Talk:Wikimedia Brasil/AffCom

Respostas resolvidas

Aqui as respostas que já foram publicadas na página.

wmbrorganization

Pessoal, como visto no item com a etiqueta acima, o Bence perguntou sobre a organização da WMBR. Que tal esta resposta:

(pt) Eu imagino que a maneira mais simples de descrever é esta: até onde a WMF e outros capítulos dizem respeito, e até onde a lei brasileira diz respeito, nós operaremos como qualuer outro capítulo ou ONG. Porém, esforçaremo-nos a níveis extremos - e não estamos brincando com adjetivos aqui - para: (0) não usar a estrutura institucional para apoiar hierarquias de status ou decisão, mesmo se tenhamos pessoas formalmente assinaladas a essas posições; (1) ser transparentes com todos, sem reconhecer distinções de "de dentro" e "de fora" em nossos processos; (2) não buscar o domínio nos nomes Wikimedia em nosso território, tendo como nossa principal estratégia encorajar outras instituições a tomarem posições de liderança no movimento;

(en) I guess the simplest way to describe is this: as far as WMF and other chapters are concerned, and as far as Brazilian law is concerned, we'll operate just like any other chapter or NGO. However, and we will struggle to extreme extents - and we're not fooling around with adjectives here - to: (0) not use the institutional structure to support hierarchies of status or deliberation, even if we do have people formally assigned to positions; (1) be transparent to everyone and not recognize a distinction between "insiders" and "outsiders" in our processes; (2) not pursue dominance over the Wikimedia names in our territory, having as our main strategy to encourage other institutions to take leadership positions in the movement;

Abraço!

--Solstag (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by to support hierarchies of status or deliberation in (0). Your goal described in (1) is, as far as I remember, the default behaviour of the currently existing chapters, which do not limit their programmes (for instance microgrants, etc.) to their members only, and aim at getting involved also the non-members from their wider Wikimedia communities.

I am also having trouble understanding (2), and while I appreciate your willingness to cooperate with other non-governmental organisations and institutions, one have to keep in mind that only the Wikimedia Brasil chapter (outside of the Wikimedia Foundation) will be given the rights to use the Wikimedia trademarks on the territory of Brazil. And while this isn't directly related to the process of recognising Wikimedia Brasil as a Wikimedia chapter, you'll probably want to know that the WMF Legal team does pay a lot of attention to the way that Wikimedia trademarks are used around the world.

I am afraid I don't think that (3) is achievable at all. The proposed bylaws clearly mention that you're going to use the name Wikimedia Brasil in reference to the chapter, and not the wider community. Using the name in reference to the wider Brazilian Wikimedia community will only introduce confusion between the two groups (ie. people involved in Wikimedia Brasil and those that don't want to be involved); moreover, it will also introduce confusion with regards to activities performed by Wikimedia Brasil and the community, which in the Wikimedia situation (where people have trouble distinguishing Wikimedia from Wikipedia), it something that we would like to avoid.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify the meanings of points (0), (2) and (3). Thanks in advance, odder (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Odder, first to clarify, here on the discussion page I'm just proposing this as a first draft of an answer. We'll move it onto the content page once it's ready. That made clear, your contribution is more than welcome and we'll take that into consideration to improve this reply. However, as I see, all your non-understandings are related to either not seeing a difference between what we'll do and what other chapters do (1) or supposing I'm saying we'll do something that is not even in our power to do (2), so please understand that I mean these in a general conceptual frame, as in making sure nobody feels 'entitled' by formalities (0), or as in making sure other institutions see themselves as direct actors in the Wikimedia Movement - and perhaps come to AffCom for trademarks - and not only partners of WMBR (2). You'll probably tell us other chapters do those as well, which is not entirely false. We have a very good understanding of all the WMF formalities and general chapter practices, it's this funny thing that we've been in this game for too long and have not formed a corporation yet. About (3), it was just some BS thing I came up in the first draft because I like having 4 things and wanted a placeholder, I have not taken any part in the formalities of this process and so I did not remember there was such a clause. By now we're more than happy to call whatever has to be called whatever, so I already deleted it, thanks for looking carefully into that. Thank you again, our reply is already better due to your remarks. Hugs, --Solstag (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry, I just thought you moved this onto the talk page without a reason, and didn't pay too much attention to the header; now I see it says "Respostas em preparação" ("Responses in preparation"); my apologies for having interfered with your drafting of the answers.

