User talk:Sj/Design chats/Charter/en

For an annotated version of the April 2024 charter, including many of the comments below, see here.

Comments on this minimalist draft

• some comments under #from_Sj_-_overloaded.
• comments from TomDotGov and Sm8900 here.
• offline, two requests to invite more people to think about / interate on the examples

---

Background of the current draft

Overview about the charter from 4/4/24

• Updated Charter FAQ: Charter FAQ

Explanatory videos

• MCDC members Ciell and Daria Cybulska explain what the Movement Charter is
• MCDC members Anass and Ciell talk about what the Global Council is
• MCDC member Georges talks about what the Hubs are
• Recording of the MCDC open community call on April 4, 2024

Root cause analysis of why the official draft feels off

This charter-generation process did not feel very collaborative, considering the amount of time we all put into it. But all of the participants are extraordinary contributors, authors, and curators in their own right. Some areas to improve:

• Run an open and inclusive process, w/ open doors. work entirely in public -- especially for this, of all tasks.

• Distribute organization. Don't have a core movement process managed by staff of the largest movement entities. The current talk page is 'monitored' by 4 WMF contractors (and still most comments do not get timely responses. A single metapedian could monitor it as well & w/ more enthusiasm) Some of the in-person processes were run, not just catalyzed, by either WMF or WMDE. Declaring this as the last WM Summit in Berlin is healthy; ensure these sorts of obligations rotate.

• Build trust in one another. A good charter embodies a trust-building exercise, not a tense power-sharing agreement. (we can have those separately if needed)
• Don't bury the lede: name and address hot-button issues. Build trust specifically around resolutions to these.

• Change the power dynamics. Delegate decision-making power. Don't create another advisory body. Clarify that WMF won't just "reassume control for fiduciary reasons". Don't strong-arm people into "either supporting this text or opposing change". [Provide a way to push for change w/o supporting this text.]

• Clarify: Be very clear about what will happen next.
  • Clarify the point of a movement strategy (contra existing 2030 strategy, WMF + WMDE strategies, etc)
  • Clarify the problems solved by a Council, and its purpose in contrast to other global mechanisms

• Speed: Act now - We have a 2030 deadline; this feels late. Don't leave uncertainty that takes years to work out. Do things in parallel.
• Divide and conquer: identify and approve elements with consensus, start acting on them early and often.

Summarized comments from Talk:Movement Charter, on the existing MCDC draft

WMF feedback on the GC (from March, needs to add updates from May)

• How will its decision-making be accountable to key stakeholders (the wider movement, movement financial & volunteer contributors, and the public)?

Comments

• There are few hard boundaries about what is possible -- anything could be, with the right motivation.
• We want to be able to flexibly respond to changes, threats, and challenges in the environment
• Currently plans to continue operating the tech platform; to keep the same WMF legal structure; to steward the brand.
• Currently plans to keep "current principles for banner fundraising" + focus on new revenue streams beyond banners. [ed - like direct donor relations + memberships?]
• Changes to the above are not off the table, but disruptive changes require more consideration and evaluation.

Wishes

• Wants to support greater community leadership in decision-making : specifically in grant-making and technical strategy.
• Wants to transfer leadership in decision-making to a GC:
  • on Fund dissemination -- set allocations, standards, strategies, and policies. Identify metrics, review outcomes. Propose a total grants portion of the WMF budget.
  • on Affiliate recognition and strategy -- strategy for outreach, growth, and capacity building. Amplifying and passing on lessons from FDC work, Grants committee participation, and AffCom.
• Wants to help the GC experiment with a new role in technical advising:
  • Product & Tech input: including progress by community devs, prioritization, identifying strategic problems and issues to incorporate into multi-year plans,
• Wants to see measures of effectiveness and success
  • 1: Effective decisions made for the movement [even if they can't unilaterally be enacted w/o some other body approving them]
  • 2: Smooth operation of the mechanics of council operation + publishing

Research

• We commissioned a summary of affiliate strategy.

