapters-to-be (between chapcom approval and board approval) as well
as chapters-existing submit their changes for notice. more on that
below.


> I know, speed should not be an issue, but seeing
> as all members of the ChapCom need to vote on the bylaws any re-vote would
> significantly extend the approval time, and [following the proposed
> procedure] postpone the registration of the chapter with the authorities,
> and this in time would have a detrimental effect on the community [.who have
> to wait a loger time before they can actually start working on chapter
> business])


That's not quite true: ChapCom doesn't need to take a new vote. What
we always vote on is a "recommendation to the board that they approve
as local chapter". We never "approve the bylaws" or "recommend
approval of the bylaws", but obviously, bylaws are one of the main
factors here.
So, when we receive notice of a bylaws change, we can ask on the
chapcom list whether anyone has objections to the changes.
If no one speaks up, nothing happens, no vote - no resolution, no time list.
If someone speaks up, we'll have to have a vote on whether we
*recommend to the board that the chapter status be removed* (or, if
our original recommendation is still pending, whether we revoke our
recommendation).

But in all the cases we agree to, we do NOT need a new vote, which
will very much decrease the time we need on it ...

> I would not object if it was explicitly stated on the ChapCom's page on meta
> that the ChapCom should be notified of changes to the bylaws even after they
> have approved a version of it, on the other hand it should be clearly stated
> as well what authorisation the ChapCom would have to revoke their
> approval (before and after the Board's resolution of actual approval) after
> such a notification, if they do not like it.

ChapCom only makes recommendations. Both in the approval of chapters
and in the "de-"approval of chapters.


--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Bence Damokos <bdamokos@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe under the Chapters Agreement the WMF and the chapters have to
> notify each other if there are substantial changes planned in their bylaws,
> but not of all changes [in my interpretation].
>
> "7.2. The Chapter shall be required to advise the Foundation of any planned
> or actual change in the bylaws or status of the Chapter which might affect
> the Foundation or the continued existence or effectiveness of this contract.
>
> 7.3. The Foundation shall be required to advise the Chapter of any planned
> or actual change in the bylaws or status of the Foundation which might
> affect the Chapter or the continued existence or effectiveness of this
> agreement."

But 7.2 only requires that the chapter notify the Foundation about
changes that affect the Foundation, or the chapters contract. Most
changes to bylaws wouldn't fall under this category at all, and the
rest are subject to interpretation. A chapter could assume that most
changes which might affect the relationship of the chapter to the
Foundation do not affect it "substantially", or do not change the
"effectiveness" of the contract. You could argue that limiting
membership to exclude active wikimedians would make the chapter more
effective in pursuing it's aims (because their members wouldn't be
spending so much time editing, and spending more time doing outreach).

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The last few posts are discussing the operation of ChapCom, and the
relationship generally between chapters and the WMF. Valuable discussions
(although, in a sense, separate) but seemingly not what the initial e-mails
were requesting.

The question is, if the characterization of the Wikimedia Brasil is accurate
(i.e. comprised mainly of non-editors, hostile to editors, authoritarian to
the extent of banning discussion of chapter composition and goals, etc.)
what can be done? The answer may be nothing at all, and its possible (in
light if Jimmy's email) that there is a misunderstanding at the source of
this problem.

Whether something can be done from afar or not... Beria, Luiz and Porantim
are entitled to have the discussion focus at least initially on the specific
problem they point out. I suspect that there is very little that can be done
- the Foundation, and ChapCom, have almost no control over the operations of
any chapter. Even withdrawing permission to use the Wikimedia-related
intellectual property (without prejudging the need for that in this case, of
course) would need to be backed up in court in Brasil if a chapter refused
to comply.

Luiz, have there been any responses from members of WM-Brasil indicating
their desire to engage on this list (or on any list, I suppose) on this
dispute? If they join the discussion on Foundation-l, perhaps the mediation
of Florence or Jimmy (or Michael or Andrew) could help you come to an
understanding.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2008/11/24 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>:

> Whether something can be done from afar or not... Beria, Luiz and Porantim
> are entitled to have the discussion focus at least initially on the specific
> problem they point out. I suspect that there is very little that can be done
> - the Foundation, and ChapCom, have almost no control over the operations of
> any chapter. Even withdrawing permission to use the Wikimedia-related
> intellectual property (without prejudging the need for that in this case, of
> course) would need to be backed up in court in Brasil if a chapter refused
> to comply.


