First, the incidents in question, which we recognize
The suffering they caused at Harmonia was reported neither to
Emeric nor to Nathalie, even though the criticisms related to the management
of this incident were formulated almost exclusively
against them. The rest of the Board and the salaried team can also
testify in a personal capacity (as did Jonathan
Balima, accountant of the association, on the list discussions) that if
Nathalie and / or Emeric had been put in time for
Harmonia's state of distress by herself or another person, they would have
done everything possible to find solutions so that
she could participate peacefully in the activities of the weekend.
Secondly, Pierre-Selim Huard and Caroline Becker, who have since
resigned, and strongly criticized the actions of the Board and the management
during this weekend, were present and should have come to the aid of
Harmonia as soon as they became aware of the situation, if
only by warning the management.
Third, this incident was exploited by some
people at the foundation. In fact, we learned by chance during
a working meeting with Delphine Ménard (our Program Officer
for the annual request for funding from the FDC) that an inquiry into
the harassment of Harmonia by Nathalie had been opened by the
foundation, and that we incur the outright withdrawal of our
chapter agreement if these facts were proven. Not only was the CA
not made aware of this investigation, but on the advice of
Christophe Henner (who is not the role), only Caroline Becker
was interviewed. When we reported to the foundation our surprise
that the testimonies of the various parties were not
collected, and that we asked what official procedure of
the foundation framed this investigation, we learned that it
was finally abandoned. These dysfunctional procedures
show, for us, the desire to fuel a controversy aimed at
to weaken our association, but without real foundation.
In addition, we want to say that Caroline Becker is not a "
whistleblower". She did not reveal any danger to the association and
did not try to solve the problem she knew
during the weekend strategy. On the contrary, she made
defamatory remarks against Nathalie, instead of following a normal,
transparent and framed process. Nor did it warn the rest of the Board
of the risks incurred as a result of this investigation.
Pierre-Selim confirmed in writing that he was not aware
of his partner's testimony or the investigation, and acknowledged that Caroline
could not remain on the Board, given her actions.
He finally resigned, his position as a spouse of
Carolina being too difficult to manage, which we respect.
What we do not accept is her public statements and those
of others who distort reality to make Caroline a
victim of the CA.
In addition, after his resignation, Pierre-Sélim used his
"executive" access to the association's data, even though he no longer had
the right to do so. He used this data to signal to members
that several people had been unsubscribed from the list of
discussions, which did not fail to provoke a new wave
of accusations of censorship and authoritarianism.
However, if the CA did, it is in responsibility. Noting the
excesses on the list despite moderation a priori, he decided
in the first place to withdraw the members of their
dues, as he would have been entitled to do for a long time.
No doubt we should have communicated simply and directly on
this fact, but it is not easy when we are taken
aback by attempts to hurt from members with whom we
were still working in good faith very recently in the CA !
Instrumentalization by other actors
Finally, we express our indignation at the fact
that some very virulent attacks on the CA and the
direction emanate from people who, far from pursuing the ideals
they display, try to hide their real motivations and
their conflicts of interest (paid editing, paid training disguised
as volunteering, attempt to retrieve training requests
coming to the association via OTRS to bill them for his
personal activity , etc.). It is clear that these people are seeking to
disavow the Board and management in hopes of continuing or
resuming these questionable practices.
5. The possible creation of an endowment fund
The ongoing reflection in the Board on the consequent share of
lobbying in the activity of the association (and for more fields
wide than the very purpose of Wikimedia France) has led to the study of the
relevance of an endowment fund that would concern all
stakeholders working for free knowledge.
In fact, although lobbying is
widely supported by our members and the community, it
involves many resources that benefit more than the
community of contributors.
Volunteers and employees have therefore conducted
various consultations with experts about
potential endowments, as well as potential funders, who have nothing confidential about them.
Nevertheless, if the choice to create a fund of
staffing with partners was done, the Board should decide on the
creation of such a structure, inform the GA, and depending on the
structure, vote AG. In the context of diversification
of the funds and while the association is in the process of being recognized
as a public utility (OR), this fund could be an idea to be
explored for the financing of WMFr since it could appeal to the
foundations of 'business.
However, this non-confidential study conducted by employees was
presented in a very ambiguous way by Florence Devouard on the list
discussions, which aroused suspicions among other
members. A second mail from Florence, rejected by the moderators
but published on a parallel discussion list, even evokes "a
suspicion of use of the property of the association, the (good) reputation
of the association, for personal indirect purposes".
We strongly condemn what again is an attempt to put
the CA in trouble by unfounded allegations. We
also reaffirm that if members have evidence of wrongdoing,
they are in a position to transmit it to the
competent authorities ; the rest is just so-called and intimidation.
________________________________
Wikimedia France
40 rue de Cléry
75002 Paris
France
www.wikimedia.com 
)
