91 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2017
    1. We were then forced to tell the Foundation about Christophe Henner’s serious actions against Nathalie Martin [the WMFr Director] when he was president of Wikimédia France

      There are so many things wrong with this sentence. Forced? Serious? How could an ED imagine this was an appropriate way to escalate a disagreement with their former president? And how politically deaf to continue in this fashion.

    2. Nathalie will take such action as she deems necessary

      This reads like a legal threat, perhaps against Christophe, but left vague.

    3. Samuel Legoff, PresidentMarie-Alice Mathis, Vice-PresidentÉdouard Hue, SecretaryFlorian Pépellin, DirectorÉmeric Vallespi, Director

      The remaining members of the chapter's board, after the recent string of resignations.

    4. Louise Merzeau and Florence Raymond

      Two very new appointments to the board, who may have no context for these affairs. Louise Merzeau was widely respected for her scholarship on the commons; to the dismay of all, she had little time to engage with board or community before passing away on July 15.

    5. Employees could legitimately turn on the Association and have the board of directors sentenced by a labor council or even a criminal court.

      This is the first hint that the current Board may feel legally threatened. Some part of the {Board+ED} is clearly attuned to legal action.

    6. interference by volunteers

      Second deprecation of volunteers, this one quite strong. Every part of the movement has to work with communities of practice, volunteers, and armchair experts; rarely described as "interference".

    7. exclude from the association

      This blacklist includes: former chapter Board member Pierre Selim (who reported to the members about the first wave of blacklisting), Mathis Benguigui (who created the timeline), and at least 4 others.

      All of these were active critics of the current Board, who had voted to hold an early General Assembly (a vote which, at the time, had not yet reached the 70-member threshold). Removal prevents them from voting or standing in elections to the board.

      However, exclusions from the association must be ratified at the next General Assembly. and the remaining members can vote to reinstate them.

    8. Refusal of some applications for membership

      Not only have they removed current members who have criticized the association, but they intend to refuse future applications.

    9. no serious or legitimate basis

      Summarizing many other discussions: the basis for negative comments seems to be that the Association is not functioning well.

      General:

      • Staff and board members leaving
      • Decreased project success
      • Worsening relations w/ the WMF, ignoring the FDC

      Communication + respect:

      • Little communication w/ members
      • Derailing discussions w/ victimisation (as in this letter)
      • Limited respect for members (incl the affair w/ Z.)
      • Recent censorship of communication among members

      Staffing + planning:

      • Firing the one community liaison
      • The ED hiring her husband as Deputy ED
      • Unclear plans for fundraising, sustainable funding
      • Pursuit of a free-knowledge endowment w/o discussion

      All of the above is before the publishing of this email, with its legal threats & further closing of communication.

    10. to which employees were unsubscribed Wednesday July 5 as a precautionary measure

      It seems staff were all removed from the list. It was suggested that this (& pre-moderation of messages) ensured staff were not being criticized on an Association-hosted list, which could possibly be interpreted as a violation of labor law.

      A public WikimediaFR list was set up in response:

      On July 5, some chapter members became concerned about an effort to fundraise for a broad endowment fund for free knowledge, which the board and community knew nothing about. A question about it on the mailing list was not answered, a follow-up was blocked from the list. Employees were unsubscribed from the list, Anthere created the public list later that day.

      On July 9, the board treasurer resigned.<br> On July 11, the list was closed and this mail sent.

    11. its funding reduced

      Funding cuts happen from time to time, but rarely to this degree for a large chapter. The French chapter had not acted on feedback from the previous year's review. Its plans moreover did not address their Board issues, staffing issues, or program troubles. Their funding allocation was reduced by 40%.

    12. we will organize a large meeting in Paris at the beginning of the school year

      An entirely positive paragraph, with a constructive idea. Lovely!

      But in context... Just before this letter was published, the Association's members called for an early General Assembly. They needed, and received, the support of 1/4 of the active chapter members. The early GA will already be a large meeting in Paris, possibly August 26-27, before the beginning of the school year.

      Sharing the idea for an open meeting without referencing the upcoming GA, seems odd.

    13. even after termination of employment, X. is under a duty of loyalty to their employer

      Combined with the combative legal tone of other parts of the letter, this can be read as a threat to current and past employees not to speak up or rock the boat.