I understand that chapter agreements (certainly the WMUKv1 one)
usually include provision where either side can withdraw from the
trademark agreement with a few months' notice. Though of course if an
organisation wasn't happy with that provision being invoked they may
well be able to argue the point in court.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/11/24 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>:
>
>> Whether something can be done from afar or not... Beria, Luiz and Porantim
>> are entitled to have the discussion focus at least initially on the specific
>> problem they point out. I suspect that there is very little that can be done
>> - the Foundation, and ChapCom, have almost no control over the operations of
>> any chapter. Even withdrawing permission to use the Wikimedia-related
>> intellectual property (without prejudging the need for that in this case, of
>> course) would need to be backed up in court in Brasil if a chapter refused
>> to comply.
>
>
> I understand that chapter agreements (certainly the WMUKv1 one)
> usually include provision where either side can withdraw from the
> trademark agreement with a few months' notice. Though of course if an
> organisation wasn't happy with that provision being invoked they may
> well be able to argue the point in court.
>

Yeah and, what Nathan probably meant: If a chapter ignores a
termination message and keeps using the trademark, we would need to
obtain an injunction in *their* country. Now, I think the Wikipedia
trademark is not even registered internationally yet (it isn't in
Switzerland, so I suppose it isn't in that many other countries
either), so we'd run into problems. As a matter of fact, the chapter
could just register the trademark in the country and unless the
foundation was willing to really put up a court fight to get the
trademark back, they could just ignore the termination notice.

Contracts are nice, but you also need be able to enforce them.

Michael


--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
> The question is, if the characterization of the Wikimedia Brasil is accurate
> (i.e. comprised mainly of non-editors, hostile to editors, authoritarian to
> the extent of banning discussion of chapter composition and goals, etc.)
> what can be done? The answer may be nothing at all, and its possible (in
> light if Jimmy's email) that there is a misunderstanding at the source of
> this problem.

Sorry for going off-topic. Nathan's characterization might almost be
too optimistic about the situation. First off, we don't have enough
information about anything: We don't know whether one member is being
disenfranchised, or if a whole class of users is being
disenfranchised. If people are truly being harassed, we don't know
what the actual motivations of that harassment are. We don't know if
low levels of Wikimedian involvement is indicative of a negative
attitude towards them, or a membership apathy on their part. Whenever
there are two sides to a story, neither of them are usually the
complete truth. In short, we can't make any kind of a decision here
because we don't have enough information.

Beyond that, there is no requirement that a chapter must contain a
certain percentage of wikimedians, or that they not be authoritarian
in nature, or that they treat their wikimedian members in any
particular way. These are judgement calls that can be made when they
are warranted, but not strict requirements in any sense. If
non-wikimedians are more numerous and more active then wikimedians are
in the chapter, they will be able to exercise more influence over the
chapter's operations, possibly acting contra to the way the
wikimedians would like things to go. Is this situation necessarily a
"bad" thing for a chapter?

If it is bad, at least in this case, there isn't much that can be
done. The disenfranchised Wikimedians could organize their own chapter
group and petition the Chapcom/Foundation to remove chapters status
from the old group and give it to the new, but that is going to be
very difficult and time-consuming, and I don't recommend that as a
primary course of action in any case. Chapcom isn't going to recommend
a group loses it's chapter status to the Foundation just because some
of it's members cannot get along. If the chapter truly doesn't
represent the interests of the foundation, we could remove their
status as a chapter but that won't have much of an effect, especially
if most of their members are already not wikimedians and if they
choose to fight the issue legally.


--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hello all,

Good to hear your thoughts. I'll share with you how I see what is going on
and how we could tackle the issues mentioned on the previous messages.
First, let me summarize below the Brazilian Chapter's history, for those
unaware of it:

1. From April to August 2008 the bylaws have been openly discussed and
collaboratively translated into English by a group of 13
people<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Brasil/Bylaws#Thanks_to...>.
All the steps were constantly communicated to the remaining
group<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Brasil/Participantes&diff=1154643&oldid=1148591>of
around 35 people interested in helping the local chapter.
2. In September and October the Chapters Committee and the Board of
Trustees approved the bylaws.


3. In October a group of less than 5 people (including Beria Lima,
Porantim and Luis Augusto) decided to make new suggestions for the text of
the already approved bylaws. The discussion of this alternative content was
opened on Meta<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Brasil/Estatuto_2>,
but very little people participated so far (less than 10 people, including
some from the mailing-list) and the opinions on the matter are still divided
among them.

4. In November, Jimmy Wales came to Brazil and the press reported the
existence of a local chapter, formed by volunteers only and open to anyone
interested to be part of it. The list of potential volunteers jumped to more
than 120 people<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil/Participantes>after
it.

