Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Harmonization Sprint/Report

Overview

Recommendations

Implementation

Reports

FAQ

This report presents an overview of the Movement Strategy 2030 Harmonisation Sprint that took place in Tunis, Tunisia September 20 to 22, 2019. Harmonisation Sprint brought together 25 representatives of the nine working groups as well as senior staff of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland, and the chair of the WMF Board of Trustees. The list of event participants can be accessed on Meta. This report presents a chronological narrative of key activities, main processes, major events, and discussion summaries. It also presents three documents in the appendices that were generated over the three days: a thematic grouping of recommendations, discussions and questions around recommendation structures, and principles. The three documents in their current form are not the outcomes of the sprint or analysed, rather a presentation and reflection of conversations that should be collectively worked on and assessed to take forward in the next steps of Movement Strategy.

Key links

• Harmonisation Sprint information page
• Working Group recommendations
• Presentation on the level of recommendations
• Harmonisation Sprint Agenda
• Photos (Commons)
• Photos: (Drive)
  • Includes photos of flipcharts, post-its, etc.

Day 1: September 20

The first day of Harmonisation Sprint started with a greeting game, connecting participants some of whom were meeting for the very first time. This activity was followed by speeches by Nicole Ebber, Movement Strategy Program Manager, and Ryan Merkley, WMF Chief of Staff. Kaarel Vaidla, Strategy Process Architect provided design information and guidance on harmonising overlaps in the recommendations. He reminded participants that there will be conflicting recommendations and there might be stand-alones that might not easily harmonise. Facilitators from ICA:UK provided an overview of the 3 days.

Mehrdad Pourzaki and Tanveer Hassan, from the Movement Strategy core team provided an overview of thematic overlaps and grouping of topics stemming from the recommendations and various working group discussions. The software Quirkos had been used to tag and flag recommendations based on discussions and overlaps, to bring paragraphs and sentences from different recommendations together around common themes as a conversation starter for harmonisation. These themes had been identified through various iterative discussions, online and in-person, and were a means of presenting overlaps for working group representatives to start conversations at the sprint.

The facilitators had already posted bubbles on the walls representing various thematic overlaps with related recommendations from each group around the bubbles. Facilitators led the first working session of the sprint by asking working group representatives to look at the bubbles and see if their recommendations were grouped around a particular thematic area correctly. Participants were then asked to add recommendations to thematic areas if needed and to add other themes deemed important for discussions and priorities of the working groups. This had been planned as an exercise to bring representatives from each working group together for one last time in their own groups to discuss thematic overlaps and to set the stage for collaboration between the working groups and harmonisation of recommendations. Appendix 1 presents the output of this exercise as well as the preliminary glossary.

After this exercise, three thematic areas with the greatest overlap of recommendations were selected to start harmonising. The thematic areas selected were capacity building, diversity and inclusion, and roles and responsibilities. It must be noted that these thematic areas were irrespective of the existing working groups, and rather identified as thematic areas that all working groups had frequently alluded to. Many working groups had talked about the need to build capacity in various areas, from promoting healthy communities to allocating resources. Across working groups, many recommendations touched upon the need to increase diversity in our Movement; diversity in content, in contribution and in participation, from tech platforms to partnerships. Across working groups, many recommendations had suggested roles that needed to be filled in order to bring about the structural changes that they envisioned and the related responsibilities that needed to go with the roles. In retrospect, the names allocated to these thematic areas should have been different than those of the working groups, as it led to unnecessary confusion among participants and around the process. There was also disagreement around harmonising or adopting the hybrid model that the Roles and Responsibilities working group had, with a great deal of effort and research, prepared. A process to consider harmonising one model with eight diverse sets of recommendations prepared by the other working groups proved challenging.

