ESEAP 컨퍼런스 2022/보고서/허브 세션에 대한 커뮤니티 참여 설문 조사 분석

This page is a translated version of the page ESEAP Conference 2022/Report/Analysis of the Community Engagement Survey for the Hub Sessions and the translation is 96% complete.

Outdated translations are marked like this.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

“운동 전략 및 거버넌스 팀, 위키미디어 재단에서 작성”

실행 요약

위키미디어 운동의 동, 동남아시아 및 태평양(ESEAP) 지역에는 비공식 지역 협력인 ESEAP 지역 협력이 오랫동안 존재해 왔습니다. ESEAP 컨퍼런스 2022에 앞서 이 지역 협력에 대한 지속적인 논의를 지원하기 위해 커뮤니티 참여 설문조사를 실시했습니다. 다음은 이 설문 조사의 주요 결과 및 결과입니다.

ESEAP의 정의에 대한 공통된 이해에 도달하는 것은 이 지역 협력의 주요 이해 관계자와 지리적 범위를 식별하는 데 중요한 것으로 취급되어 설문 조사의 일부로 포함되었습니다. 동아시아와 동남아시아 국가들이 이 정의에 포함되어야 한다는 일반적인 합의가 있으며, 이는 2014년 이 비공식 협력의 초기 구성에 해당합니다. 태평양 편입에 대한 견해는 다양하며, 문화적 차이가 두드러진 이유입니다.

위키미디어 운동의 다양한 행위자와 관련하여 ESEAP 가맹단체는 협력을 추진하기 위한 이해관계자로 널리 받아들여지고 있으며, 프로젝트 기반 커뮤니티와 언어 및 비언어 프로젝트의 구성원이 일부 언급되었습니다. 또한 위키미디어 재단뿐만 아니라 활동적인 개인과 오랜 기여자도 확인되었습니다. 외부 이해관계자에 대한 견해는 다양합니다.

응답자들은 지역 협력이 다음을 목표로 해야 한다고 생각합니다:

모든 지식에 대한 접근 가능한 무료 정보 제공
기술 및 운영 서비스 제공
ESEAP의 언어 다양성 요구 사항 충족
지식 격차 연결 및 연결
아이디어 및 전문 지식 공유
다양한 이해관계자 간의 지역 내 커뮤니케이션 강화
ESEAP 관련 이슈에 대한 긴밀한 협업 촉진
자금이 부족하고 조직화되지 않은 커뮤니티 및 가맹단체가 없는 커뮤니티를 지원하는 것을 포함하여 지역의 성장을 지원하고 역량을 강화합니다.

확인된 지역 내 협업의 우선순위 영역은 "리소스 촉진(재정 및 인적 자원 모두)", "글로벌 토론에서 ESEAP 대표", "지역 전체의 기술 개발", "지역 파트너십 개발" 및 "지역 행사 및 활동"였습니다.

응답자들은 다양한 측면과 관련된 기존 문제를 보았습니다. 언어 장벽, 영어 중심, 문화적 차이는 의사소통 및 조정 문제이며 소외된 그룹의 제한된 정보입니다. 시간대 비호환성, 다양한 규모의 그룹, 자원봉사자에 대한 과도한 의존도, 배타적인 경향이 확인된 참여 및 행동 문제였습니다. 재정, 행정, 물류 분야에서는 자원과 지원 부족이 공통된 감정이었습니다. 또한 합의된 거버넌스 구조의 부재, 내부의 활성화된 핵심 팀 및 정관, 지역의 다양한 법적 프레임워크, 외부 이해관계자와 관계를 맺는 법인체 부족 등 법적 및 거버넌스 문제도 있습니다.

위에서 언급한 과제를 해결하기 위해 원칙적으로 응답자들은 의사 결정에서 ESEAP 커뮤니티의 자율성, 허브가 회원의 지원 요청을 적극적으로 수신할 수 있는 허브, 문화적 차이를 해결하기 위한 긍정적인 연결에 초점을 맞추도록 요청했습니다. 지역 전체의 커뮤니케이션과 참여를 지원하는 인프라를 포함하여 포괄적인 허브 구조의 초안 작성을 지원하기 위한 대표 운영 위원회를 설립하기를 희망했습니다. 또한 용량 제한을 해결하기 위해 자체 직원을 두는 요청이 있었고 위키미디어 재단의 지속적인 재정 지원도 요청되었습니다. 일부 응답자는 5년 동안의 문제가 변화하거나 불분명하다고 생각합니다. 그 이유는 의사 결정 구조의 명확성 부족, 위키미디어 재단을 통한 리소스 및 의사 결정의 중앙 집중화, 재단 팀이 설정한 우선 순위 때문입니다.