5. So far, no legal entity has been created and there is no such a group
of Wikimedia representatives. There are, on the other hand, many dedicated
volunteers working together in different projects. For instance, the
event/debate with the presence of Jimmy Wales was organized by some of these
volunteers and it has not used Wikimedia trademarks.



As far as I understand, there are 3 main issues being discussed. I'll share
below my point-of-view on each subject:

A. Changes to the bylaws

B. Participation of non-wikimedians and hostile behavior

C. Risk of potential illicit activities



*A. **Changes to the bylaws*

The discussion is still open, but so far very few people participated and
the opinions are divided. My opinion has been that there could be a
deadline, when either there are enough people willing to change the bylaws,
or the approved version could be used to create a legal entity for the local
chapter. In my opinion, we could agree on a two-month period and a target of
at least the same number of people willing to submit a new version as there
was for the already approved first version.



*B. **Participation of non-wikimedians and hostile behavior*

Any hostile behavior or obstacles for participation of non-wikimedians
should ever be accepted within the Wikimedia community. Everybody should be
able to join and contribute politely to the promotion of Wikimedia's mission
and vision. And the community of volunteers in Brazil will select its legal
representatives only when a General Meeting of the future local chapter
happens. As long as there is no such meeting, the community will be formed
of volunteers only.



*C. **Risk of potential illicit activities*

Due to concerns already raised and the local context for NGOs, I agree that
an independent auditing firm should be hired to evaluate the financial
statements that will be presented by the local chapter. Although it may be
expensive, the local community could agree on this initiative in order to
avoid any risk. There is also the possibility of establishing a local
pro-bono relationship with KMPG, Wikimedia Foundation's auditing firm.

Please feel invited to join the Brazilian Chapter's
Mailing-list<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/WikimediaBR-l>(at
least temporarily, if you prefer) and to visit the pages
on Meta <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Brasil>, where everything
has been openly discussed. All my personal information and contacts have
always been public on Meta, but I share it once again if anyone feels like
further discussing privately (skype thomasbuckupbrasil, phone 5511 9213
3931).
Abracos,
Thomas

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Béria Lima <berialima@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Your problem (mine and of the boys) is NOT that have non wikimedians in
> > brazilian chapter. Is because that non wikimedians hostilize every
> > wikimedian and don't permite anyone discussion... every is taboo.
>
> The problem is that there isn't any real way to judge these situations
> prior to chapcom approval. When we get bylaws from a chapter group, we
> only know the things that we've been told about the organization, and
> the things we've heard by chance. We don't do any kind of
> investigation, or go out of our way to solicit feedback from the
> community. We also don't have a strict requirement that new chapters
> contain any number of active wikimedians. Red flags obviously go up if
> we find a group that doesn't contain any, but I'm not sure such a
> group couldn't get approved if they tried hard enough under the
> current system.
>
> Something like a public hearing over all new bylaws would help to
> eliminate these problems, assuming active wikimedians attended such
> meetings and raised objections. Of course, having to schedule and
> organize such a meeting, even a virtual one over IRC, would
> dramatically increase the amount of time that it takes for bylaws to
> clear the committee. The Brazil group would have even made this more
> difficult because they made it clear to us that they were under time
> pressure due to Jimmy's visit. So many chapters have told us that
> significant delays in approval by the chapcom and the board have a
> chilling effect on a chapter, sometimes an insurmountable one because
> of lost enthusiasm and momentum.
>
> The closest solution that I can imagine, and I'm not speaking as a
> chapcom member right now, would be to create chapters in some sort of
> probationary status for a year or so, before they become "official".
> This way we could identify those groups that don't meet our
> expectations in practice (as opposed to the "on paper" review they get
> now) and rescind their status because of that. It might be worthwhile
> for the community to review exactly what requirements are needed to
> become and to remain a chapter.
>
> > Someone said for we change the bylaws to protect Wikimedia Brasil. We try
> > that, but every time when we tried... We have been silenced with the
> > argument: "The Wikimedia approved the bylaws of the way that is"
>
> Chapters are independent organizations and do not need chapcom/WMF
> approval to change their bylaws. As Michael says, we usually like to
> hear about changes, just as we like to hear about any other news from
> chapters. If we become aware of changes that are highly negative we
> might review them to see that the chapter still meets our
> expectations, but this has never happened so I am only speculating. We
> simply don't have the infrastructure to keep track of every change
> made by every chapter to their bylaws, their operating procedures, or
> their membership composition.
>
> The chapcom is definitely going to discuss this issue, but lots of
> feedback and ideas will be appreciated.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Thomas de Souza Buckup
thomasdesouzabuckup@gmail.com
+5...
+5...
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Having just visited there, I can say with some confidence that
discussion of people refusing to cease using the trademarks is wildly
off base. The people at WMF-Brasil are not bad guys. I just spent 3
days there. If there is a problem, I see no obstacles to working it
out.