  [is this something the community could take over, regularly?]

• Resource allocation frameworks: MS Initiative #27 (2020)

Comments

• FD: Help hold WMF budget accountable to movement priorities + tradeoffs
• Ensure better resourcing for new affiliates to get off the ground
• Improve grantmaking system [fluxx is opaque and exclusive]
• Improve ease of distributing microgrants (strong demand and impact, see Wikimedia CEE Spring )
• Better use of donor data should lead to regional connections and competencies; donor lists, mailing lists, &c.
• Looking for funds elsewhere may require starting capital or expertise [come up with a plan for this]

• Managing affiliates is currently bureaucratic. (how to make this easier?) Claims: "affcom is understaffed" / "affcom is opaque + inefficient"

• Be responsive to comments. "we anticipate engaging and responding to feedback this round" (but how quickly and thoroughly?)

• Note that there should be mandatory mediation / arbitration to resolve conflicts b/t GC and WMF. E.g. where a GC recommendation is not acted on.

• Have shorter terms; yearly or 18 months. 3 years doesn't lend itself to accountability for a young body. You can on-board people before they are voting members of a body, and can select members from those following the process.
• 'donor rights' doesn't make sense. Avoid coining new terms.
• Add 'transparency' as a value, not just as part of decision-making. (process transparency, not just post-hoc reporting)
• over-representation of affiliates: Avoid 'voting' processes that give members of small affiliates effectively a double vote. Add explicit representation of people who work on the operation of our wikis.
• Be careful about overcommitting to a large body with heavy time commitments. It was hard to get 16 eligible candidates for U4C, and 70 for MCDC. What is the minimum we need to get started? Who defines what diversity means in this context?

Context

• What parts of the charter are describing the status quo vs. proposing new governance structures or processes?
• For the new parts, what policy or governance problem is the proposal trying to solve? (add "this section represents a new process..." where appropriate)
• What alternative options were considered for the new structures/processes? What are the advantages or disadvantages of the proposed options?
• How has community input shaped the development and selection of these options?

on Hubs

• The future role of hubs in funds distribution: Funds distribution vision of the CEE Hub. - Philip Kopetzky

Over-representation of affiliates

Which of these are attractive to you?

1. Editors get better representation from WMF/affiliates
2. Editors organize themselves into an affiliate and speak for themselves
3. Editors organize themselves into something other than an affiliate and speak for themselves
4. WMF/affiliates transfer power/money to editors without editors forming an organization

Getting started

The next governance gathering as described in the charter would be a sort of successor to events like Wikimedia Summit 2024, which have been held at this size annually for many years. But with more of a community-centered approach, as the Global Council Assembly will certainly draw from a far wider pool than just affiliates. Pharos (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In practice, I think it will make sense to not choose the whole Global Council Assembly in a single election. Perhaps three or four elections, each a few months apart, would be wise to gradually build up the body. This is not inconsistent with the charter text, but perhaps could be developed more in a doc like Movement Charter/Supplementary Document/Global Council. Pharos (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Define 'equity' in the glossary.
• Indicate how people can be removed from GC
• Specify how GC decisions affect decisions of other entities, what it can decide unilaterally and what requires sign-off by another. [partly social norm, partly intended scope of power, partly legal obligation]

Research:

• Charter analysis by CEE

from Sj - overloaded

In its current form, this draft seems to create more problems than it would address. It expands one of our greatest weaknesses: elaborate exclusive formal bureaucracy. It ignores or suppresses many of our strengths: fast reversible progress, {{sofixit}} and radical participation. It proposes entire new structures and processes by encoding them directly into a charter: a brittle approach. It ignores on-wiki organizations and on-wiki decision making, which is where most of the self-governance of the projects, and thereby the movement, still happens.

— Philosophically, the motivation for a Charter and a global council is in flux in these drafts, diverging somewhat from its strategic origins.