지역 협력의 목표와 전략에 대한 공감대 형성에 대해서는 형식에 초점을 맞춰 제한된 기간 동안 리더십 그룹 구성을 제안하고, ESEAP 2022 컨퍼런스를 의사 결정의 장으로 만들고, 의사 결정 시스템을 구축하고, 회의 및 상담을 진행합니다. 다른 한편에서는 지역의 목표와 전략, ESEAP 허브의 기능과 역할을 포함하여 합의의 본질과 내용에 중점을 두었습니다. 일부는 절차와 단계, 합의에 도달하는 시기에 대해 각각 논평했으며, 글로벌 협의회(Global Council)가 하나의 요인으로 간주되었습니다. 응답자들은 언어나 표현 스타일에 관계없이 공평한 참여의 중요성을 언급했으며, 다양한 채널을 통해 추가 논의를 요청했으며, 메타에서 결정에 동의했습니다.

ESEAP 의사 결정의 형평성 보장에 대한 제안에는 여러 국가, 가맹단체 및 위원회의 적극적인 참가자의 대표를 확보하고 임명 또는 지명을 안내하는 대표 프로필 개발이 포함됩니다. ESEAP 지역 협의회 또는 유사한 하위 지역 구조, 운영 위원회, 체계적인 의사 결정 방법 수립, 대화 촉진을 위한 직원 지원 등 구조에 초점을 맞춘 제안도 있었습니다. 응답자들은 정기모임, 대면활동, 상담, 교육 등의 활동에도 열심이었다.

글로벌 의사 결정 또는 참여에서 공평한 지역 대표를 달성하는 데 도움이 되는 ESEAP 지역 협력과 관련하여 ESEAP 지역 협력의 역할에 초점을 맞춘 제안 - 서로 다른 이해 관계자 간의 다리 역할, 회의 촉진 및 참가자 식별, 좋은 성과 보장 지역의. 또한 적절한 시간대와 요일에 정기적인 모임과 회의를 강조했습니다. 응답자들은 또한 글로벌 수준의 참여를 위해 ESEAP에 할당된 적절한 할당량을 보장하고 공평한 지리적 분포가 필요한지 여부를 결정하기 위해 모든 상설 위키미디어 위원회에 대한 감사를 수행하는 등 다른 사람들의 조치를 촉구했습니다.

허브 세션에 대한 제안 중 일부는 허브의 구조와 요구 사항, 다른 이해 관계자와의 관계, 대표성 및 허브가 운영에 중점을 두어야 하는 사항에 대해 언급했습니다. 참가자들이 토론에 참여할 수 있도록 허브 세션이 시작될 때 이유와 함께 제안이 제시되었습니다.

배경

지역 및 주제별 허브는 의사 결정에서 형평성을 보장하라는 권고에 따른 운동 전략 이니셔티브입니다. 허브는 전략적 논의를 위해 ESEAP 컨퍼런스 2022의 의제에서 높은 우선 순위로 식별된 영역이기도 합니다. 비공식적 협력 그룹에서 운동 전략 권장 사항과 일치하는 보다 공식적인 구조로 이동하기 위한 ESEAP 지역 협력의 필요성을 인정하고, 위키미디어 재단의 운동 전략 거버넌스(MSG) 팀은 ESEAP 커뮤니티가 허브 거버넌스 논의를 더욱 발전시키고 다음 이정표를 달성할 수 있도록 지원하고자 합니다. 컨퍼런스 조직팀과 협의 후 MSG팀은 세션 제안서를 제출했습니다. 세션 승인 후 MSG 팀의 카렐 바이들라, 비비안 창 및 램지 물리아완은 조직 팀에서 지정한 두 개인인 조니 알레그로 (User:Buszmail) 및 라흐마트 와히디 (User:Rachmat (WMID))와 함께 임시 세션을 구성했습니다. 회의의 허브 세션을 지원하는 그룹(이하 허브 워크숍 팀이라고 함).

