Movement roles project/Chapter meeting working group outcome

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Groupe meeting about "accountability"

We want to identify practical parameters upon which we can assess the activity and efficiency of each organization.

Thierry mentions official levels which exist in France to provide ideas

  • public auditor
  • join a labelling organisation, which gives you recommandations, good practices but also assesses you

The tier system is meant to identify different levels of requirement depending on the type of organization, their maturity, the environment they operate in. Tier system could help, but it is not very practical (tier system would describe chapter from which a certain level of requirements would be required)

Current situation

  • Chapter committee provides an advice to the board to approve a chapter or to remove a chapter
  • Chapter committee currently essentially review the annual report and analyse the situation if they receive a request by a person to "check what is going on". If so, they check.
  • Only case that happened in the past is the UK chapter, in that case, the decision to dissolve the chapter was a collective and agreed-upon.

The chapter committee did not really remove UK because they felt unconfortable to do so

  • they had no metrics to remove the chapter
  • there was no middle way, only removal

It is suggested that there could be two different "committees", the first one would be doing the assessment and second the one making the authoritative decisions (such as removal of trademark agreement)

Below, a list of possible metrics. This is a brainstorming, not necessarily approved upon by everyone.

  • compliance to local laws
  • compliance to a trademark agreement
  • regular financial reports
  • regular activity report
  • regular membership report
  • regular wikimedia mouvement report
  • compliance with the bylaws of the organization
  • approve and publish a budget
  • disclosure of internal regulations

Assessment might be largely done

  1. first by self assessment and
  2. secondarily by peer-review
    • questions and answers from an assessor to the chapter
    • sampling and checks from the assessor to identify a problem
    • further analysis if a problem is noticed (such as hiring a lawyer to advise when there is suspicion the local laws are not respected)

In case something is "wrong", there would not be one step (i.e. removal) but several steps down, such as 5 steps

  1. yellow flag: identification of a problem.
  2. no improvement : some committee proposes help to solve the problem. Red flag
  3. still no improvement, another warning and more help
  4. still no improvement after thorough review and warning
  5. removal

Different steps before removal, with offers of help at each step. Steps might involved different type of "punishments".

What are the consequences of not reporting ?