I am afraid that my misunderstandings are mostly related to the unclear language that you have used ("a general conceptual frame"), and that's why I asked for clarification. I'm not supposing anything, and I don't want to suggest anything or even don't want to mention what the other chapters do (or do not do), because that's hardly the point of this discussion. I still don't understand what you mean by "making sure other institutions see themselves as direct actors in the Wikimedia Movement", and would like to get some clarification.

Also, thanks for removing (3), I appreciate your immediate action. odder (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry, it was super great that you replied. Also I only changed the title afterwards, it only read "Respostas" before, but in either case I never meant that you shouldn't be participating. I just mentioned it for you to understand the status of what I was posting. =) --Solstag (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Versão dois e meio

Galera, tou pixando da cabeça e aguardo comentários! A resposta final nem precisa sair diretamente disso aqui.

(pt) Eu imagino que a maneira mais simples de descrever é esta: até onde a WMF e outros capítulos dizem respeito, e até onde a lei brasileira diz respeito, nós operaremos como qualquer outro capítulo ou ONG. Trata-se de uma organização formal, que operará de acordo com as leis brasileiras. Buscamos garantir, por meio de procedimentos e protocolos, exercer uma condução coletiva, transparente, aberta e democrática. Os items abaixo devem ser entendidos como intenções, a serem perseguidas no seu sentido estrito, ainda que nem sempre demonstrem-se viáveis:

(0) Temos um conselho diretor, formado por três membros, um conselho fiscal e contrataremos um contador, como exigido pelas leis brasileiras. As pessoas formalmente assinaladas a essas posições têm representação formal e legal; todos os seus membros, no entanto, participam em condições de igualdade dos debates e processos decisórios. Tanto os representantes, como todos os membros da organização, devem permanentemente buscar garantir transparência, participação e envolvimento de mais membros da organização. A ideia é que os representantes empossados não tenham um cheque em branco para tomar decisões não referendadas coletivamente pelos voluntários do movimento; ninguém deve se posicionar como superior aos demais, formalmente membros ou não, e toda decisão é tomada por consenso entre os interessados ao invés de delegadas a um indivíduo ou grupo.

(1) Toda informação deve ser publicada nos canais públicos, aos quais qualquer pessoa deve ter acesso independente de ser formalmente membro da organização, resguardados apenas eventuais dados pessoais em posse da organização ou outras informações que por força da lei não possam ser reveladas. Tal transparência visa a garantir de toda e qualquer pessoa interessada se aproprie de informações e tenha acesso aos debates e processos decisórios.

(2) não buscar a exclusividade de uso dos nomes e marcas Wikimedia em nosso território, tendo como nossa principal estratégia encorajar outras instituições a tomarem posições de parcerias e liderança no movimento; isto é, que elas enxerguem-se como atores no Movimento Wikimedia e não apenas parceiras de uma organização, agindo na promoção do conhecimento livre e buscando a Wikimedia Foundation para uso das marcas ou recursos mais permanentes quando houver interesse.

(3) os dirigentes formais serão eleitos acima de tudo com o mandato de fazer cumprir os items acima, não por força de lei, mas pelo compromisso coletivo que os empossou

(en)

I guess the simplest way to describe is this: as far as WMF and other chapters are concerned, and as far as Brazilian law is concerned, we'll operate just like any other chapter or NGO. That is, the supposed differences are not in the formalities of our operation, but in its collective presentation and its conduction. The following items are to be understood as intentions, to be pursued in their strict sense, even if that might not always be achievable:

(0) not use the institutional structure to support hierarchies of status or deliberation, even if we do have people formally assigned to such positions; meaning that, except to the effect of bureaucratic work, there is no one entitled as a representative or decision maker, only individuals collectively appointed to specific tasks; nobody shall position themselves above others, formal members or not, and every decision is taken by consensus among those interested, instead of deferred to one individual

(1) be transparent to everyone and not recognize a distinction between "insiders" and "outsiders" in our processes; meaning every information shall be published in public channels, to which anyone must have access independent of being a formal member of the organization, except for personal data in possession of the organization.