지역의 모든 사람이 ESEAP 지역 협력의 기대치와 회의에서 논의하기 전에 앞으로 나아가는 방법에 대한 관점을 공유할 기회를 가질 수 있도록 허브 워크숍 팀은 지역 사회 참여 설문 조사를 설계하고 실시했습니다. 설문 조사 질문을 마무리하기 전에 회의 조직 팀과 위키미디어 재단 운동 커뮤니케이션 팀의 메르다드 푸르자키스가 입력한 내용으로 설문 조사를 검토했습니다.

이 설문 조사는 2022년 11월 9일에서 14일 사이에 영어를 설문 언어로 사용하여 실시되었습니다. 이것은 메타에서 발표되었고 ESEAP 메일링 리스트와 주요 ESEAP 소셜 미디어 채널을 통해 배포되었으며 지역 커뮤니티 공간에서 추가로 배포될 가능성이 있습니다. 66개의 제출물이 접수되었습니다. 중복된 제출물 및/또는 실질적인 질문에 답변하지 않은 제출물을 제거한 후, 25개의 사용 가능한 제출물이 식별되어 이 설문 조사 분석에 포함되었습니다. 설문 조사 결과는 컨퍼런스에서 ESEAP 허브 세션과 ESEAP 지역 협력이 이 분야에서 수년 동안 수행해 온 작업을 지원하는 기준점 역할을 했습니다.

설문조사 언어 및 참여 규모 등의 요인으로 인해 이 설문조사 분석에는 한계가 있었습니다. 허브 워크샵 팀은 응답 수가 해당 지역의 모든 보기를 나타낼 수 없다는 것을 알고 있었습니다. 이러한 한계에도 불구하고 다양한 ESEAP 커뮤니티 구성원의 제출물은 지속적인 토론에 가치 있는 다양한 관점을 제공했습니다.

피드백 분류

설문 조사는 일부 개인 정보를 수집했으며 질문은 5개의 주요 섹션으로 구분되었습니다:

ESEAP란? (질문 1, 2, 3)
협업 영역 식별(질문 4 및 5)
ESEAP 지역 협력 및 전진의 과제(질문 6 및 7)
합의 및 의사결정(질문 8, 9, 10, 11)
ESEAP 컨퍼런스 2022 허브 세션에 대한 제안(질문 12 및 13)

설문 참여자 인구통계

사용 가능한 25개의 제출물 중 대다수가 소속이 있다고 밝히고 응답자의 20%는 소속이 없다고 밝혔습니다. 소속이 있는 사람들 중에서 설문 조사는 위키미디어 오스트레일리아(20%), 위키미디어 인도네시아(12%), 위키미디어 타이완, 필리핀위키 커뮤니티 및 아오테아로아 뉴질랜드 위키미디어 사용자 그룹(각각 8%)에서 가장 많이 제출되었습니다. 자신을 ESEAP(8%)와 관련이 있다고 밝히는 개인이 있었다는 점은 주목할 가치가 있습니다. 이는 현재 인식되는 가맹단체 모델을 벗어납니다. 두 가지 소속으로 자신을 식별한 개인이 있었으므로 위의 비율은 응답자의 자기 식별을 반영한 것입니다.

거주 국가/영토별로는 호주, 인도네시아, 필리핀에 거주하는 위키미디어인(각각 20%)이 가장 많이 제출했습니다.

참가자의 홈 위키로 확인된 위키미디어 프로젝트 중 설문조사는 영어 위키백과(24%), 인도네시아어 위키백과(16%), 중앙 비콜어 위키백과(12%) 및 위키미디어 공용(12%)에서 가장 많이 제출되었습니다. 하나의 위키가 아닌 두 개의 위키를 홈 위키로 식별한 응답자가 있었다는 점에 유의해야 합니다. 따라서 위의 비율은 응답자의 자기 식별을 반영한 것입니다.

참가자의 활성 프로젝트로 확인된 위키미디여 프로젝트 중 위키데이터(48%), 위키미디어 공용(40%), 인도네시아어 위키백과(20%) 및 영어 위키백과(20%)에서 가장 많은 제출이 접수되었습니다. 활성 프로젝트로 둘 이상의 위키를 식별한 응답자가 있었다는 점에 유의해야 합니다. 따라서 위의 비율은 응답자의 자기 식별을 반영한 것입니다.