The three newly formed groups at Harmonisation Sprint around the thematic overlaps comprised one representative from each of the working groups at the sprint. WMF and WMDE representatives joined some groups as listeners and observers in areas of interest and relevance, and as contributors to discussions, but not for the entire duration of the activities in each case. It must be noted that one member from the Diversity working group was not able to get a visa for Tunisia at the last minute, and the Revenue Streams working group had a representative from WMF participate on their behalf as none of the members were able to attend. This challenge in representation was discussed with all participants at the start of the sprint. Overall, in each room there were many promising ideas and discussions, but a cohesive flow was missing and there were many questions and frustrations around the process and the expected outputs, leading to a great deal of back and forth, concurrent interpretations, and confusion among the participants, although this was often nuanced with general good will around the room and a desire to move things forward, even if unclear. In many sub-groups there was a lack of shared understanding around core elements such as equity, inclusion, resources and privilege; what these terms mean and how they can be measured and worked on structurally.

Discussions on overlaps

Such an inclusive undertaking with a diverse group of 24 representatives from across our Movement would have needed a clearer and more concise approach. Deconstructing recommendation components around principles, structures and results needed more direction and clarity than had been anticipated. In some rooms, representatives of the working group with the same name as the thematic overlap were asked by others to lead the discussion or themselves felt a need to do so, whereas stronger facilitation and a clear process could have been more fruitful. After having converged and discussed recommendations around thematic overlaps, sub-group participants were asked to look at their individual working group’s recommendations around that thematic overlap, and using the metaphor of a tree - rooted in ‘principles,’ growing a strong trunk with ‘structures,’ and branching out into ‘results’ - deconstruct their recommendation ideas and attributes.

Capacity building sub-group

Members: Anna Torres (RR), Caitlin Virtue (RS), Camelia Boban (DV), Delphine Menard (WMF), Felix Nartey (RA), Gergo Tisza (PT), Isla Haddow-Flood (AD), John Cummings (PA), Mervat Salam (CH), Michal Lester (CB)

Facilitator: Orla Cronin, ICA:UK

As a first step, this sub-group discussed the definition for “capacity building” as put forward by the capacity building working group: ‘capacity building comprises the activities and communications that systematically build, obtain, strengthen, retain, and share the knowledge, skills, beliefs, tools, processes, and resources for all Wikimedia stakeholders to move towards the Strategic Direction.’ Afterwards, representatives from other working groups wrote down and discussed their relevant recommendations that addressed a need for capacity and capacity development in our Movement. Drawing out structural elements from each recommendation and then levelling these structures across recommendations proved more time-consuming and difficult than anticipated. There were concerns from participants that this approach might be too general, and that valuable detail from each recommendation could be lost.

The various structural components that this sub-group collated from amongst their recommendations were grouped and regrouped collectively to look at further patterns, overlaps and clusters. The three major ones for this sub-group emerged as (1) capacity building to advance the Movement, (2) structures to support capacity building, and (3) principles of capacity building.

Diversity and inclusion sub-group

Members: Andrea Patricia Kleiman (PA), Anna Mazgal (AD), Sailesh Patnaik (CB), Sandra Rientjes (CH), Marc Miquel (DV), , Franziska Heine (PT), Daria Cybulska (RA), Erina Mukuta (RR), Valerie D’Costa (WMF)

Facilitator: Ann Lukens, ICA: UK

Advocacy = post-it yellow; Capacity Building = mustard; Community Health = neon yellow; Diversity = teal; partnerships = magenta; Product and Technology = orange; Resource Allocation = blue; Revenue Streams = green; Roles and Responsibilities = pink.

In this sub-group, participants were invited to each share a topic for discussion from their working group relating to diversity and inclusion. The need to include those who have been systematically excluded because of many internal and external structural, historical and socioeconomic circumstances, and the need to diversify our Movement in every aspect possible have been a prominent convergence of discussions and an overlap of many recommendations throughout the Movement Strategy process, including amongst the nine set of recommendations prepared for the Harmonisation Sprint.

The discussion started around two main ideas: a new people-centred versus the existing content-centred approach to diversity in our Movement; and conceptualising the differences between diversity, equity and inclusion, including in reference to a Ford Foundation report. For example, problems of diversity and inclusion could be seen as ‘symptoms’ originating from lack of equity and/or privilege. Therefore, it would be best to deal with the issue by resolving barriers to equity, like the unequal distribution of resources in our movement. Those who are not privileged should also be allowed to speak for themselves, rather than having someone else speak on their behalf. In the area of technology, though, it was discussed that there is a need for inclusivity, rather than diversity, such as in software development in our movement, which presentedly is led by a limited number of entities (i.e. two). It became evident in group discussions that these terms need to be more clearly differentiated from each other in the process ahead.