(2) not pursue dominance over the Wikimedia names in our territory, having as our main strategy to encourage other institutions to take leadership positions in the movement; meaning they shall see themselves as actors within the Wikimedia Movement and not only partners of one organization, acting of their own initiative in the promotion of free knowledge and reaching out to the Wikimedia Foundation if interested in trademarks or more permanent resources

(3) it's formal boards will be elected above all with a mandate to make sure the above items are met, not by force of law, but by the collective agreement that enthroned them

--Solstag (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC) --reeditada em 15:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

(pt) Concordo com todos os pontos. (en) I agree with all points. Danilo.mac talk 15:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

+1. Ozymandias (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

+1 Rjclaudio ^Talk 17:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Em essência, eu concordo, mas algumas coisas me parecem pouco claras ou confusas no texto acima. Basta dar uma nova redação, com mais calma. Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(pt) Essa é só a resposta de uma pergunta, o importante é a essência mesmo, se eles quiserem algo mais oficial nós melhoramos o texto, por hora acho melhor nos preocuparmos mais com a rapidez da resposta para dar continuidade ao diálogo. (en) This is only the response of a question, the important is the essence after all, if they want some more official so we improve the text, by now I think it is better we worry more about the quickness of the response to continue the talk. Danilo.mac talk 17:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Versão três

Tentei escrever uma versão um bocado mais objetiva, menos conceitual, e portanto mais compreensível...

O capítulo, referindo-nos à corporação sem fins lucrativos submetida às leis brasileiras e aos acordos com a Wikimedia Foundation, tem diretores legalmente responsáveis pela sua conduta conforme descrito no estatuto, assim como um grupo de membros com o direito de elegê-los. Essa estrutura, contudo, surgirá como parte menor, e buscará mesmo não se tornar indispensável, de uma comunidade voluntária condutora de atividades. Pela força de acordos coletivos, essa comunidade aberta, análoga à dos demais projetos Wikimedia, é quem continuará conduzindo as atividades e orientará o capítulo, servindo-se dele quando julgar frutífero. As consequências mais relevantes relativas à pergunta posta traduzem-se numa constante busca dos participantes do Movimento Wikimedia no Brasil por atingir os seguintes ideais:

• A wiki onde o capítulo organizar-se-á, http://br.wikimedia.org/, será a mesma wiki onde há anos já organizamos atividades de extensão, completamente aberta e integrada ao sistema de login unificado dos projetos Wikimedia
• O capítulo irá fazer o melhor para que toda informação seja publicada nessa wiki em tempo real, de atas de assembléias e documentos oficiais às suas finanças, detalhadamente
• O capítulo não irá tomar parte de encontros secretos, fóruns sigilosos ou grupos herméticos, mas poderá sempre ocupar espaços desses que sejam abertos
• O capítulo tratará seus parceiros como parte do Movimento Wikimedia no território brasileiro, orientando-os a promover conhecimento livre de sua própria iniciativa e adquirir reconhecimento e direitos sobre as marcas e recursos da Wikimedia Foundation sem a necessidade do seu intermédio, conforme definido nos Movement roles
• As decisões do capítulo e a seu respeito serão tomadas por consenso em discussões abertas, da qual participam quaisquer interessados (até mesmo IPs), sendo os diretores e membros formais apenas responsáveis por executar tais consensos
• Os dirigentes e membros do capítulo não agirão publicamente como representantes dele, nem se destacarão daqueles que não são membros, mas quando necessário a comunidade assinalará voluntários para tarefas específicas
• Os dirigentes formais são eleitos, e novos membros admitidos, acima de tudo com o mandato de fazer cumprir os items acima, não por força de lei, mas pelo compromisso coletivo que os empossou

A busca desses ideais, orientada pela Carta de Princípios da Wikimedia Brasil (disponível em inglês, com terminologia levemente diferente), é a resposta sobre a relação entre a estrutura legal do capítulo e a comunidade maior que dele servir-se-á.

O que acham? Que alterações sugerem? Ou preferem a anterior? Podemos postar como resposta? Abraçosss,