자신의 성별 데이터를 공개한 사람 중 68%가 남성으로, 16%가 여성으로 식별되었습니다. 이 중 개인의 4%는 이진법이 아닌 대명사도 사용했습니다. 16%는 성별을 밝히지 않았습니다.

Section 1: “What is ESEAP?”

1. What is the regional geographical scope of ESEAP? Does the country list on Meta cover well the scope? If not, what else is missing?

The majority of respondents (60%) shared the sentiment that the current list of countries and territories as stated in the Meta page of ESEAP Hub covers well the geographical scope of ESEAP. There is a general agreement that the countries in East Asia and Southeast Asia should be covered in this definition. However, 24% of respondents mentioned that countries in the Pacific Islands were missing from this list. On the other hand, there was also the view expressed to limit the scope. The explanation was that “In 2017, two participants from Australia attended the meeting of ESEA Wikimedians which eventually led to the inclusion of the broad Pacific region. The regional cooperation should go back to its original scope covering the East and Southeast Asian communities.”

There were also views proposing to remove certain countries specifically from this definition:

China, for reasons that it could “overwhelm the community”;
Russia, for reasons that it is “served by Central and Eastern Europe”;
Australia and New Zealand, for historical reasons that the original East and Southeast Asia cooperation did not include these countries. It was also pointed out that there are some cultural differences in communication style that may not fit well with East Asia and Southeast Asia.

On the other hand, there were also suggestions to add further countries to the list, such as:

Mongolia, mentioning that the list included countries with radically different cultures and languages and only united by geography. The comment argued that Mongolia should be included in the case that China is included.
India, without clear reasons explained. The respondent said, “I sometimes think India should be included too, but it does make sense that some sort of boundary must be drawn.”

2. What do you think the ESEAP Regional Cooperation should aim to be?

There was a wide variety of goals mentioned for the ESEAP Regional Cooperation. It was suggested that the ESEAP Regional Cooperation should aim for the following:

Providing an accessible and free encyclopedia which contains information on all branches of knowledge, and in as many ESEAP languages as possible. There were also comments focusing on having the ESEAP Regional Cooperation providing services for communities and affiliates, including regular technical and operational assistance. Regional conferences were also identified to be provided by this collaboration.
Connecting and bridging knowledge gaps, as well as differences of language diversity of every ESEAP country. It was also commented that there should be increased communication within the region in order to achieve closer cooperation and being aware of situations of each member. Uniting cultures to strengthen the connections between affiliates and connecting with other Chapters were also pointed out. There were also wishes expressed for community members in the region to cooperate and collaborate with each other in building ESEAP covered and related knowledge.
Ensuring free flow of information among its members and removing obstacles on this matter. In addition, ensuring capacity building and members having autonomy in running outreach activities and campaigns was also mentioned.
Supporting, aiding, and helping the growth of the movement in the ESEAP region. It was also envisioned that the ESEAP Regional Cooperation will support all countries in the region without their own Wikimedia affiliate to develop the Wikimedia movement and create the local organization. Another comment focused on countries in the region that lack Wikimedians to be supported. Furthermore, a response pointed out that more-organized and better-funded communities should support less-funded and less-organized ones.
Enabling, allowing, and encouraging the needs of communities without affiliates to be heard in the global movement. There was also an expectation that the ESEAP Regional cooperation would enable greater equity in the movement committees and activities as well as access to discussions. Communities able to grow as they see fit as well as having cross-cultural collaboration and multilingual projects were also mentioned.
Removing colonial structures through enabling equity in decision making.
Exchanging and sharing ideas on key issues in the region, as well as on resources and expertise.

In relation to the Wikimedia Foundation specifically, respondents mentioned the ESEAP Regional Cooperation should aim for:

Creating a dedicated support structure for the region, to obtain direct assistance and technical support from the Foundation.
Promoting the hiring of ESEAP-based employees by the Foundation to engage with the region further.
Aiding in the decentralization of Foundation activities, which in the respondent’s view heavily focused on North America and Europe.

3. In your view, who are the relevant stakeholders of the ESEAP Regional Cooperation?

From the responses, the affiliates in ESEAP were widely accepted (60%) as the stakeholders to bring and drive the ESEAP Regional Cooperation forward; some mentioned all the affiliates in the region, with some mentioned a few affiliates specifically - namely Wikimedia Australia, Wikimedia Indonesia, and Wikimedia Taiwan were mentioned. The three user groups in the Philippines, despite not all being Wikimedia affiliates, were also mentioned by one respondent.