    14. this attempt to discriminate

      Telling a disabled [former] member that they are discriminating against you by holding events in another building : Not a good look.

    15. the time spent managing this crisis greatly reduces time spent on the mission

      This is why crisis management is important. However "Let's stop talking about the crisis because it is a distraction" is not a good response.

    16. evidence of embezzlement

      I haven't seen any accusations of embezzlement; just the claim that the proposed endowment fund would indirectly personally benefit the ED. (Unclear how.)

    17. volunteers and employees have made various consultations with experts and potential funders about a possible endowment fund, which are also not confidential

      An endowment can be an excellent idea for an established project or program. Can anyone supply a link to one of these public consultations?

    18. their

      Should read: "our".

    19. No doubt we should have communicated simply and directly to this fact

      A constructive admission; yet not a recognition that this was the wrong thing to do, nor a commitment to do better.

    20. his position as Caroline’s partner being too difficult to sustain, which we respect.

      A strange thing to call this out, when one of the concerns about the Association is that its ED brought on her husband as the other member of the executive team, and her only report.

    21. she made defamatory statements against Nathalie

      It is hard to imagine her defaming anyone. Indication that "defamation" is synonymous with "criticism of any sort" throughout this letter.

    22. we acknowledge the suffering they caused

      This is thoughtful, but neither an apology nor an acceptance of responsibility for the impact of an event run entirely by the chapter.

    23. should have helped

      By all other accounts, that is what they tried to do.

    24. its members

      Are there any (other) chapter members supporting the stance of its Board and management?

    25. the actions of Christophe Henner

      Here things start to really go off the rails.

      Christophe is respected in France and globally, among other things for being sensible and not given to drama. Hence his time as president of WMFr and chair of the WMF board.

    26. we are developing a proposal to create an appropriate forum to discuss discontent

      This sounds nice. Or it would if three paragraphs earlier the same letter hadn't shut down the obvious forum for discussing discontent.

      A public list for WikimediaFR members was set up on July 5 by the members, after the original list mods began blocking certain messages.

    27. Despite the attacks suffered by the board of directors

      This seems to suggest that the Board is doing the members a favor by continuing to function.

    28. Initiation of a procedure to exclude from the association

      One of the chapter's claims to authority includes being open to all community members, and letting anyone who wishes to pay dues vote for the chapter board.

      They are splitting hairs by trying to exclude some people from official membership (with the ability to vote, and access to the internal mailing list) while emphasizing later on that they still support all community projects by wikimedians in France.

    29. Closure of the discussion mailing list

      The chapter's internal mailing list, to which this was posted. The members of the list are the ~350 members of the chapter.

    30. to ensure the integrity of our association

      When your charity's primary goal is ensuring its own integrity, it may have lost its way.

    31. it must be banished from our community

      Without specifics it's hard to distinguish actual concerns around slander from intimidation of critics. But the norm in Wikimedia communities is very strongly in the other direction: allowing strong critique and complaint.

    32. contravenes the rules and values ​​of the Wikimedia movement

      The WMF has politely gone on record suggesting that it is the French chapter leadership's recent actions that threaten community values.

    33. we might incur the outright withdrawal of our chapter agreement if these facts were proven

      That's.... not how the WMF works. Delphine?

      Chapters have gone through much more serious trouble and gotten only support and help recovering from the Foundation. The only chapters whose agreements are not renewed are those with no activity or public updates.

    34. motivations other than the stated arguments explain the decline in FDC funding this year

      This is where the conspiracy theory starts.

      FDC allocations are recommended by a community body, composed of elected community members (most of them also experienced members of various chapters). There is some input to the process from WMF staff, but the community members do the bulk of the work and make the final decisions.

      The WMF Board is presented with the FDC recommendations, spends a short time reviewing them, and has always approved those recommendations without change.

      The FDC is also usually critical of WMF practices -- it holds chapters in the movement to a high standard and offer a similarly critical analysis of the WMF annual plan each year [which the WMF, unlike the chapters, has no obligation to heed and does not always take to heart!].

      So even if someone within the WMF or its Board wished to influence the FDC outcome, there is little mechanism for that to happen. [However some people casually associate FDC recommendations with "the US" and "the WMF" since the funds do come from the Foundation.]

