ESEAP Preparatory Council/ESEAP Hub Governance Systems Proposal

Translate this page

This page introduces a new proposal for the "ESEAP Hub Governance System". The ESEAP Hub Preparatory Council (EPC) has agreed to consult the entire ESEAP community on this proposal, which outlines two new draft governance systems. While this is not a formal vote, the ideas and approaches that receive the strongest support from ESEAP Wikimedians will help guide what is taken forward to the 2025 ESEAP Strategy Summit in Manila. There a second round of review and adjustments will take place, based on the feedback and comments collected beforehand. Final decisions about the governance system will be made collaboratively by all participants at the Summit.

This new proposal excludes most of the specific details. For example, it does not define whether "long inactivity" means 15 days, six months, or a year. At this stage, the goal is to start discussion and focus on the overall structure, ideas and process. However, suggestions and justification for specific details are still very welcome, as they will help inform and provide reference when developing and deciding on the final content at the Summit.

Please read this new proposal carefully and leave your comments on the Talk page. The EPC will also hold online meetings before the Summit to provide explanations and gather community input and opinions. The date and time of the meeting will be posted here.

Background

What the current draft Charter considered

The current draft ESEAP Charter (developed during 2023-2024) was based on the following:

Hubs are different from affiliates, focusing on strategic organizational work rather than programmatic, promotion or outreach activities.
Hubs do not have specific members, instead they recognise 4 categories of "Stakeholders": Affiliates, Wikimedia core free-knowledge projects, Unaffiliated thematic communities or Language projects, and independent contributors.
To ensure a balance between the affiliates – who may have more capacity to contribute to the workload – and other community stakeholders, a decision-making body was designed comprising representatives from all affiliates as well as elected representatives from the other stakeholder groups.

Why the current draft Charter is no longer applicable

The current draft ESEAP Charter was designed to align and adapt with the Movement Charter. However, since the Movement Charter was not ratified, the ESEAP Charter is no longer applicable in its current form.

One possible reason for the Charter's rejection was concerns about the proposed decision-making mechanism (the Global Council). The committee-based mechanism outlined in the current ESEAP Charter faces similar issues and challenges.
The proposed election method also remains unclear and still has many unresolved problems, such as how electors are selected.
In contrast, the CEE Hub has adopted a model without specific designated decision-makers, that has already begun operating very successfully. ESEAP may also consider a similar approach in it's early stages, to avoid difficult and complex issues around individual selection and election, while enabling collaborative governance.

Design Concept of the new system

The two draft governance systems in this new proposal aim to:

Avoid creating a central organization: except for budget allocation items, this model seeks to maintain the grassroots, decentralized, community-driven, and spontaneous characteristics of the Wikimedia movement as much as possible.
Focus on facilitation and coordination of works rather than focus on reviewing proposals.
Maintain the distinction between Hubs and affiliates: in areas/regions that already have affiliates the goal is to support and strengthen affiliates growth; in areas/regions without affiliates the goal is to cultivate new affiliates and support user-groups and other stakeholders to build their capacity.

New Governance Systems

Option 1: Open Participation System

Overview

In this system, all discussions are placed on public meta-wiki pages, complemented with regular online meetings to determine:

whether consensus has been reached on various issues?
what that consensus is? and
how to proceed with matters where consensus hasn't been achieved or a solution formed.

To ensure the feasibility of this decision-making method, a Working Group will be formed, with rotating representatives from some affiliates. This group will assist decision-making meetings on matters such as budget allocation, contracting, and other essential tasks and necessary matters.

Implementation Method

Create proposal and discussion pages and templates on Meta to serve as spaces for proposals and consensus-building. (If there are suitable project management online platforms available, they can also be used, which might even be better).
Anyone can initiate a proposal.
Proposals that require resources must achieve consensus over a set period. Once consensus is reached the proposer submits the proposal to the Decision-Making Meeting for confirmation.
The appointed staff will invite 5 volunteers to form a "Working Group". Members of the Working Group are representatives of the Hub and must hold an online working meeting once a month to review work reports. They should also provide feedback on proposals for the consideration of decision meeting participants.
Working Group members must have experience in organizational governance and must come from different countries, have term limits, and a portion of the members must be replaced annually to ensure opportunities for participation from various regions.
Following the working meeting, an online "Decision-Making Meeting" will be convened to determine whether all proposals will be implemented, rejected, or require further discussion. This Decision-Making Meeting will also decide on the budget allocation based on recommendations from the Working Group. In principle, anyone can register to participate in the Decision-Making Meetings, however mechanisms will be in place to prevent over-representation or disproportionate influence from one country or group.

Advantages

Aligns with the grassroots and open spirit of the Wikimedia movement.
Completely eliminates the need for any form of election.

Potential risks

May result in slower or low decision-making efficiency and/or contradictory decisions.
Medium and long-term strategies may be difficult to develop.
If volunteer participation is low, the Hub could be completely controlled or dominated by a small number of more active organizations or individuals.

Option 2: Strategist System

Overview

This model is similar to how administrators function in Wikimedia projects, but introduces quotas to ensure representation of smaller communities. Trusted community members are elected as Strategists, who are granted decision-making authority. Community consensus is only required when necessary to direct Strategists for major strategic directions. Strategists can use flexible methods to establish and develop decision-making mechanisms and convene meetings for decision-making at any time.

Implementation Method

Individuals with long-term contributions to Wikimedia projects and familiarity with organizational governance can self-nominate; those who receive community votes of trust will become "Strategists".
Nominations and voting can take place at any time, with lower thresholds provided for underrepresented communities.
Each Strategist will have a Home Wiki. There is no limit to the number of Strategists from one Home Wiki, but if voting is required, there is a limit on the number of Strategists who have voting rights.
Strategists are self-governing. Once a sufficient number is reached, they will establish detailed decision-making mechanisms and elect representatives or a representative team for the Hub.
Strategists hold lifetime positions, but there are rules for dismissal in cases of long-term inactivity.

Advantages

Provides clearer decision-making roles and responsibilities, while maintaining openness.
Although elections are required, it is much easier to implement and simpler to manage.
More flexibility and efficiency in decision-making compared to Option 1 (Open Participation System).

Potential risks

The appointment and removal of Strategists may cause community tension, especially around public criticism during voting.
If the internal decision-making mechanisms among Strategists are weak, this could result in conflicts or poor decisions.