Project-based communities and their members were also mentioned by quite some respondents (32%); some responses explicitly mentioned that the communities include languages spoken in ESEAP as well as other non-language projects such as Wikidata and Commons. Similarly, active individuals and contributors were also mentioned by some (36%); one response noted Butch Bustria for his longtime contribution to ESEAP Regional Cooperation. A few responses also identified Wikimedia Foundation being a relevant stakeholder (16%).

There were different views regarding who else to be considered as relevant stakeholders. The below is an overview of the ones got mentioned:

GLAM organizations
Education sector, including universities, schools and research units.
NGOs
Leaders or key contacts of other regions and non-regional/thematic groups who use Hubs to facilitate contacts in ESEAP
Indigenous knowledge holders
Citizens in ESEAP

There were also responses focusing on who are not relevant stakeholders, the balance between stakeholders, and the unclear areas. The below were the ones mentioned:

Ones in other geographical regions that did not provide direct benefit to ESEAP
No country should have more say than any other, as well as individuals
Whether Wikipedia Asian Month is an ESEAP project

Section 2: Identifying Areas for Collaboration

4. What would you like the ESEAP Regional Cooperation to achieve further? What do you identify as potential ESEAP Regional Cooperation areas?

5. From previous discussions in ESEAP, there have been areas of ESEAP Regional Cooperation identified. Which are the priorities in your view?

Among the areas surfacing from previous ESEAP regional discussions, the top priority area identified for collaboration within the ESEAP region by the most respondents from this survey was “Resourcing facilitation (both financial and human resources)” (20%), with “Representing ESEAP in global discussions”, “Skill development across the region”, and “Regional partnerships development” as the followings (16% respectively).

As for the second priority, most respondents selected “Skill development across the region” (32%) and “Regional events and activities” (28%), with “Resourcing facilitation (both financial and human resources)” as the following (12%).

Regarding the third priority, “Regional events and activities” was the one that stood out (20%).

These priorities may cover the following areas according to the answers shared by the respondents, regarding what they would like the ESEAP Regional Cooperation to achieve further:

Resourcing facilitation (both financial and human resources)

administrative, legal, financial, governance advice and support
engagement with the Wikimedia Foundation
grants review and administration
a help desk for the region
a support group which provides consulting services to new or potential affiliates
translation support for regional languages

Skill development across the region

advanced skills and leadership training as well as simple user training
cross-community knowledge and skill sharing and exchange, including ideas and solutions
cross-country cooperation to support community building and activating activities
developing strong editing communities and new affiliates

Representing ESEAP in global discussions

representation in global movement bodies
having representatives that can represent the views of editors in the whole region in global policy discussions, but not just views of their own.

Regional partnerships development

committees composed of each local chapter and user group
cross-country content collaboration on biodiversity knowledge, history, data gathering and sharing, as well as digitization of public domain printed content, film and audio.
regional projects and cooperation

Regional events and activities

language and local meetups
online events and campaigns
regional conferences, including regular Wikimania/Wikimedia Summit-like conferences and thematic ones focusing on language, education, culture, science, or technology.
regional content projects, competitions and contests

In addition, there were also details mentioned for the below areas:

Common public policy efforts

advocacy and policy for ESEAP, both internally in the Wikimedia movement and externally with partners, governments, and NGOs.

Ensure institutional memory of collaboration

communication from the communities that are not yet well represented; Wikimedia Korea and Myanmar Wikimedia Community User group were the two examples quoted.

Apart from the above, there was also a response focusing on what Hub should not be:

Hub is to not be treated as a regional affiliate but only as a venue for collaborations.

Section 3: Challenges and Steps Forward

6. What do you see as the existing challenge(s) for the ESEAP Regional Cooperation at the moment? What do you think would be helpful to address them?

Existing challenges identified from the survey for the ESEAP Regional Cooperation are linked to a few different aspects, including communication and coordination, engagement and behaviors, finance, administration and logistics, as well as legal and governance. Various solutions on principle level and implementation level were proposed. Below is an overview of the responses.