— Narratively, it's not clear how the Charter came to be and what role it would play in the story of our projects. It doesn't cite the documents it builds upon. The main sections are declarative (they declare 'this is how things are'), missing the jubilant heart of our work, its iterative nature, and its impact.

— Rhetorically, it mixes selective statements about the past with assertions about the intended future, without clarifying whose future-intent is captured. It minimizes the role of online wikiprojects in movement organization, focusing on recognized affiliates, already a bottlenecked group.

— Logistically, the draft engages with many complex topics but does not solve any particular problem, perhaps a side effect of the demands of committee-based drafting! It mandates new overhead and creates new problems, with little flexibility. It requires a Council to do multiple hard things at once: onboard 100 people; manage affilates; advise on funds dissemination; compile annual strategy; resolve disputes — each with complex unsolved challenges that have led to past approaches being abandoned.

— Procedurally, proposing such a sea-change document as hard to update, only in "extreme circumstances" by a new body that does not exist yet, is unwise. Given the above, a lengthy ratification process may not be a good use of thousands of hours of community time.

A good charter strengthens consensus and identity. This would not do that. (A 50% consensus document will generally not do that.) It would however tie up 100 active community members in new bureaucracy for years, while adding another consultative layer to the collective Unaccountability Stack™.

---

So what can we do instead? Let's find an alternative that plays to our strengths.

–SJ talk  13:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. This better presents some of the things that I was trying to get at above, particularly the absence of community in the charter. Some have said that is a good thing, as it prevents the community from being dominated by the new Council/affiliates. But it also leaves the people doing the core work of the movement out of the governance structures again. I think I am open to the idea of a Global Council and the bureaucracy involved with that (I don't see any other way than a legislature-like body to finally have meaningful community oversight of the Foundation and its activities, the board seats are not sufficient). But the proposal as-is seems to have many details that need to be ironed out. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. The movement strategy and movement charter processes have been very abnormal in that the processes occurred off-wiki, and it's not clear how these help the mission "to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.", which happens on-wiki. It also seems to ossify 2021-2023 thinking, binding the future. In practice, accountability at the foundation comes from the projects control over the foundation's fundraising, not through a pseudo-legislature. TomDotGov (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

+1, although I'll add some additional thoughts below. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Particularly in regard to your last point, I think we'd welcome alternative ideas about amendment and evolving the charter over time, as obviously you can't get everything right the first time. It would be most helpful to suggest some specific new language on this front, which people can chime in on here. Pharos (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. It's equal parts drivel, superlaw and redundant. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

if the Movement Strategy process was authentic, then they would have utilized the MS Forums more; however they don't utilize those forums at all. Sm8900 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's an alternative that plays to our strengths

• Begin with an accessible, inspiring charter that everyone can edit. Draft in public. Respond actively to comments.
• Describe how the current ecosystem works, and how decisions are made, both on-wiki and off, that guide our collective endeavor.
• Make the initial charter like a style guide: a living document, being continuously refined and contextualized until it feels complete, nuanced, and concise.
• Emphasize self-governance, mutual aid, openness to experimentation and figuring things out together.
• Distinguish descriptive sections (how things work now) from normative sections (here are goals we agree to move towards; here are options to explore; here's how you can help make it happen!)
• Connect each goal to existing needs and processes: illustrate how it improves on current efforts.
• Introduce the Council model on its own page. Start with the simplest form that could possibly work, have it bootstrap itself.
• Make revision easy, ratification lightweight. This makes it less risky to try new things and correct missteps. We can differentiate the latest approved charter from the working draft, while letting everyone get to work on shared goals.
• Only if it makes sense to at some point have a hard-to-change version of the charter, does it need a comparably elaborate ratification process.

–SJ talk  14:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sj, I support your approach on this. Sm8900 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Example goals

A prerequisite for an effective charter is determining its goals. Goals should be illustrated by recent examples that highlight the need for the goal, the scale of work involved in each, how they are currently handled, and how new proposals would interact with current efforts.

