2022ESEAP年會/報告/對於中樞相關議程社群參與的調查分析
由維基媒體基金會運動策略與治理團隊整理
執行摘要
在維基媒體運動的東亞、東南亞和太平洋（ESEAP）地區，已經存在一個非正式的區域合作組織 - ESEAP區域合作組織。在ESEAP 2022年會議之前，進行了一項社群參與調查，以支持關於該地區合作的持續討論。以下是這項調查的主要結果和發現。
達成對ESEAP定義的共同理解被視為確定該區域合作的主要利益相關者和地理範圍的關鍵，因此已作為調查的一部分包括在內。普遍認為，東亞和東南亞國家應納入此定義，這符合該非正式合作組織於2014年初期的組成。然而，對於是否包括太平洋地區的看法有所分歧，其中文化差異是主要原因。
關於維基媒體運動中的不同參與者，ESEAP分支組織被廣泛認可為推動合作的利益相關者，其中一些人提到了有關語言和非語言專案的社群和其成員。此外，積極的個人和長期貢獻者也被確認為利益相關者，維基媒體基金會亦同。而對於外部利益相關者的看法則有各種不同觀點。
答覆者認為該地區合作應該追求以下目標:
- 提供免費且易於取得的所有知識
- 提供技術和操作性質的服務
- 滿足ESEAP地區語言多樣性的需求
- 連接和彌補知識差距
- 分享想法和專業知識
- 加強該地區不同利益相關者之間的溝通
- 促進在ESEAP相關問題上的緊密合作
- 提高能力和支持該地區的增長，包括支持資金較少和組織尚未成熟的社群，以及那些沒有分之組織的社群。
在該地區合作中，優先項目包括“資源協助（財務和人力資源）”、“代表ESEAP參與全球討論”、“在該地區推廣技能發展”、“發展區域夥伴關係”以及“區域性活動和事件”。
答覆者認為現有挑戰涉及不同方面。語言障礙、以英語為主導和文化差異是溝通和協調方面的挑戰，也有缺乏代表性社群的資訊有限的挑戰。時區不相容、不同大小的團體、嚴重依賴志願者和傾向孤立是參與和行為方面的挑戰。在財務、行政和後勤方面，都一致認同缺乏資源和支援。還存在法律和治理方面的挑戰，包括缺乏共識的治理結構、內部活躍的核心團隊和章程，在該地區存在不同的法律框架，且缺乏與外部利益相關者接觸的法律實體。
為了解決上述挑戰，答覆者在原則層面上要求ESEAP社群在決策方面擁有自治權，設立一個中樞作為成員尋求幫助的積極接收方，並專注於建立積極聯繫以解決文化差異。希望建立一個代表性的指導委員會來支持建立一個包容性中心的結構，包括支持跨該地區進行溝通和參與的基礎設施。此外，為了解決能力限制，有人要求擁有自己的工作人員，也有人要求獲得維基媒體基金會的持續財務支援。一些回答者認為五年後的挑戰不明確或存在變化，原因是缺乏關於決策結構的明確性、資源和決策由維基媒體基金會集中掌握以及基金會團隊設定的優先事項。
在達成區域合作目標和策略的共識方面，一些人著重於形式，建議成立一個有限時間的領導小組，使ESEAP 2022會議成為決策場所，建立決策系統並進行會議和諮詢。另一些人則著重於共識的本質和內容，包括該地區的目標和策略，以及ESEAP Hub的功能和角色。一些人對達成共識的程序、步驟和時間表進行了評論，並提到了全球委員會作為一個因素。答覆者提到了平等參與的重要性，無論他們的語言或表達方式如何，並要求通過各種渠道進行進一步的討論，並在Meta上達成共識。
有關確保ESEAP決策的平等性，提出的建議包括確保來自不同國家、附屬機構和委員會的積極參與者的代表，以及在指導任命或提名時制定代表性概要文件。也有建議關注結構，包括成立 ESEAP地區委員會或類似的子區域結構，成立指導委員會，建立系統化的決策方式，並在促進對話方面提供工作人員的支援。答覆者也熱衷於進行定期會議、面對面活動、諮詢和培訓等活動。
有關透過ESEAP區域合作來幫助實現全球決策或參與中的公平區域代表性，建議重點集中在ESEAP區域合作的角色 - 充當不同利益相關者之間的橋樑，促進會議及其參與者，並確保區域的良好表現。還強調在合適的時區和日子定期舉行聚會和會議。受訪者還呼籲其他非此區域的人採取行動，包括確保分配給 ESEAP的配額足夠用於全球層面的參與，以及對所有現有的Wikimedia委員會進行審計，以確定是否需要公平地地理分配。
在中樞討論的建議中，有些涉及到中樞的結構和需求、與其他利益相關者的關係、代表性以及中樞在運作中應該關注什麼。這些提議連同其原因在中樞會議開始時就被提出，以供參與者討論。
背景
Regional and Thematic Hubs is a Movement Strategy initiative under the recommendation Ensure Equity in Decision-Making. Hub was also an area identified as a high priority on the agenda of the ESEAP Conference 2022 for strategic discussion. Acknowledging the need of the ESEAP regional cooperation to move from an informal collaboration group to a more formal structure aligned with the Movement Strategy recommendation, the Movement Strategy and Governance (MSG) Team of the Wikimedia Foundation expressed wishes to support the ESEAP community in further advancing its Hub governance discussion and achieving the next milestone. After consultation with the organizing team of the Conference, the MSG team submitted a session proposal. Following the session approval, Kaarel Vaidla, Vivien Chang, and Ramzy Muliawan of the MSG team together with two individuals designated by the organizing team - Johnny Alegre (User:Buszmail) and Rachmat Wahidi (User:Rachmat (WMID)) - formed a temporary group to support the Hub sessions of the Conference (Hereafter refer as the Hub workshop team).