Communication and Coordination

Language diversity within the region and English being used as the default language for meetings leads to language barriers.
ESEAP Regional Cooperation is dominated by English-speaking and first-world countries, namely Australia and New Zealand.
Lack of information and communication from underrepresented countries and communities.
Cultural differences and lack of common interests; no effective activities which can work well for all countries in the region.
Lack of good understanding of different countries, cultures and their wikis.
How to properly appreciate individual members' problems and how to address them communally.

Engagement and Behaviors

Timezone incompatibility with most of the movement.
Very different sizes of groups and different levels of engagement within the movement; lack of experience within the movement or with global collaborations.
Reliance on volunteers already heavily committed in local and/or global communities.
Wikimedians in ESEAP have a tendency to be insular.

Finance, Administration and Logistics

Lack of resources and administrative support.
The global pandemic and wide geographical coverage make in-person meetings challenging.
Different population sizes.

Legal and Governance

Internally within the Wikimedia Movement:
- lack of governance and agreed structure of the ESEAP Regional Cooperation.
- lack of an active core team and workable bylaws.
- Non-stakeholders (such as individuals from Europe and European thematic user groups) dominate geographical hub discussion.
- relatively little participation of representatives from ESEAP in the global movement.
Externally within the ESEAP region:
- Diversity of legal framework of individual countries.
- lack of legal entity in engaging with governments and GLAM organizations.

There were some potential solutions proposed for these existing challenges:

On principle level:

Ensuring the ESEAP community is autonomous in making its own decisions; those who are not directly affected or benefiting from the structure should not be given priority in importance.
Hub to be an active receiver of members' requests for assistance in various levels of the undertaking.
Focusing on the positive connections to address the cultural differences.
Calling out or not supporting activities that are against the code of conduct and values of the movement.

On implementation level:

Establishing a representative steering committee that is supported to draft a way of working as an inclusive hub, including infrastructure to support communication and engagement across the region.
Having its own staff to address the issue of the limited capacity of volunteers taking on coordination work.
Having continuous financial support from Wikimedia Foundation with further progress.
Having a mailing list in the English language for communication purposes.
Starting new activities.
Equity in participation for all ESEAP communities.
Assisting with translation and transcription software.

7. Following question 6, do you see any differences in main challenges and ways to address them in the next five years? If so, what are the differences and what would be helpful to address them?

The views regarding whether the challenges would remain or change in the next five years were quite different; some argued the challenges would remain and some thought they would change, and there were also answers mentioning it depends on the situation. For potential future challenges, solutions on principle levels and implementation levels have been proposed. There were also responses focusing on the needs and opportunities.

Those who mentioned the challenges would remain argued that:

If the scope of ESEAP remains wide, the challenges would remain.
If communities or volunteers don't see ESEAP Hub as being helpful and powerful, the hub will be a useless experiment in politics.
Time zones and diversity of languages are challenges difficult to solve.

Those who mentioned the challenges would change argued that:

Centralization of resources and decision-making in the wider movement with the Wikimedia Foundation could be a challenge.
If there's no global pandemic and the price of oil goes down, there will be an improvement in cooperation.
There will be a new generation which is tech-savvy and involved in social media much more than the previous generation. This condition will lead us to shift to be more involved in creating audiovisual content rather than text-based to attract newcomers to join our movement.
Policy and human rights, security issues will also affect us and potentially be directly challenging for ESEAP Regional Cooperation.

Some mentioned that it depends on the situation or they were unsure, the reasons being:

More information is needed regarding the decision-making structure.
It is upon the political will of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department and Movement Strategy and Governance Team which voices they prioritize most.

There were also some solutions proposed for these potential future challenges:

On principle level:

“Ensure Equity in Decision-making" and "Coordinate Across Stakeholders" recommendations are vital.
Sensitivity, creativity and readiness to resolve problems will make a difference in managing this Regional Cooperation.
Expanding the capacity across ESEAP.
Developing strategic directions.
Encouraging two-way conversations to eliminate misunderstandings or being unaware of the current issues in the movement.

On implementation level:

Establishing the Global Council.
Having an ESEAP coordinator supported by the Wikimedia Foundation to help with continuity and coordination rather than relying on volunteer time.
Better training to ensure translations are being improved over time.
A legal entity that does not subject volunteers to laws of another jurisdiction, to prevent putting volunteers at risk.
Implementing bigger projects and collaborations; more cross-country events and virtual events.
Offering exchange programs, in which affiliates can exchange their members for projects or community activities.

