Talk:Nano Charter

Support

1. I support the Nano Charter for getting started. -- econterms (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Substantive comments

• In the long run I would like the Movement Charter to acknowledge the importance of open source software/technologies, and say that our movement is committed to following and benefiting from open source practices and principles. Some of my thoughts are here User:Econterms/Movement Charter Input. Needs refinement. But we standardize and specialize and we share our information and tools in free common accessible pools. We built on other people's work. -- econterms (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support the inclusion of free software as a key component of the charter. Free software should be used as much as possible in the communication and management structures of the Global Council, while also continuing its usage for Wikimedia content. While compromises are understandable in some cases, the default should be to use the Fediverse as a priority over GAFAM, BigBlueButton as a priority over Zoom, Matrix rather than Slack, and other well-known alternatives. Any decisions about using non-free software should be temporary compromises needing overt and public justification. Boud (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • For groups not willing to make decisions uniquely using wiki methods, software such as Decidim should be considered; Consul Project is probably too hardwired for WMF and WMF affiliates; there's a huge list of similar decision-making software projects available. We don't want the Wikimedia movement being coopted into using GAFAM and other corporate software on claims of "it works and we need all these features"; avoid becoming dependent on authoritarian software and we'll survive as a free community. My guess is that Decidim looks like the best, reasonably well developed software that would make sense for online non-wiki decision-making - if that's needed. Boud (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Good idea!

I think this is a great idea, and trying to identify points of common ground and agreement is a good place to start. So I thoroughly support the initiative. However, my experience of trying to build consensus around minimal points even within a relatively small group is that it's still a long and process that requires a lot of effort, listening and facilitation. (Also, while I would love to see points around governance and diversity in the nano-charter and the eventual Movement Charter, I do not personally agree with points 1 and 2 which are too specific and proscriptive to have broad consensus... The equivalent statement from the Role and Responsibilities Working Group was created by 11 of us in one room, and it seems likely that including more people in a consensus process will result in things being less specific/prescriptive not more. ) Thanks! Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it is indeed rather more about the concept in general than about the specific points, which could go in all sorts of directions.--Pharos (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice; the shorter the better. –SJ talk  01:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Current list of proposals:

• Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Discuss/Cluster_A#Immediate_steps from User:Ad Huikeshoven
• User:Yair rand/Global Council distribution formula - a proposed distribution formula
• User:Ziko/Global Council proposal
• User:The_Land/Movement_Charter_Input
• Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network/IGC-MC
• Nano Charter by Pharos
• Project wiki representatives
• User:David Wadie Fisher-Freberg/Global Council

Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)