Language in relation to diversity was also tackled in detail. Participants discussed that language is sensitive and imposing it can be a political act. For example, terms like “emerging” and “marginal” communities imply exception, an issue even present with the word “decentralisation” since each new centre will have margins of its own and can exclude someone. Other points of discussion included focusing on knowledge equity, the Bill of Rights and various structures to support diversity in our Movement.

Some other conversation threads in this sub-group:

• It is people that keep our Movement alive, keep the discussions going, and perhaps most importantly, consume knowledge; this is an area often overlooked
• Structures must adapt to inclusivity, and this requires constant change and evaluation
• Principles are needed to facilitate understanding and make it easier to organise, train, mentor, partner
  • Need context to connect the principles with implementation
• Youth leadership is missing in the movement - requires capacity, mentorship and resources
  • Resources are not equally distributed, providing unequal opportunities
  • Regional leadership versus foreign / imported experts
  • Online resources and training are needed, but what about those without access to internet?
  • Awareness campaigns are needed for inclusion and diversity - advocacy work can expand diversity, but has to grant people the chance to speak for themselves rather than on their behalf
• Diversity is the cornerstone of knowledge equity and requires partnerships
• Aiming for diversity in decision-making bodies, participatory decisions, especially around resource allocation
• Serving millions of people is better than a handful with available technology and capabilities
  • We have to also serve issues that smaller groups / communities struggle with
• Technology is built by limited entities in our movement, but it has to serve the needs of the entire movement - a body is needed to influence technology building
  • Do together rather than do for them

Roles and responsibilities sub-group

Members: Alice Weigand (AD), Alek Tarkowski (PA), Chris Keating (RR), John Anderson (RA), Maria Sefidari (WMF), Nikki Zeuner (CB), Matanya Moses (PT), Philip Kopeztky (CH), Ryan Merkley (WMF)

Facilitator: Jonathan Dudding, ICA:UK

Advocacy = post-it yellow; Capacity Building = mustard; Community Health = neon yellow; Diversity = teal; partnerships = magenta; Product and Technology = orange; Resource Allocation = blue; Revenue Streams = green; Roles and Responsibilities = pink.

To start, working groups representatives collectively discussed questions and concerns raised by their recommendations around roles, responsibilities and governance, including the hybrid model from the Roles and Responsibilities working group.

There were many questions around the concept of hubs, and some confusion as the term is used differently by different groups: for example, hubs for internal partnerships; hubs as formally organised entities in the movement; hubs as administrative, legal and financial centres of expertise around different regions or themes; and hubs not as an institutional entity, but rather a network of expertise requiring financial and institutional support. Other examples of questions and discussions in this sub-group were: self-determination, which requires structures and organisations that are flexible and cater to the needs of different members of communities; lack of representation from the “Global South” in many areas; lack of shared or distributed decision-making in the movement; the need for diversity in roles and leadership; structures around community health and conflict resolution; capacity building as a crosscutting element and an essential function with dedicated funding and roles; and, charters to formalise common sets of values and principles.

Similar to other sub-groups, it became evident that certain key questions and elements integral to Strategy needed to be collectively discussed with shared understanding amongst the representatives. Some of these elements included: a definition for resources; the need for structural understanding around equity; an agreed upon definition for decentralisation and what this would entail in reality for our movement; and the shared understanding that many problems faced by our movement are highly context-specific and require the inclusion and decision-making power of people in those contexts, but how to go about this structurally and collectively.

Outstanding issues and feedback from the day

Some participants felt that sub-group conversations were random and many elements were missing, including agreement and shared understanding on some key terms and principles around the recommendations. Regarding the process, they felt that scribing small notes to quickly capture discussions was missing out on a lot of well-developed ideas and details, in conversation and in the recommendations, but were also aware of time limits and the complexity of harmonising 89 distinct and diverse recommendations, with one day already close to the end.