Some comments focused on the needs, including:

Need for ongoing skills both on Wiki and in management.
The Wikimedia Foundation to understand the region being outdated in technical training, low organizational capacity, and representation on key volunteer committees.
The Wikimedia Foundation acknowledges the differences in financial resources and plan investment more equitably.
All Wikimedia Foundation employees take time zone issues into consideration when planning.

A comment focused on opportunities:

possibilities of Abstract Wikipedia to address the language barrier, as well as the general depiction of languages and lexemes in Wikidata for increasing outreach and aiding translation and cross-language collaboration.

Section 4: Consensus and decision making

8. How should the consensus be reached in defining the goal and strategies of ESEAP Regional Cooperation - moving from an informal group to a more formal structure aligned with the hub piloting guidelines?

The proposals of how to move forward in reaching a consensus focused on a few different aspects. Some focused on the format/venues of reaching consensus, while some focused on the essence and content of the consensus, procedures and steps, and timing of reaching the consensus respectively. There was also a respondent questioning that there seems to be a preconception that members of ESEAP want to get to a consensus.

Format/Venues of reaching consensus

Form a leadership group to take ESEAP forward from the Conference for a limited time.
Making the ESEAP 2022 Conference a place for decision-making.
Establishing a decision-making system, which can be formed in the form of an organization-designated representative system, community selection system or election system, as long as it can fully represent the opinions of various communities and have a substantial influence on existing affiliates.
Hold meetings and consultations.

The essence of the consensus that needs to be reached

Discussing and reconsidering any goals and strategies of ESEAP.
Clear consensus on what are the functions of the ESEAP Hub, its values, purpose and benefits.
To let everybody understand clearly the problems in order to reach the goal and strategies of ESEAP Regional Cooperation.
Democratic principles to guide in attaining the goals.
Hub not being another Affiliate group with members, but only a venue for collaborations.

Steps for reaching the consensus

First achieve consensus on whether formality and alignment are required/desired, followed by recognising the guidelines if ESEAP seeks to access hub piloting funding. Afterwards, inviting interest/nominations for a representative drafting group. Later on, inviting interest/nominations for an organizing team based on guidelines drafted for a staggered term.
First let the conference attendees voice out their situations and inherent problems freely and in an easy, friendly atmosphere. From the inputs, the group can sense the pressing needs and underlying problems of the majority of the members, and should be sensitive also to some unique problems of the minority.
First through discussion with the community, at the ESEAP Conference and ongoing. Continuing through a steering group that helps to coordinate the discussion, and then employing someone to provide administration, help with the community coordination and facilitate the discussions.

Timing of when consensus should be reached

Moving to a more formal structure should be deferred and modelled after the structure of the Global Council, whatever form that may be.

Relevant question/view

There is a preconception that members of ESEAP want to get to a consensus; there are communities interested in editing but not engaging in the community organization as there's no perception that it affects them.

9. There is a potential that the upcoming ESEAP 2022 conference would become a decision-making point for some of the elements. If you are not attending the conference, what are the needed steps to include your perspectives for any decision-making process?

Proposals included the following for those who did not attend the ESEAP 2022 Conference:

Having discussion and decision agreed on Meta.
Everyone in the community should be given a platform to participate - without limiting their participation due to language barriers and styles of expressing themselves in discussions due to different cultures.
Any decision made at the conference should be shared with the wider community either at the end of the conference or soon afterwards, and feedback mechanisms and further discussion would occur via various channels.
Gather opinions from the local communities before the ESEAP conference by the Wikimedia Foundation or other senior community members.
Having a form to submit any perspective from people who won't attend the conference.
Holding online meetings.
The attendees share any decision-making process back with their communities and ask for feedback from others.

10. How can ESEAP Regional Cooperation connect and help ensure equity in decision-making in the region?

For ensuring equity in decision-making, the responses touched on aspects including representation, structures, and activities of the ESEAP Regional Cooperation.

Representation

Developing a representative profile of the region to be used in guiding appointments/nominations, to ensure a spread of country, language, culture, gender and project members.
Ensuring representatives from each country in the ESEAP region.
Ensuring committees with representatives from different affiliates.
Ensuring decisions are responsive to the needs of both bigger groups and smaller groups.
Allowing the voices of each ESEAP active person and organization to be heard.