• "consistent ways to make certain global community decisions" – (improving on RfCs, complementing committees, replacing one-off working groups)
• "a more efficient option for discussions and decision-making that involves representatives from a cross-section of communities in decisions" – (improving on RfCs; a potential global assembly, embassy network, or Very Large Council)
• "simple, comprehensive community guidance of fundraising and funds dissemination" – (complementing regional community-led grants committees, improving on individual liaising b/t affiliates and WMF)
• "an overview of movement priorities, responsive to a changing environment, that unite the strategic work of wikiprojects, the WMF, and affiliates" – (improving on low-volume talk page feedback on scattered Annual Plans, Strategic Plans, and roadmaps or wishlists of different groups)
• "more streamlined, effective community input into technical changes and deployments" – (improving on scattered village pump discussions)
• "effective resolution of global conflicts without WMF action" – (improving on RfCs and extremely rare steward action)

&c. [Feel free to add more. Parts of the current draft seem arbitrary, without a motivating goal. Some goals do not need a Council to realize them, and have had past attempts to solve them with stand-alone groups or processes that did not last. In those cases, we should specify how a Council or other umbrella could help. But even with Council facilitation or oversight, the bulk of the work could be done by a much broader and more flexible groups of participants than 'sporadically elected Council members'.]

---

• stay fluid until the outline is clear, and the framing is clear (what and who it is for, what other options were considered, similar documents and their uses in the wild0. then once the question is only specific wording within a known frame, it can become more fixed and less fluid.
• treat the questions of prioritization, resourcing, and planning as iterative challenges that we should work on every year. be flexible and responsive. don't paint ourselves into a particular mode of execution before we have an effective approach.

from Chris K

• Responsibilities: movement groups have a responsibility to steward resources they hold, including the local reputation and image of the movement and management of funds and other resources. Be clear that a responsibilities list is non-exhaustive.
• The supplementary Future Affiliate Landscape is more thoughtful about the movement shape. Simply say the Council will dfine the types of movement orgs, with the current list of orgs in a footnote (make clear that in the future this will be non-exhaustive)
• Regarding administering movement orgs: is this just pversight, or active promotion of development and growth? [what's the movement shape we are moving towards if all desired orgs existed?]
• Does there need to be a single global [aff]committee, rather than perhaps regional oversight? Don't overspecify here.
• Flesh out shared responsibilities for revenue generation as a supplementary doc.
• Resourcing: clarify that the GC both advises on overall budget allocated and coordinates allocation, if that is the intent.
• Accountability: who is each kind of body accountable to? [especially: the GC, the WMF, the communities]
• Values: rename 'fairness' to 'integrity'.
• Principles of decision making: make this part of the charter [or referenced explicitly] as it clarifies expectations of decision-makers.
• Council: provide rational for the size proposed.
• Council: who determines the initial selection process?
  • see Implementation of the Movement Charter. Please comment there if you think it is a good idea that the current MCDC takes this job after ratification ot the charter. --Ad Huikeshoven

from Mdaniels5757

• require a support level of 65-80%
• affiliates shouldn't have a separate vote.
• hard to ratify a charter when the election process at Global Council Membership Policy is incomplete.
  • What projects are represented, how are people selected from each? is this election or delegation? is it proportional to the % of active editors? projects with similar interests could be grouped together until large enough to have 1-3 seats. Each project could select their own representative. I would not support an approach that is not proportional (to within, say, ~10%).
  • Affiliates should not have separate membership; that would also create issues with them voting on their own funding. Members from on-wiki communities may be in better position to make hard decisions re: allocation of funds between affiliates and technical work
  • General global membership: This can be balanced in part by focusing on project activity; and not having at-large elections by the entire global community. I'd be open to limited representation for cross-wiki projects (e.g. Meta, Commons, Wikidata, Mediawiki).

from Wiki Movimento Brasil à Carta do Movimento

Em nome do Wiki Movimento Brasil, JPeschanski (WMB) (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Our participation in the Movement Charter review process aligns with the Wiki Movimento Brasil Strategic Planning for 2023-2025, particularly axes 1 and 5, respectively, "Reimagining the sociotechnical infrastructure of the Wikimedia Movement" and "Strengthening and directing governance networks in the Wikimedia Movement".

