Talk:Movement roles/Charter

Purpose of this Wikimedia movement charter

Two thoughts that struck me on this section:

• Even though the charter specifies the roles of entities and organizations within the movement, how can we acknowledge the role of individuals in the movement (so that we are not saying they are absent from the movement)?

1. Perhaps we can concisely say this is meant to clarify principles of the entire movement, as they apply to the work of organizations and formal entities. So all individuals and supporters of the movement should be comfortable supporting the charter, but that explains its language and focus.

• Do we want entities to sign on to this document? Or endorse? If so, how? Should we specify this up front? In other words, do we want to make it more purposive? "By signing on to/endorsing this charter....blah blah..." Bishdatta 07:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  Good question. looking at what other charters do, some simply have first-person plural language, and then a separate list of signatures/endorsements. I would want groups like chapcom [and an affcom] to endorse the final language and add it to their criteria of what it means for an upcoming formal group to be aligned with our movement goals, which would be a practical step beyond signing. –SJ talk | translate   09:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

accountability

• accountability text should be more detailed, longer; include text from the bullet points below
• "every person", not "every wikimedian"?
• "priorities" seem a little random. There are other priorities surely.

-- phoebe | talk 11:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• p.s. no footnotes in a charter! phoebe | talk 12:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration and decision making

This paragraph doesn't cover any kind of decision making with the exeption of movement goals and priorities. Rights and obligations are not defined but described with an example. Maybe we should consider to rethink the purpose of this section and concentrate on what is really necessary for the parts of the movement to work together. lyzzy 08:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

the name

I find the term "the Wikimedia movement" arrogant and pompous. To me a movement is something much larger than a governed entity. It includes a wide range of other persons and entities whose relationship with Wikimedia is informal, collateral or simple casual support. The teacher who supports the use of Wikimedia in the classroom is part of that movement whether or not she is known to us. That connection may be only in the mind of its participants, and not subject to any documentary restrictions whatsoever. Why not simply use "Wikimedia" as a collective plural noun, with each entity under that formal umbrella, including projects, chapters and others, simply a "Wikimedium"? Eclecticology 10:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The movement is just what you describe - governed entities are a small part of it. You are right that some parts of the charter might not apply to some entities in the movement, from individuals to organizations. Are you suggesting that the charter should simply be named a 'Wikimedia Charter'? That sounds like a good idea. –SJ talk | translate   10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. In the text "movement" could be limited to those situations where the bigger idea is intended. Eclecticology 20:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Priorities

The first priority should include supportive individuals.

The third priority should give weight to the work of other informal who are a part of the movement with a direct association with Wikimedia. Eclecticology 10:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Shared principles

Again, this muddles movement and structure. Non-discrimination, etc. are clearly broad movement principle, but the following sentence presumes to control who can have these principles. Eclecticology 04:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Shared values

"All Wikimedia groups share the same values: freedom, accessibility and quality, independence, commitment to openness and diversity, transparency, and community." Why are some values enunciated with the qualifier 'commitment to'? The values are openness, diversity, etc, not 'commitment to' these. Also, these are good values in general, but what do they mean or translate into in the context of this movement? For instance, what does freedom mean in the context of wikip/media? And is the value 'access' or 'accessibility', which has different connotations, and is often used in the context of people with disabilities? Bishdatta 16:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, since changed. –SJ talk | translate  

Wikimedia groups?

Hello, I am sorry to say that the current text is far from being mature. It is overloaden with ambiguous words like "multi-culturalism" or "accessibility", and I couldn't say what they mean in the specific context.

I am especially worried about definitions with regard to the movement. There is no definition of the movement. I often read "we" and don't know who that is, the whole movement or a "we" as one of the "Wikimedia groups" ("we" accountable to "the rest of the movement", "we" in harmony with other groups). Above all, what is a "Wikimedia group"? And we come to learn that there are formal and "other" groups, so what does that mean? Are we going to introduce those groups, and who is deciding that?

In general, I find the text little comprehensive and little inspiring. It is a language not easy to understand, because of the words chosen, because of the construction of the sentences, because of the level of abstraction. "Movement-wide goals, strategy and priorities are determined collaboratively." Why not make it more vivid, like: "We decide together about the goals of the whole movement, about the way to these goals, and about what we find most important." (Again, who is the "we", and does this mean that these decisions must be made totally unanimously?) Please don't forget that this is a text for a global movement with many people for whom English is not the first language. --Ziko 10:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ziko, it definitely needs to be made inspiring to make it effective and readable. Keep the suggestions coming... There used to be a detailed description of various Wikimedia groups; perhaps we should add link to such a list of groups (from the first draft page). –SJ talk | translate  