--Solstag (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

acho que entendo a questão que vocês levantam sobre representação, mas olhando "de fora" (de outras experiências vividas), dizer que ninguém representará pode dar a impressão de que ninguém jamais falará como Wikimedia Brasil e, até onde entendo, a questão não é essa, mas sim não dar voz exclusiva a ninguém como representante e, ainda, a ninguém se dará um cheque em branco, mas todos deverão preocupar-se com a construção do consenso sempre que possível e a implementação, condução e realização a partir deste consenso. Se for isso mesmo, eu acho que ficaria mais claro assim: "Os dirigentes e membros do capítulo não agirão publicamente e como únicos representantes dele, nem se destacarão daqueles que não são membros, mas sempre que necessário a comunidade assinalará voluntários para tarefas específicas, sendo os dirigentes os representantes legais da associação". Porque, na minha opinião, quer queira, quer não, quando se chega a um consenso e exprime-se o consenso, um grupo está sendo representado (ainda que essa representação possa variar) - --Oona (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Por mim sem problemas, pode mandar. Apenas complementando o que diz a Oona, não vejo maiores problemas em usar o termo representantes. É apenas uma palavra, com aspectos positivos e negativos, sendo que podemos utilizá-la quando necessário. E apesar das opiniões discordantes (que pelo que contabilizei são uma ou duas), possuímos representantes legais e em qualquer evento que participamos somos considerados também como representantes. Por isto, acho que este tipo de discussão de representatividade deveria ser interna (isto é sistematizada no Regulamento Interno) e utilizarmos a "interface" legal " representantes" para falarmos com o mundo externo, já que na maior parte das situações teremos que utilizá-la.Ozymandias (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Antes de finalizar algo, coloquei a discussão sobre representatividade na Agora da WMBR.Ozymandias (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"Esclareci" minha dúvida na Ágora. Tenho acordo com a prática de se evitar o uso (principalmente indiscriminado e sempre que não for necessário). --Oona (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ver aqui. --Ezalvarenga (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"Os dirigentes e membros do capítulo não agirão publicamente como representantes dele, nem se destacarão daqueles que não são membros, mas quando necessário a comunidade assinalará voluntários para tarefas específicas"

Precisa fechar um acordo institucional para um mutirão, é uma necessidade, precisa de um cara x para ir em uma mesa... são necessidades, e eu escrevi muito do que eu acho na Ágora, eu aprovo o texto. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Estou completamente de acordo com esta versão. Clareza na medida. Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Após as discussões sobre alguns pontos, estou de acordo com esta versão. Rjclaudio ^Talk 11:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Dúvida: o trecho "mas poderá sempre ocupar espaços desses que sejam abertos" não seria "desde que sejam abertos"? E talvez não seria melhor usar outro termo no lugar de 'ocupar espaços'? Minha impressão é que a conotação usual é do uso da força (em geral física). --Ezalvarenga (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Estou de acordo com a versão três. Sobre a dúvida, acho que é "desses" mesmo: ocupar espaços desses (encontros, foruns ou grupos) que sejam abertos, ou seja, ocupar encontros abertos, foruns abertos ou grupos abertos. "ocupar" poderia ser trocado por "participar de". Danilo.mac talk 16:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Na tradução pro inglês eu já usei mesmo o termo participar, mas "ocupar espaços" em pt não tem muito a ver com uso de força, em geral entende-se que os espaços referidos estão vagos, pois se não estivessem não poderiam ser ocupados - teriam de ser disputados. --Solstag (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Encaminhamento

Uma vez que todos os interessados manifestaram-se favoráveis à proposta, que foi amplamente divulgada com antecedência, vou conduzí-la à página de conteúdo! Abs, --Solstag (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Em inglês

Apesar de ainda aguardarmos manifestações, já vou adiantando aqui a tradução para o inglês...

The chapter — we refer to the non-profit corporation ruled by Brazilian law and by its agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation — has a board legally responsible for its conduct as set forth in its Bylaws, as well as a membership with the right to elect those. This structure, however, will come to be as a small part, and will seek to not become indispensable, of a a volunteer community which conducts activities. By the strength of collective agreements, this open community, similar to that of other Wikimedia projects, will continue to conduct activities and steer the chapter, making use of it when considered fruitful. The most relevant consequences related to the question posed translate into a constant effort by participants of the Wikimedia Movement in Brasil to achieve the following ideals:

• The wiki where the chapter will organize itself, http://br.wikimedia.org/, is the same wiki where for years we have organized outreach activities, completely open and integrated to the simple unified login (SUL) of Wikimedia projects
• The chapter will do its best so that every information is published on this wiki in real time, from minutes of general meetings and official documents to its finances, in detail
• The chapter will not take part in secret meetings, confidential forums or hermetic groups, but may always participate in open spaces within those
• The chapter will treat its partners as part of the Wikimedia Movment in Brazilian territory, guiding them so they promote free knowledge of their own initiative and acquire recognition and rights over trademarks and resources of the Wikimedia Foundation without needing it as an intermediary, as defined in the Movement roles.
• The decisions of the chapter and about it will be taken by consensus in open discussions, of which anyone interested may take part (even those identified only by IP address), being the formal board and members expected to only execute that consensus
• The board and members of the chapter will not act publicly as its representatives, nor will they stand out from those who are not members, but when necessary the community will assign volunteers for specific tasks
• The formal directors are elected, and new members are admitted, above all with a mandate to accomplish the above items, not by force of law, but by the collective commitment that put them in charge

The quest for these ideals, guided by the Statement of Principles of Wikimedia Brasil (original, in Portuguese), is the answer to the question about the relationship between the legal structure of the chapter and the wider community that it will serve.