• Values: add a commitment to multilingualism, in Inclusivity.
• Values: add a commitment to supporting non-hegemonic worldviews and forms of knowledge, including indigenous knowledge
• Council: include the WMF as one of the movement bodies. make this fundamentally participatory, based on trust and mutualism. Giving the WMF an exceptional position weakens the commitment to work together and inhibits greater connection, which will give all bodies more legitimacy.
• Technology Committee: make this deliberative, not just advisory, including assessing (and approving) a plan for sociotechnical infrastructure of the movement. See the Global South Technology Survey recommendation of including audiences normally less present in tech decision-making.
• Council: add referendums.
• Council: add bottom-up planning from communities, transmitted through hubs to a council
• Council: avoid individual election, which generates wear and tear. Have slates, delegations, or non-electoral appointment (random selection combined with skill-based appointment)
• Resources: include the WMF budget for feedback and accountability, especially in ares designated as community resources. Making foundation decision making permeable to the collective intelligence of our movement will improve trust and strategic alignment.

from Wikimedistas de Uruguay

Notes from Wikimedians of Uruguay around the movement's charter

1. We appreciate the work of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. We understand that many years and complex global circumstances passed since the Charter Drafting Committee was elected in 2019, and agreeing on different drafts and processes has not been an easy task.
2. However, from Wikimedistas de Uruguay, we understand that this process has not produced a good result. We found serious deficiencies in the wording, logic and structure of the Charter, as well as in the wording of values and definitions. Below we list some examples, but we clarify that the list is not exhaustive.
3. There is a constant mix between strategic and operational levels. It is necessary to separate what is the Charter, the Regulations and Other Regulations (such as friendly spaces policies, the Universal Code of Conduct, or similar codes).
4. The Charter should follow a clear logic, containing the following elements:
   1. Mission - Vision - Values
   2. Organization and governance structure (community, volunteers, affiliates, foundation and decision-making mechanisms).
5. No evidence or documentation is provided to support the proposals related to governance levels. We believe that the Drafting Committee should make an effort to look at the Statutes of other organizations. For example, we suggest reviewing the Statute of Amnesty International or examples of trade union organizations, such as the Trade Union Council of the Americas. The movement needs to learn from similar and/or aligned movements whose accumulated experience can make significant contributions to our movement.
6. Regarding the composition of the GCA and the GCB, first of all, we believe that it starts from a conceptual error regarding the role that organizations and institutional structures play in the movement. We understand the tensions that often exist between professional organizational structures and people who voluntarily donate their time to collaborate on Wikimedia platforms or lead initiatives outside of them, but that tension is not resolved by delegating strategic planning and resource allocation to volunteers. This proposal does not recognize the differentiated but supplementary roles of volunteers, political leadership and executive professionals; it deepens structural inequities, and does not solve the problem of appropriateness and subsidiarity in decision making.
7. Related to the previous point, there is a persistent conflation in the charter between the Wikimedia platforms, the Wikimedia movement, and the organizations that implement the Wikimedia movement's strategy. We believe that the Wikimedia projects will continue to operate under a self-governance mode (under regulations such as the Code of Conduct), regardless of the movement's governance. The work of the movement and its organizations encompasses much more than platforms, and movement governance needs to be able to balance these two priorities. The two levels cannot be addressed and combined in the same Charter.
8. We believe that the composition of the GCA and the GCB does not solve fundamental structural problems nor does it guarantee equity in decision-making. In particular, we consider the following points:

1. It is unclear why there should be a minimum number of 100 and a maximum number of 150 GCA members. As it appears in the documentation, this number is arbitrary.
2. The three-year term of office is unjustified, and demands an excessive commitment from those who want to run for office.
3. There are no clear criteria or affirmative actions to ensure fairness and diversity in the composition of the GCB and the GCA.
4. We believe that, contrary to the current proposal, every active affiliate of the Wikimedia Movement should have a representative on the GCA (the definition of "active affiliate" should be adjusted to the AffCom proposed readjustment criteria). These representations must also ensure that there is a balanced participation by region, prioritizing affiliates that respond to geographic criteria and representation of underrepresented populations. Otherwise, the inequities already existing within the Wikimedia movement will be reproduced and deepened.
   1. The representative should be either the executive officers (or the highest appropriate position if the member does not hold such a position), or the chair of the board of directors (or the highest appropriate position in similar voluntary bodies such as advisory councils), or both, with the roles alternating on an annual basis.
   2. The affiliate representative should be able to have a delegation at meetings, including the executive leadership, the chair and one other member of the board of directors or the political leadership of the organization, to ensure leadership renewal.
5. The proposition that the BCG can only be composed of people with no relationship of any kind with the affiliate (whether political or executive) is a limitation for strategic planning and execution, which does not guarantee suitability in decision making and only results in a deepening of structural inequalities (only those with a secure livelihood can participate in decision making). In several regions, including Latin America, this would result in us not having the capacity to participate in GCB instances.
6. The proposal that decisions must be approved by absolute majority within the GCA does not contemplate good governance practices (as not all issues are equally important to require an absolute majority), and will severely limit the decision-making capacity of the GCA, ultimately delegating everything to the GCB to execute decisions.
7. Finally, we are seriously concerned that an entire global governance structure is proposed to rest on volunteers, in a context where affiliates and the movement in general are finding it increasingly difficult to fill critical maintenance tasks with volunteers (roles such as stewards, admins, librarians, and others within the platforms; and governance roles such as regional fund committees, among others, that remain vacant for months at a time).

1. We believe that the Movement Charter does not resolve or contain a clear transition plan with respect to the currently existing committees that resolve Wikimedia Movement affiliations (AffCom) and decide on the allocation of resources (the Regional Fund Distribution Committees).
2. From previous experiences, we believe that the percentage of resources on which the GCA and GCB should make decisions should be defined. It is also necessary to define the structure in terms of campaigns, fundraising, technology and resource allocation, in particular, how this structure will be in dialogue with the Wikimedia Foundation. It is a difficult balance to strike between the flexibility that a charter needs and the clarity that a governance structure needs, but the current ambiguity in the charter on these points needs to be resolved.
3. From Wikimedistas de Uruguay, we believe that the definition of "Values" needs significant improvements in the wording of the definitions. Many of these aspects merit deeper philosophical discussions that should not take place in the context of this Charter, whose objective should be the operational definition of governance issues of the global movement. While it is important to agree on values, we believe that a simple enumeration within the Charter is sufficient. However, by way of example, we provide below a number of sample wording problems (we clarify that this is not an exhaustive list):
   1. The definition of "volunteer persons" as the minimum unit of the movement. From Wikimedistas de Uruguay, we believe that it is the communities (linguistic, geographic, affinity) that define the identity of the movement, but the emphasis on "volunteer people" deepens individualistic notions that lead to toxic and unhealthy behaviors within the communities.  
   2. In the definition of "free knowledge", it is mentioned that "The Wikimedia Movement uses open licenses". The "use of open licenses" is not a value or a principle, it is the application of a purposeful tool to a goal. In this case, the conviction of the Wikimedia movement is around the philosophical principles of free knowledge: we believe that anyone has the right to access, improve, collaborate, build, share, redistribute and reuse knowledge for any purpose, for which we use open licenses for the knowledge we produce in the framework of our movement (among many other things the movement does to ensure this principle, such as promoting other institutions to use open licenses; here we see again the confusion between what is done on Wikimedia platforms and what we affiliates do). In this sense, we also believe that it is time for the movement to echo more recent discussions in the context of the free and open movement regarding ethical limitations to the principles of free knowledge, such as, for example, respect for the customary law and self-determination of sovereignty over the knowledge of communities and indigenous peoples, whose wishes not to publish certain knowledge and/or information should be respected.
   3. The "resilience" section does not define values, but rather work methodologies.