I will be seeing thomas (the main organizer of my trip) the day after
thanksgiving in florida.


On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:46, Michael Bimmler wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:40 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 2008/11/24 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Whether something can be done from afar or not... Beria, Luiz and
>>> Porantim
>>> are entitled to have the discussion focus at least initially on the
>>> specific
>>> problem they point out. I suspect that there is very little that can
>>> be done
>>> - the Foundation, and ChapCom, have almost no control over the
>>> operations of
>>> any chapter. Even withdrawing permission to use the Wikimedia-related
>>> intellectual property (without prejudging the need for that in this
>>> case, of
>>> course) would need to be backed up in court in Brasil if a chapter
>>> refused
>>> to comply.
>>
>>
>> I understand that chapter agreements (certainly the WMUKv1 one)
>> usually include provision where either side can withdraw from the
>> trademark agreement with a few months' notice. Though of course if an
>> organisation wasn't happy with that provision being invoked they may
>> well be able to argue the point in court.
>>
>
> Yeah and, what Nathan probably meant: If a chapter ignores a
> termination message and keeps using the trademark, we would need to
> obtain an injunction in *their* country. Now, I think the Wikipedia
> trademark is not even registered internationally yet (it isn't in
> Switzerland, so I suppose it isn't in that many other countries
> either), so we'd run into problems. As a matter of fact, the chapter
> could just register the trademark in the country and unless the
> foundation was willing to really put up a court fight to get the
> trademark back, they could just ignore the termination notice.
>
> Contracts are nice, but you also need be able to enforce them.
>
> Michael
>
>
> --
> Michael Bimmler
> mbimmler@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com> wrote:
> Having just visited there, I can say with some confidence that
> discussion of people refusing to cease using the trademarks is wildly
> off base. The people at WMF-Brasil are not bad guys. I just spent 3
> days there. If there is a problem, I see no obstacles to working it
> out.
>

I'm sorry, I was not referring to Brazil at all (and I made the same
observations re Thomas when I was discussing with him during the
ChapCom process). This has become a more general discussion on "what
happens if a chapter goes wild".

I would like to offer my apologies if it seemed like I was considering
the situation in Brazil here, I by no means believe that we must
consider what to do in Brazil!



--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I doubt that foundation-l is the right place for a community to carry
out their conflict. We have here no possibility and no legitimation to
make any decision in favor for or against one of the conflicting party.

The best way a community should resolve such problems is to talk with
each other, to meet with each other as already proposed. If the
community is really not able to settle the conflict, it could consider
to call for one or more mediators that are considered by all parties as
neutral to try to resolve the problem. But I don't think that
foundation-l can be such a place for mediation.

Ting

Nathan wrote:
> The last few posts are discussing the operation of ChapCom, and the
> relationship generally between chapters and the WMF. Valuable discussions
> (although, in a sense, separate) but seemingly not what the initial e-mails
> were requesting.
>
> The question is, if the characterization of the Wikimedia Brasil is accurate
> (i.e. comprised mainly of non-editors, hostile to editors, authoritarian to
> the extent of banning discussion of chapter composition and goals, etc.)
> what can be done? The answer may be nothing at all, and its possible (in
> light if Jimmy's email) that there is a misunderstanding at the source of
> this problem.
>
> Whether something can be done from afar or not... Beria, Luiz and Porantim
> are entitled to have the discussion focus at least initially on the specific
> problem they point out. I suspect that there is very little that can be done
> - the Foundation, and ChapCom, have almost no control over the operations of
> any chapter. Even withdrawing permission to use the Wikimedia-related
> intellectual property (without prejudging the need for that in this case, of
> course) would need to be backed up in court in Brasil if a chapter refused
> to comply.
>
> Luiz, have there been any responses from members of WM-Brasil indicating
> their desire to engage on this list (or on any list, I suppose) on this
> dispute? If they join the discussion on Foundation-l, perhaps the mediation
> of Florence or Jimmy (or Michael or Andrew) could help you come to an
> understanding.
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> 5. So far, no legal entity has been created and there is no such a group
> of Wikimedia representatives.

That's an interesting point that we seemed to be missing. This is all
just at the planning stage so far? I don't see that we have any
serious problem then, this dispute simply means that more time needs
to be spent discussing the bylaws and achieving a consensus on them
before things move forwards (it's unfortunate that they were sent to
ChapCom before this was achieved, but it's not the end of the world,
you can start the process with ChapCom again from scratch if you need
to, I'm sure they won't mind).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l