Respostas em preparação

newspaperarticle

Acho que vale deixar claro como surgiu essa matéria e qual a nossa relação com o Estadão/jornalista. Também gostaria de ressaltar como foi feita a entrevista e dizer que não é o nosso padrão utilizando a Wiki, e mostrar esse padrão. Além disso, falar que para nós a Wikimedia Brasil existe desde 2008, logo não seria fundada, e que também não iria ser fundada, e sim a APR-CCL. Outra coisa, "Incentivados pela Wikimedia Foundation, voluntários se reúnem para institucionalizar suas ações no País", a gente foi apoiado pela WMF para realizar o encontro, quando está nos forneceu o grant, e ela apoia encontros entre a comunidade, acho que vale também deixar isso claro, e até mostrar o grant que paga os custos da fundação da APR-CCL está sem a aprovação, ou seja, a WMF não incentivou diretamente a criação da associação. Fora a lambança quanto quem faz o que. E até demostrar que a comunidade já tinha levantado alguns erros: "http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediabr-l/2012-October/012372.html". Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 03:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Cara, nem se dê ao trabalho. Basta explicar que foi uma confusão do jornalista que quis botar destaque na matéria. --Solstag (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Eu não acho que é tão simples assim, eles não aprendem com a Wikipedia, eles acham que uma fonte é suficiente para formar todo um conceito. Por exemplo, da frase: "Incentivados pela Wikimedia Foundation, voluntários se reúnem para institucionalizar suas ações no País" eles podem ter tirado aquela ideia insana, que a gente nem sabia disso, de que a WMF queria fechar uma parceria com a APR-CCL para forçar com que fosse aprovado o status de capítulo. Sim, teoria da conspiração, pq a gente é o grupo malvado e blablabla...

É melhor dar a declaração que eles querem ao invés de deixar solto para que façam declarações como as que fizeram...

Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 10:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal testmony from Tom

Hi. Since it was me who contacted the journalist about this news, let me quickly explain about it. First of all, I must tell the journalist called me on my volunteer time (it was about 20h-21h, I remember I was in the supermarket when he called me), since I also work as an independent consultant for Wikimedia Foundation for the Wikipedia Education Program.

Regarding the news, the sentence was a confusion of the journalist. I told him several times there were 1. independent consultants working for the catalyst program of Wikimedia Foundation in Brazil, 2. there was a group of volunteers forming a legal entity that possibly would become a chapter. On my side, who spoke a lot with the journalist, I patiently answered all his questions by phone, like telling "there is no Wikipedia Office (sic)", "there is no Wikipedia Foundation (sic)", "that Wikimedia Foundation is a not for profit organization", "that Wikimedia movement in Brazil, so far, has done a lot of activities throught the mutirões for years", "that I was not involved in the efforts to form a legal entity, but some friends have put a lot of time and energy to make this happen" etc..

Not sure how much experience people here have in talking to journalists and reading what they write after you talk to them, but usually they make a lot of confusion and try to use the words that fits better their purposes, like a beautiful title for their articles. At least in my country this happens and has two explanations: a. incompetence, b. sensationalism.

I don't think it was b., neither a., since I think the journalist was not aware of the details of the conversation we are having here and it is really difficult to understand the complex world of Wikimedia - mainly when people make it more difficult. That said, I hope people will believe there was no intention with this news in disregarding AffCom decision if this legal entity can be regarded a Wikimedia chapter or not. --Tom (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Não foi só você quem ele contactou, e temos muitas coisas delicadas nesse processos, por isso a construção estava sendo realizada em um processo colaborativo, eu sei que você não acredita nisso, entretanto é a melhor opção. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 12:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Por mim a gente copia e cola a resposta do Tom, é um relato pessoal e claro sobre o que ocorreu. E o Tom não tem nada que ver se o jornalista contactou outras pessoas, ele deu o testemunho dele. Ninguém é vedado de dar seu testemunho de acontecimentos. Isso é diferente de falar pelo coletivo ou mesmo opinar sobre um assunto. De toda forma, é bom acrescentar que o jornalista também contactou outras pessoas, com as quais o padrão repetiu-se. Encerrado. Não vejo razão para acrescentar uma linha a isso. --Solstag (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