    35. they would have done everything possible to find solutions

      I'm not sure what this means (the referenced email is on a closed list), but from public discussions Z stayed for quite some time after letting people know about the problems, and it was the responses from Nathalie and others, and lack of response in other areas, that made her leave and then quit the Association.

    36. this incident has been instrumentalized by some people at the foundation

      Z. filed a complaint about discrimination, insofar as the event did not live up to its goal of being accessible to the disabled and providing meals for vegetarians (lapses which were only discovered on arrival); and she was made feel unwelcome personally by the facilitator and organizers, after pointing out these issues to them. The WMF looked into this, interviewing some attendees to confirm details.

    37. apart from one refusal

      It seems the biggest issue here was confusing potential attendees: organizing their own separate event as though Z.'s event wasn't happening, and not responding to her correspondence to clear up the matter.

    38. is extremely short

      Not for healthy organizations.

    39. Please add your own annotations if you have context for events referenced here.

    40. high legal fees, translation costs

      There's a story here...

    41. volunteers!

      First deprecation of volunteers. The standard counterpoints apply: appeals to authority are a sign of weakness; a number of the community members in question have a full career of management experience; and the current staff executives are clearly struggling.

    42. discussion on these subjects with the foundation and the other chapters

      The Foundation is sending a small group to visit the chapter in August, to discuss these issues, and also offer financial and operational guidance.

    43. in service to the interactions of Wikimédia France with you

      My translation here is shaky. "au service de la dynamique de Wikimédia France et ce avec vous"

    44. excesses and lies

      .#3.

    45. reestablish truths

      "The contents of this letter are doubleplus true."

    46. which are criminalizable.

      .#9, in case you weren't certain this letter was designed to chill speech. The vagueness about what might be criminal does not seem accidental.

    47. we will very quickly take the necessary legal measures

      .#8: threatening swift legal action.

    48. through their defamatory remarks, harmed the association

      Attack on critics #7: promising removal from the Association [also removing their vote from future elections]. It's unclear what the standard for is here; what sort of criticism would not count as harassment?

    49. The moral violence and excesses of a few

      .#6. A good rabble-rousing quote, if a bit fascist.

    50. acts of denigration that undermine the image of our Association

      .#5. I don't know if this language has legal significance.

    51. The recent consultation

      I don't know what this refers to; it doesn't seem to be in the timeline.

    52. legally objectionable

      Cutting straight to legal threats in the first sentence. This letter was clearly written with input from lawyers, making it all the more damning.

  2. May 2017
  3. Apr 2017
  4. Mar 2017
  5. whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com
    1. one of his

      He wasn't confirmed to HUD yet; so this language seems wrong

  6. whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com
    1. tax returns

      What happened to Chaffetz's comment weeks ago that they want all candidates to have to release a medical&psych profile?

  7. whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com
    1. could take a year or more to bring a new agent on board

      For clarity: start sentence w "It could take a year or more..."

  8. Aug 2016
    1. age = document.querySel

      ok.

    2. This looks great. Does this work for both text and box annotations if you have a subdomain rendering the pdfs?

  9. Jun 2016
  10. Jun 2015
  11. Aug 2013
    1. 410 U.S. 113

      Permalink this to the canonical USC page? which I don't think is/should be this ad-sidebarred version (though it is LII which may indeed be canonical!)

    2. Please donate to keep the law free.

      Good pitch. Make larger, don't hide in the footer

    3. If everyone reading this donated $5, our fundraiser would be over today.

      Nice text :) Not attributed, I see...

    4. ADVERTISE HERE

      Awkward.

    5. Supreme Court ABOUTSEARCHSUBSCRIBELIIBULLETIN PREVIEWS Roe v. Wade (No. 70-18) 314 F.Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part. Syllabus Opinion [ Blackmun ] Concurrence [ Stewart ] Dissent [ Rehnquist ] HTML version PDF version HTML version PDF version HTML version PDF version HTML version PDF version Syllabus SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 410 U.S. 113 Roe v. Wade APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

      Top-matter

    6. the mother's life

      Important distinction. Is there direct precedent?

    7. Decided

      Is 13 months a standard duration?

    8. dissenting opinion
    9. LII sponsor

      This seems a bit odd.

    10. cross-appealed

      Todo: add link

    11. appealed

      Todo: add link

    12. Ninth

      This should be linked as well as the 14th.

    13. All lawyers

      What is this?

    14. attempting

      Defined where?