Structures

Establishing something similar to the Global Council, such as having an ESEAP Regional Council.
Making a sub-regional structure to limit the scope in order to achieve the recommendation ”Ensure equity in decision making".
Through a steering committee, a consultation committee, and communication systems.
Having staff support, and through staff who have the role to facilitate conversations and decision-making.
Having a diverse structure of not necessarily leadership but decision-making and collaboration.
Decisions are made with a systematic way of decision-making, and equity can be achieved by examining the ways of composition and operation of the system.

Activities

Regular online meetings, gatherings, and in-person activities, and can involve the attendance of some of the leadership groups.
Providing organizers training on the whole infrastructure of Wikimedia Foundation, hubs, affiliates, communications channels, and preferred engagement methods.
Opening discussions with community members.
Regular consultations.

11. How can ESEAP Regional Cooperation connect and help ensure equitable regional representation in global decision-making or participation?

The responses included those focusing on the roles of the ESEAP Regional Cooperation and activities it should carry out or maintain, as well as some mentioned actions that should be considered by other stakeholders.

Roles of the ESEAP Regional Cooperation

Acting as a bridge between local affiliates/groups/individuals and the global movement and Global Council, including spearheading translations, communicating discussions, and other similar coordinating tasks.
Facilitating meetings and identifying participants who have the capacity to be part of those processes.
Ensuring the performance of ESEAP is good so that the thoughts shared would naturally be valued and there would be better balance when it comes to views of ESEAP in global operation.
Ensuring no misrepresentations.

Activities to carry out/maintain

Online meetings and regular gatherings, and should be in suitable time zones and on appropriate days that allow for cultural needs.

Relevant questions

How is the hub administered?
Who is on the organizing group for the hub, and their commitment to this change?
What does the capacity of each affiliate look like?

Call for action to other stakeholders

Taking time zones and visas into consideration when planning activities to ensure well representation.
Ensuring that there is automatic and adequate representation from ESEAP; a permanent allotment of participation to be granted to the group at the global level.
Conducting an audit of all Wikimedia standing committees such as arbitration committees, language committees, affiliation committees and Movement Charter Drafting Committee to determine if an equitable geographical distribution is necessary.

Section 5: Suggestions for the Hub workshop session

12. What are the areas that you think should definitely be discussed in the Hub sessions in ESEAP Conference 2022?

13. Following question 12, why should these areas be discussed in the Hub sessions in ESEAP Conference 2022?

Suggestions for the Hub workshop sessions touched on the structures and needs of the Hub, relations with other stakeholders, representation, and what should the Hub focus on in its operation. The respondents also shared their reasons for these proposals.

Structures and needs of the hub

Format and governance
Goals
Who to draft plans and monitor
A steering group, a leadership group
Bylaw
Resources needed and where/when could the group apply for support

Reasons:

There are different pictures of how an ESEAP hub could work; utilizing the opportunity to build a shared picture.
Continuation from the existing discussions and ongoing discussions on the hub in the region.
The above is important for setting up the hub.
The charter is the basis for people to imagine the way of operation, the composition of power, and the allocation of resources; discussing this will also help to advance the organization in the future.
Unless the leadership group is expanded in a balanced way it is not viable to continue.

Relations with other stakeholders

Relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation.
Timeline relating to the ongoing work (Movement Charter, Global Council)
The need for other communication systems or not.

Reasons:

The above is important for setting up the hub.
The outcome of the ongoing work with the Movement Charter and the setting up of the Global Council will definitely affect the ESEAP Hub. Work on formalizing the ESEAP Hub should work in harmony with the work happening elsewhere and not in isolation.

Representation

Listen closely to the small language groups.
Scope and targets of the regional cooperation in terms of participation in regional projects and policies of representation of the region for its voice to be heard.

Reasons:

Small groups often are subject to the sparse availability of good and adequate sources as reference materials.
The region is under/misrepresented.

Focuses of the operation

Cultural, Social, and languages in ESEAP.
Cross-cooperation and team building.
Outreach to countries with no affiliates.
Discussions about subregions (East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific).

Reasons:

For inclusion of all members.
Important to the development of the region.
Those areas could be so important if we related to our Wikimedia projects.
To ensure all countries are represented in ESEAP.