wikibrasil

Ele também pede para fazer um relato da Assembleia (ele fala como se algo para se provar que ele estão certos), mas acho que o Grant Report já faz isso, e podemos explicar que queríamos aproveitar o encontro já para realizar a Assembleia, pois era um encontro nacional e seria um desperdício fazer duas reuniões nacionais, pois acreditávamos que o AffCom não enrolar tanto quanto estão enrolando para dar nos uma resolução. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 03:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sobre o relato da assembléia, basta responder que foi fundada a APR-CCL e por um link pro vídeo. --Solstag (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nem isso foi... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 04:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

E não sei se reparou, ele quer dizer que a gente não poderia ter fundado a associação sem o aval deles, mesmo isso tendo ocorrido com quase todos os outros últimos capítulos aprovados, mas como é a gente, vão encher o nosso saco, temos tratamento especial. E como não fizemos nem isso, apenas fizemos a assembleia, acho que é mais interessante dizer claramente: "Só fizemos a assembleia, por causa disso". Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 10:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Rodrigo, pare de alimentar sua imaginação fértil. Ele pediu uma descrição breve do que aconteceu. Vamos responder que fundamos uma associação, ponto. Se eles tão preocupados com o sacrossanto aval deles é problema deles, não nosso. Não dar importância para algo desimportante é sempre a coisa sensata a fazer. --Solstag (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Tá, podemos responder o que aconteceu, que nem fundar nada a gente fundou, a gente fez uma assembleia de fundação, mas não prosseguímos com o processo. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 22:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A short question from AffCom

Bom dia a todos no Wikimedia Brasil. For those of who do not know me, my name is Josh Lim, and as a new member of the Affiliations Committee, I have decided to help them resolve the case of Wikimedia Brasil's affiliation, which as we all know is still pending.

Here at the Wikimedia Conference 2013 in Milan, I raised the issue of your affiliation with the AffCom and Tom, who is here in Milan as well. One of the concerns here is the relationship between the Board of APR-CCL and your community members. So, for example, what would happen if a member of the community wanted to pursue a project, but your Board disapproves of it? What will happen afterward?

I hope to hear a response from you guys soon, and I wish all of us good luck in getting your affiliation resolved. Muito obrigado. :) -- Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's think about Wiki, how does bureaucrat role works?

They can veto anything? They have more powers?

Everything will be discussed between the volunteers and complied by the directors, as well as works with the bureaucrats.

The community will always be greater.

Our priority is to conduct activities, that will be organized in our wiki, openly, volunteers will perform that, not an institution. Therefore, to carry out activities, volunteers do not need the board approval, just need to follow the wmbr:Wikimedia:Statement of Principles.

And before you come to the following questions, when triggered, the board will do what is legally required, or do something that is necessary for an activity occur (as conduct a institutional partnership), however, these cases will be fully discussed, prior to performing something.

The analogy with bureaucrats is very close to what we will hold, we are bringing the Wikiway for life "outside" the internet. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Josh, solely for the purpose of organization I'm copying this question to the content page and redacting Rodrigo's answer more impersonally. I hope you and the rest of AffCom understands, as I did, that the question was answered right away on April 23rd. Please let us know if there has been any misunderstanding regarding this, so we can keep moving forward. --Solstag (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Comentários genéricos ;)

Tô achando esse papo todo meio atravessado...--Nevinho (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Posting your comments in English would be greatly appreciated. odder (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What is pending?

Hi Josh and members of AffCom. Can you tell us what is still pending in the process? Thank you. Danilo.mac talk 21:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Danilo. As I mentioned in my talk page, I have forwarded your concerns to the rest of the Affiliations Committee, and let's see where we can go from there. Thanks. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

A message from the Affiliations Committee

Dear Brazilian Wikimedians,

On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, please allow me to explain within the bounds of this message the current state of your application for affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation, what we can do about it, and how this application will hopefully move forward from here.

First, please allow me to apologize on behalf of the Committee for any feelings of ill will that might have been generated in previous discussions between us and you guys, whether that be because of misunderstandings over your proposed affiliation model, or any disruptive discussions that might have contributed to whatever state of relations that currently exist between the two of us. Allow me to stress here that it has always been in the Committee's interest to move your application forward, and we have no intention of ever derailing your application for affiliation.