To ensure everyone in the region has a chance to share their perspectives regarding the expectations of the ESEAP Regional Cooperation and how to move forward prior to the discussions at the Conference, the Hub workshop team designed and conducted a community engagement survey. Prior to finalizing the survey questions, the survey was reviewed by the organizing team of the Conference as well as with inputs from Mehrdad Pourzaki of the Movement Communications team of the Wikimedia Foundation.
This survey was conducted between 9 and 14 November 2022, with English as the survey language. It was announced on meta and distributed through the ESEAP mailing list and the main ESEAP social media channels, with potential further distributions in local community spaces. 66 (sixty-six) submissions were received. After removing submissions that were duplicates and/or did not answer any substantial question, 25 (twenty-five) usable submissions were identified and included in this survey analysis. The survey results served as a reference point to support the ESEAP Hub sessions at the Conference as well as the work the ESEAP Regional Cooperation has been doing throughout the years in this area.
There were limitations of this survey analysis, due to factors including the language of the survey and the scale of participation. The Hub workshop team was aware that the number of responses was not able to represent all views in the region. Despite these limitations, submissions from various ESEAP community members provided diverse viewpoints that were valuable for continuous discussions.
== Feedback Categorization ==
The survey collected some personal information and the questions were divided into five main sections:
- What is ESEAP? (Questions 1, 2, and 3)
- Collaboration Areas Identification (Questions 4 and 5)
- Challenges of ESEAP Regional Cooperation and Moving Forward (Questions 6 and 7)
- Consensus and Decision Making (Questions 8, 9, 10 and 11)
- Suggestions for the Hub Sessions at ESEAP Conference 2022 (Questions 12 and 13)
== Survey Participant Demographics == * Among the 25 usable submissions, the majority identified themselves as having an affiliation, with 20% of respondents without affiliations. Among those with affiliations, the survey got the most submissions from Wikimedia Australia (20%), Wikimedia Indonesia (12%), as well as from Wikimedia Taiwan, PhilWiki Community, and Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New Zealand (8% each). It is worth noting that there were individuals identifying themselves as affiliated with ESEAP (8%), which is outside of the current recognizing models of affiliations. There were individuals who identified themselves with two affiliations, therefore the above percentages were reflecting the self-identifications of the respondents.
* By country/territory of residence, the survey got the most submissions from Wikimedians residing in Australia, Indonesia and the Philippines (20% each).
* Of Wikimedia projects identified as participants’ Home wiki, the survey got the most submissions from English Wikipedia (24%), Indonesian Wikipedia (16%), Central Bikol Wikipedia (12%) and Wikimedia Commons (12%). It should be noted that there were respondents who identified two instead of one wiki as their Home wiki; therefore the above percentages were reflecting the self-identifications of the respondents.
* Of Wikimedia projects identified as participants’ active projects, the survey got the most submissions from Wikidata (48%), Wikimedia Commons (40%), Indonesian Wikipedia (20%), and English Wikipedia (20%). It should be noted that there were respondents who identified more than one wiki as their active project; therefore the above percentages were reflecting the self-identifications of the respondents.
* From those who disclosed their gender data, 68% of submissions identified as men and 16% identified as women; among these, 4% of the individuals also used non-binary pronouns. 16% did not state their gender.
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.