We value the work of the Drafting Committee, but we believe that the product resulting from that work is not yet in line with what the movement needs. We suggest the following measures:

• Recently, in March 2024, we learned that people from Latin America resigned at different instances of the process. In view of the fact that the Drafting Committee did not have the constant presence of people from Latin America, this absence should be remedied immediately and new people from Latin America should be incorporated for the final drafting of the Movement's Charter.
• The scope of application of the Charter must be clarified.
• The Drafting Committee should have instances of tallereo with specialists in drafting that significantly improve the form and substance of this document, in addition to legal assistance as appropriate.
• The Drafting Committee should look to documents from other organizations to serve as a basis and inspiration for the Movement's Charter, seeking to learn from the accumulated experiences of organizations with more than sixty years in the human rights movement and other similar movements.
• We are concerned about the current diversity of the Drafting Committee, and find that it would be important to address the conceptual, structural and drafting errors currently contained in the Charter. We suggest that the possibility of expanding and/or revising the constitution of the current Drafting Committee be evaluated to better reflect the overall diversity and needs of the movement.

• This should require at least 66% approval, as it affects the life and governance of the membership.

from Wikimedia Colombia

addressing disparity of conditions for participation, representation and contribution

• WMCO requests setting up differential monetary recognition mechanisms for participation in representation and governance
• peer training needed to support participation
• WMCO requests regulatory mechanisms to guarantee these values of diversity, inclusion and equity, overcoming barriers to participation
• Better transparency mechanisms contribute to trust and inclusion, and allows marginal voices to be heard. An external control body that evaluates decisions of the council based on impact in contributing communities, could offer inputs to future decisions.

from WikiCon Portugal 2024

Requested improvements and corrections:

Clarify

• This describes the 'what' but not the 'how'. It's hard to connect this to daily on-wiki work.
• Make objectives and scope clear in the intro, including whether the charter intends to address 'how', and a summary of each section + its purpose.
• Add diagrams to highlight relationships between participants and current processes. One for each new body created or modified, one for each responsibility shifting from one entity to another.
• Add summary banners ('in a nutshell') for each section
• Add a footnote clarifying that where the current text talks about the future ("will establish", "will form"), this will be updated once those bodies or processes are established to reflect the present tense.

Specify

• This doesn't address the roles, responsibilities, and relationships b/t current structures in the Wikimedia ecosystem, leaving room for doubt about centralization of power, and for imstrust.
• Include GLAM partners, free software organizations, and other community bodies.
• Describe the relation between the current affiliate recognition system and resource distribution. How are individuals, partners, non-recognized bodies supported?
• Specify options for how we manage & run a delegated funds dissemination process (with what staff, hosted where, internal vs external) - to ensure effectiveness, mission alignment
• Currently accepted values are still absent in many spaces today, including welcoming new contributors. How can a charter address this?
• How would local and global conflict resolution interact? (arbcoms, u4c, independent arbitration)

Other comments

• Do we need a charter? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. - ManOfDirt, JayCubby

• What is "metric-based evidence” and how is it ensured?
• How do donor rights and financial interest of the movement align w/ the community vision?
• Can “subsidiarity and self-organization” and “accountability” be conflicting? How can we ensure proper balance? -User:Brahmavadini
• Doesn't a tech committee already exist? How does this differ from current frameworks / address their failings?
• Is affiliate recognition the only criteria to get recognized as a Wikimedia Movement Organization? What about orgs that can't get affiliation b/c there is overlap? Or orgs that don't want to become formal affiliates?