The Committee has agreed during our meeting in Hong Kong that it would be best to restart the entire application process for Wikimedia Brasil as a gesture of good will and as a sign of willingness to move forward from the tumultuous application process of years past. We likewise feel that restarting the process allows us to establish clearer lines of communication with the Brazilian Wikimedians in order to overcome any past misunderstandings and miscommunication that might have arisen from our interaction with the different members of your community. This means that currently, there is no pending application with the Committee for an affiliate entity in Brazil, and we are ready to receive an entirely new application from Brazilian Wikimedians to allow us to move forward. Such a move also allows the Committee to objectively analyze the merits of your application without having to consider any preceding application that might compromise the Committee's objectivity with respect to deciding on your application.

It is, however, the Committee's belief that for the time being, a Wikimedia User Group would be appropriate as a first step toward the ultimate goal of establishing a Wikimedia chapter in Brazil. As agreed to in Hong Kong, we feel that the establishment of a well-run, well-organized user group would serve as a trust-building measure between the both of us, so that we will be able to effectively determine what model of affiliation would serve the best interests of the Brazilian Wikimedia community at large. We feel that the establishment of a WUG does NOT in any way mean that we do not support the establishment of a chapter, nor that a WUG being established means that a chapter is no longer necessary; rather, we believe that the establishment of a user group is a necessary first step towards the establishment of a chapter as the ultimate end of this process, and that the chapter shall be its logical continuation. To ensure our commitment to establishing a chapter in Brazil, the Committee will be ready to accept an application for chapter status from the community at least one year after the establishment of a WUG in Brazil, and we will ensure that your application for chapter status will be judged on the success of the established user group.

Having met some of you in the past, and having committed myself early on in my tenure as a member of the Committee to resolving the Brazil affiliation case, it is my hope that all parties in this matter will acquiesce to this new state of affairs. I strongly believe that the Brazilian Wikimedians are capable of coming together around this proposal, and that in the future, we will be able to put aside whatever differences we may have had in the past, and we will be able to move forward towards a better, more fruitful and more productive relationship. I trust that everyone concerned will be able to commit to this process.

Warm regards,

Josh Lim — Sky Harbor ^(talk)
Member, Affiliations Committee, Wikimedia Foundation
01:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is the excused used to not approve the Brazilian chapter? I want details, because this step imposed, be a WUG before, are not one of the steps requested for us before.

So I want details. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 04:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rodrigo,

There were a number of contributing factors that have led to this decision, Josh's letter summarizes the main concerns. On the one hand, there were communication issues, a lack of clarity, as it was difficult to understand what the community as a whole wanted with different representatives having different, conflicting interpretations of the community's decisions - perhaps due to unclear or not followed internal decision making mechanisms -, the incorporation of APR-CCL against repeated stern advice not to do it, and the lack of follow-up communication on the status of that incorporation. Adding all this together with the loaded history, there was simply no viable on-going application by the time the Affiliations Committee met in Hong Kong to analyse the issue from all sides with the aim to come up with a solution that is both good for the Wikimedia movement and the volunteers interested in setting up offline projects.

On the other hand, chapters are part of an international network of Wikimedia organisations and there is a level of trust needed to induct a new organisation and the loaded history and conflicting messages have not contributed to building a level of trust where a chapter application could realistically proceed.

We feel that the best way for the community to figure out its goals and to build the trust needed is to utilize the User Group model. This, unlike the chapter model, provides many of the same benefits (access to trademarks, grants, international recognition) with more local autonomy and without the need to integrate and interact smoothly with an existing international network of actors. Please note that over the years the affiliations models of the Wikimedia movement have evolved and are still dynamically evolving, the user group model is a new addition that we feel has the potential in strengthening groups by allowing them to act, innovate and grow more quickly.

Currently, we recommend to most or perhaps all groups that are thinking about establishing chapters to consider starting as a user group for it allows the core group to figure out if they are ready to take on long-term and on-going responsibilities that come with setting up a permanent legal organisation that has to live up to local and movement-wide standards of governance and activity, and for both the international Wikimedia movement and the group in question to build up mutual trust, understanding and appreciation to be ready to go into a long-term partnership that a chapter recognition represents.

Hope this helps - as Josh stated, and as we discussed with representatives of the Brazilian community at various meetings this year, we would like to open a fresh page in the relationship and step outside of limbo. It is our sincere belief that the WUG model at this time is the best option, and it is the best way to build trust, establish venues of communication and internal decision making that is needed to convert into a chapter if that remains the intention of the community in a year's time.