English is my first language and I had difficulties with parts of it. It needs some serious copy-editing. There are places where I'm sure some punctuation is intended, but currently one bit just flows into the next and makes no sense. I would copy-edit it myself, but it would be better if someone that knows what they intended it to say does that. --Tango 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Tango - be bold! This is only a draft. –SJ talk | translate   16:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

INGO Accountability Charter

Hi. Could someone expand on, or point towards discussion about, why the INGO Accountability Charter is mentioned here, and what the implications of endorsing it are? In particular - presumably there are a number of different organisations offering similar accountability charters, which will be appropriate for different locations and cultures. Why is this specific one mentioned here? Is there the expectation that all Wikimedia groups/chapters/organisations would join INGO (at the cost of $300 each per year) to show their endorsement of the charter? Or could that charter be integrated into this charter as appropriate? Thanks. Mike Peel 20:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to simply incorporate the parts of the INGO charter that we like into our own, rather than include them by reference. The charter ought to be a self-contained document. --Tango 21:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a place holder, agreed this should be self-contained. There may still be a few points from the INGO example worth including. –SJ talk | translate   16:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration and Decision Making

I'm rather confused by this section, to be honest. First it says that "groups work together without assuming a hierarchy" - and then it starts talking about the WMF essentially being the hierarchy? It also seems to only talk about the WMF in specifics, and all other groups solely in generalities? If it's going to talk about the roles of a specific type of organisation - then it should do so for all of the types of organisations that will be expected to sign the charter. Basically, this section appears to only be half-finished at the current time... Mike Peel 20:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm also concerned by this part. The WMF board is not the Supreme Court of Wikimedia. According the the page history, it was there during the discussion at Wikimania that I participated in, but I guess we never got down to the bottom because I don't remember it being discussed and I'm sure I would have objected to it if I had noticed it was there! If someone wishes to call for a group's official status to be revoked, then they need to go to the WMF as the trademark owner, but for anything less drastic than that the WMF board has no authority at all. --Tango 21:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, still unfinished. I've never been comfortable about that section, particularly the parts about the WMF; there's something more to be said about the role of focused governance bodies in community discussions, but I'm not sure what it is. Anything that is unclear among us and that we have to clarify for ourselves over time isn't suitable for an initial charter. (For clarity: from the earlier MR discussions, I think the Wikimedia trustees were non-plussed by this language, and I don't think any of us used this language; it came from others in group discussion. There is a wide variance in how people see the the Foundation and Chapters and their role in community or movement decision-making.) I've simplified the section a bit; the last sentence should still apply. –SJ talk | translate   16:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is necessary? --lyzzy 16:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A new start?

Hello, how about this: the authors of the draft have a look at this talk page, and rewrite the text accordingly. Otherwise, a new group is given the task to come up with a new text. Maybe the problem is that the underlying purpose of the text is still not clear enough.--Ziko 20:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Shared accountability

This section ends with some obligations to the group ("Every Wikimedia group should report its self-assessment annually. ...") and that isn't adequate to what the charter should be. Namely a paper of self-committment and therefore written in the first person perspective. Descriptive sentences should only be describing not regulating. That's the same for most in the section "Collaboration and Decision Making". Before trying to reword it, I would like to hear some opinions about the necessity of these parts. --lyzzy 16:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree in that this sentence would be better rephrased like "We commit ourselves in reporting our self-assessments annually and if we are formally recognized by Wikimedia movement to abide by accountability standards to provide reporting to meet these standards" or some similar.

Regarding the need of these parts I think they develop a value that I think it is of most importance: "We are a community-based organization" so being accountable to each other and being commited to work and make decisions together is what diference us from hierachical and centralized organizations and from anarchic groups.

--Gomà 00:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback and questions from the October Board Meeting

Here is a short feedback from Bishakha (copied with her permission from a private mail) in addition to Foundation:Minutes/2011-10-07:

Some broader questions about the focus of a charter, since there wasn't enough time to go into the substance of it:

• How specific does a charter need to be in order to be useful?
• Is something that is very general useful enough?
• How can one strike a balance between stating general principles and ensuring they are worded tightly enough to mean something substantial?
• How long should a charter be? While most trustees felt this should be tight and concise, similar to what's being developed, a minority were in favour of a much longer charter. (it was noted that some things known as -charters- were short statements of principles, whereas others were detailed documents of up to 100 pages.)
• How will entities in the movement signal their acceptance of the charter?

I think it's worth to spend some thoughts on it and discuss it here. --lyzzy 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts:

• A short statement of principles should be clear enough to establish shared identity and focus. A long charter is different, and can be more like shared bylaws or policies, including definitions of how to resolve divergence and disputes. I think we want to start with the former.
• A statement of principles should be concise. Over 5 years we may develop a long-form charter.
• The WMF should formally recognize and accept it. Chapters and partner orgs could accept a shared statement of principles when renewing chapter agreements, or in their own mission statements.

--Sj 20:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)