• Simplify: how would a general editor interact w/ the GC? aren't we complicating resource allocation w/ more bureaucracy?!
• Who determines "mission-aligned partners"? Is that a formal designation?
• Gratitude and recognition form the core of any human collaboration. Reimbursement, support, and recognition should be a mandatory default.
• Amendments (once a charter is finalized): how long should these take? Are they evaluated on a regular schedule?
• The charter draft seems to assume that editors are familiar with the Wikimedia Movement. Can this be checked via survey? [maybe more outreach + lead-up about this is needed before a charter makes sense]
• What is meant by a an open review process of the individual Wikimedia project? And what is meant by providing truthful and honest information about the project’s state of governance?

• Econterms -- In the Hubs page, clarify that they can bring in revenue from "grants, memberships, donations, sales, investments, interest, or contracts (work for hire)." (+1)
• phoebe -- What will be lost if we ask 100 active editors to spend time doing this? Ensure this is lightweight and efficient, not bureaucracy for its own sake. (+1)

from Schiste

• Be wary of the word 'harmonious'
• Ensure the Tech committee isn't a substitute for existing WMF discussions with community, [but a group whose input is guaranteed to be taken seriously and addressed]. Should not widen the disconnect b/t product teams and communities.
• "All Wikimedia Foundation grantmaking activities to the communities and Movement Organizations can be delegated to the Global Council."
• [On the GC page]
  • let the GCA apoint external board members
  • "ensure a Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan is created, discussed, updated and maintained" [or an overview of plans?]
  • propose options for the GC Board and Assembly structure, not just overall size
• Describe a commitment to support the GC : what level of commitment is needed? [should be supported by WMF and movement at large]

For handling grants, some ratio of staff to $$ disbursed? e.g. 1 full-time-equivalent staff member per $5M in annual grants? --> 4 staff at current levels

Could some of this be seconded from WMF?

• Describe how actual responsibility will be transferred from WMF to a GC. not just operational management and advisory roles. [the WMF comment at the top of this talk page indicates a desire to transfer real responsibility, not captured in the Charter]

from NDEC WERT

(via Ifteebd10)

1. Start by repurposing existing governance: The new charter depicts a new highly glorified bureaucracy, which volunteer contributors typically do not favor. Address real problems, don't widen the gap b/t most contributors and bureaucrats. Similarly: Initiative 24 intended to codify existing movement governance, whereas this proposes new governance. Instead, restructure existing governance entities and address current systemic flaws.

   Ifteebd10 -- Please give examples of restructuring existing entities! I see the regional grants committees and AffCom, which presumably will continue for now.

2. Be lightweight: Collaborating on-wikiis much easier / more flexible than contributing to a movement committee. Can we secure the unprecedented level of free volunteer hours needed to sustain such a bureaucracy? Minimize distractions so that contributors can focus on the main goal: building the sum of all human knowledge.

   How could we begin with on-wiki collaboration, in a way that minimizes distraction and keeps demands light?

3. A council needs strong community support. Can it be done without staff? If staff: where do they come from? From WMF, which is already shutting down such teams? From a new council budget?
4. Privileging existing organizations if there is overlap (in theme or region) can entrench current biases. Find a way that supports inclusion of new groups if they are not welcome within existing affiliates.
5. Include other types of organizations and community representation, including on-wiki organizations and prolific unaffiliated contributors, in these discussions and decision-making. See also movement charter ambassador program 2022 report, under Roles and Responsibilities.
6. Some regions can't receive resources at all, for legal or policy reasons. These are often highly underrepresented and in need of support. Make a detailed roadmap to address this disparity.

from Wikiesfera

• distinguish b/t strategic and operational levels in the charter.
• describe how staff can support this governing body
• identify how existing committees and process would work w/ the new system
• reimburse participants for costs of participating in governance
• clarify what problems a GC would solve, how it would be accountable to Projects and other groups
• require a supermajority. (66% - Wikiesfera. 75% - wow. same for ratif + amendment. )

Related research and links

Global Majority Wikimedia Technology Priorities

10 priorities for WM tech infrastructure - including a comment about a Tech Council (via JPeschanski)