Best regards, --Bence (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Damokos,Lim, WUG is not a option for those who is in the front.

And all problems that you pointed, is not your problems, is your problems, lack of communication and clarity?

We made this page for the communication and never had you used. If you had some issues, why never you had asked?

It is here, and it is almost empty. No questions about any of the points that you bring to us now.

And, were this "advices" if this page don't have any of that? More than that, you had corrected some by-law points, and we had a okay and we proceeded.

Another point, you know that we are waiting the AffCom approving to found the APR-CCL? That APR-CCL do not a legal structure yet? And if you had doubts about that, why questions about it is not here, in this page? Because the only thing that we have is a impolite email asking about a piece of crap news article. And inaugurated is not a synonym to legally founded.

One more point, doesn't matter if APR-CCL was founded or not, you have to evaluate if the association between the group and Wikimedia movement is valid, you can not prohibited a local group starts a legal association. And for all I know, some chapters recently accepted had their legal associations founded before the endorsement of AffCom. More than that, for this model that your imposing to us, the legal association can be made before we start the process of WUG, or during, so the foundation of the APR-CCL is not a excuse for this mistreatment.

And just a notice, we fully understand the WUG model, because we are the model for that, we are using this since 2008, but the ChapCom and WMF forced us to became a chapter, so we practically stop all activities to rearrange the whole community, and thing in a model that do not struggle with the organization already created. If it was to be a WUG, was to be in 2011, to not waste all the energy, and money, and focus... ignore all that is disrespectful.

Actually, I need to point a another notice, we had said n times that we not have any representatives in this Movement (WMBR), each volunteer speak for then self, and each volunteer is involved in what their has more interest, and none of the names interested in move with this chapter process talked with any members of AffCom face-to-face after Berlin (2012), because, you can see by this discussion above, that the guys in contact with AffCom did leaved the country, so this "various meetings" that supposed occur is not closed to be a real thing, first because we had stablish this page as the communication channel between AffCom and WMBR, and all request that you had made here we had answered. Second, we don't had any volunteer of WMBR in Milan (the only Brazilian there was a staff of WMF); none of volunteers in HK was capable to discuss about this, they are not taking care of it or they was WMF staff (the majority), and one Brazilian there is against this group; and in Iberocoof, again WMF staffs. So if you have heard information from these people, it is kind obvious that you will not have the more accurate information, but this, again, is not our problem, we established the communication channel, you who did not used and did what you have in mind.

Why to do more activities, and have more independence, we "need to integrate and interact smoothly with an existing international network of actors." if we don't want get involve in international politics we need to have this rights guaranteed, we already did some international activities, as Strategic Planning, but most of European or North American, did not work here in this country, ie. WMF Educational Programme in Brazil. We just want to solve this international and bureaucratic issues, and came back to what we are good, do activities without bothering anyone. In the past when we did not want any legal structure, you did not left us do activities, now that we have made all the effort to do what you want, you will obligate we restart the whole process and go back to when we did not want legal structure? Why? To not have energy enough to do activities? To loose in any new start half of your volunteers? To see how much we can handle? To see if the newcomers through away the values of WMBR and start an NGO with hierarchies contrary to what Wikimedia movement preaches?

It is not possible that you do not understand how these processes are harmful to communities. Prolong the process for two more years, at least, will not help the Brazilian community, we will not do more activities, because we have to deal with you again, twice more, for I do not know how many years, in addition to that restart the whole legal process in Brazil, which already cost more than $ 10,000, and will cost more than 10'000 (with 10 thousand I can manage a whole year outreach programme across Brazil.).

I know that some members of AffCom have a strong opposition against some volunteers of WMBR, but this can not affect the evaluation of you. This community is not by three volunteers, and is not ethical evaluate like that, this is a totally conflict of interest, and we can see chapters that made practically no activities, had in numbers 90% less volunteers than WMBR, and was more disunited, had been approved, so, why not WMBR?

We are not a "group that are thinking about establishing chapter", we are a established Movement with a five years of existence, with tons of a activities.

We do not want the third restarts, we want a end.

We talked, and we will not start another process if you do not complete this one. Finnish what you started, seat and give us a report. Bring a short notice that you will restart the whole process is disrespectful, irresponsible, we waste a life to make this happens, at least show some respect, and create together reliable reasons to any decision. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 21:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to notice that Rodrigo speaks in his own name. The Brazilian WUG proposal is under construction here, as you can see, with the support of 15 volunteers. Vinicius Siqueira (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)