The notes below were left in “parking lots” or outstanding issues from different groups:

• Equity and inclusion as separate complex topics, which require different structural approaches to change
• What are internal partnerships?
• Where does capacity building occur?
• Where would the advocacy hub fit?
• What happens to WMF if its functions are decentralised or distributed?
• What is even our current understanding of decentralisation?
• What exactly are the roles and responsibility working group’s Global Council?

Day 2: September 21

The second day of Harmonisation Sprint started with a review of the previous day’s activities, and discussions around how to proceed. Discussions opened with questions from participants, to offer clarity in the process and bring understanding about the tasks ahead. Representatives shared that so much effort had been put into bringing the thematic area recommendations forward over the past year, and particularly in the last few months. The sentiments were that in order to bring forward a coherent set of structural recommendations, elements from all thematic areas needed to be brought together with nothing left behind.

An inclusive and diverse strategy process like this at times needs compromises to move on and tough decisions and discussions, in design and in approach. The core team and facilitators made effort to frequently check in with participants and identify and address needs and blockages. Blockages that had been experienced so far as participants were engaging with each other, some for the very first time, and with a complex process, actually brought voices out and ideas into light, and in many instances, led to open discussions around tough topics, reaching for a shared understanding. With so much effort behind the recommendations and a strenuous meeting, it is not surprising that at times emotions ran high and exhaustion set in, yet the will to talk and move the process forward together persisted nonetheless.

With all the complexities, participants were eager to continue to work. The decision was made to work on the 3 sub-groups with the “tree models” and see what structural convergences emerged after the first session of the day. Participants returned to their sub-groups from the previous day and resumed discussions around structural elements converging various recommendations around overlapping themes, i.e. capacity building, diversity and inclusion, and roles and responsibilities. A recommendation statement was provided by the core team to help the sub-group conversations focus on structural elements:

• Recommendation format: a [structure] which supports [people] to [do something]

Structures exercise

Combining structural input from the previous activity, participants reconvened in the main room and started the process of placing elements with the new recommendation format on a wall. Participants were asked to take time, discuss and start grouping recommendations based on similarities in structures.

Overlapping structural elements of the recommendations, emerging from conversations and this exercise:

Committee	Conflict resolution	Decentralisation
Frameworks	Global coordination committee	Global governance + accountability
Hubs	Local	Movement wide
Network	Platform	Programs
Regional	Rules

In randomly-selected groups of 2-3, participants were asked to review the grouped related structural recommendations and preliminary overlaps to post questions, issues and concerns for each other, mark doubles, and propose items to be moved around. They were also asked to post their thoughts around structures, principles or results alignment of the texts. As had emerged in discussions and activities the previous day and from further observation of the posted questions and concerns, it became obvious that major conversations around some key proposed elements were needed before the group could proceed. As such, a decision was made to pause and have conversations as one big group.

In groups of 4-5, but different combinations of individuals as before, participants were asked to review the posted concerns and issues and mark them for themselves to be debated in a big group collectively. They were also invited to write down additional questions and concerns for the group and use this opportunity to have the tough conversations that were needed.

Group discussions

The goal of this ad hoc session was to air out topics that had come up in discussions and been posted as questions around structural ideas and recommendations. There was need to clarify assumptions and reach a common understanding around overlapping themes so the process could move forward, otherwise reaching any alignment in ideas and discussions would become increasingly more challenging as the sprint went on.

The table below presents the topics and questions posed by participants for the facilitated group discussion:

Grouping for conversation	Items written by participants for discussion
People not here	How do we build for people who are not here? Assumption that people want to be formalised - what happens to informal? How do we ensure diversity and “people-centred” in this process and throughout We feel a lot of people are disengaged and stopped from asking questions and having conversations The scope and scale of the recommendations seem mainly focused on existing communities. Strategy 2030 nvisions new communities joining us, but their perspectives are not here
Alignment with the strategic direction	Are our recommendations aligned with the strategic direction? Structures are static. How do we capture practices and philosophies that we need for the Movement to adapt and live? Based on the recent discussions here, is the timeline still possible? How do we get heart and soul back in the strategy process? Why do we keep referring to old narration instead of imagining the future? What are we afraid of? What is WMF’s and other chapters’ commitment to this process?
Resistance	How we are going to deal with resistance from WMF? To what extent is there willingness to really change existing structures and process?
Taking the process forward	How do we do quality assurance? Can we say that a recommendation is bad? Do we risk assessments for some recommendations? What are function and roles and responsibilities of ‘the hub’? How do we prioritise recommendations? Is there even a will to do so? We need to create a system of approval.
Money for change	Recommendation approval = binding agreement? The expectation is that the changes need a lot of money. Where is that additional money coming from? Not enough conversations about revenue streams.
Decentralisation	Why are independent entities needed? Do we have a shared understanding of what is decentralization? Consider different models of decentralization. Conflicting recommendations: local self-determination vs. global-level, centrally established rules When we talk about decentralization and hubs, in each case, what are we trying to solve, and what are the tradeoffs?
Power and privilege	People with privilege see equity as oppression. Do we need to take care of them? Why are we not discussing power distribution and its limitations, and instead, structures that are a resultant of power discussion? Two elephants that we should openly acknowledge and discuss: WMF and the English power-user community Why are we so obsessed about power? There are many kinds of power in the Movement. To get to greater equity and diversity, are we doing enough to shift power?
Bureaucracy	Too many platforms. Why is creating a committee/council/et. considered as “the” way to decentralise? Too many committees A lot of expectations about volunteer work (committees). Where do all the people come from (especially in the short-term)? Are we on a path to create a mirror of public administration (bureaucracy overload / over-regulation)? How can we make councils / committees less bureaucratic not repeat entrenched mistakes)? Who will gate keep? Who will monitor and evaluate? Diversity? What are the WMF’s concerns? Concerns around implementation.

Discussion highlights and excerpts

• The underlying topic is people not content and we have to do something different. Most things on the wall are about structures, but how to support these structures? Different structures with the same mindset might not give the best results possible. How can we start a new culture that supports more people? How to complement or amend the strategic direction in order to move on?
• The power discussion. We have avoided this conversation. Irrespective of roles, structures or decentralisation, what are the limitations and liabilities of power?
• Decentralisation - how will a council decentralise? The structure themselves do not make it good or bad. Why these structures are important makes the difference. Without being able to discuss these things the conversations will not yield anything constructive.
• You can’t build structures without understanding why you’re building them what you are trying to solve, that’s the principle guiding us. What are we trying to fix, and why are we trying to fix it?
• We want newcomers, new spaces, different directions than we are now moving. There is an existing culture that has brought us here, it is marvellous but it is not enough. They might not be able to edit, create content. We need to dissolve other structures and move towards another culture that offers mentors as equal to contributors. The movement values edits, photos on commons. This needs to change and communication needs to be designed around this.
• Perspective of learning by enjoying the experience is missing in our current structures.
• If we continue the same mindset and the same people continue in the structures, it will be difficult for us to progress. We must change the culture and then create roles to fulfill these responsibilities.
• When we focus on structure, we assume “build it and they will come.” How do we make sure those things are happening?
• Strategy can be built from many starting points. We need to have conversations about the basics first not committees, networks, councils, units, etc. If the Movement’s goal is about knowledge, and not people, then we must add “human-centric” to the Movement direction. What are the structures to improve to reach us towards that outcome?
• Providing financial resources is not the only purpose of a structure. Establishing a new structure is not the guaranteed solution to solve a problem.
• Build knowledge that is independent of individuals. Structures that support people need to be established to ensure that knowledge is consumed and the movement is sustainable.
• People in this room do not represent where everyone is from. There are lots of people who are not in this room.
• ‘How adaptable what we build is’ is one of the most crucial issues to ensure we include those that we need to.
• We have lost ourselves with detail. How can we create a story that we could share with others?
• Are we designing for the current movement or the future movement?
• There are things that are trying to kill us everyday and the movement is not moving fast enough: changing market landscape, there’s nobody else out there that does what we do, a profound fear that we will fail exists.

Day 3: September 22

Day 3 of Harmonisation Sprint began with a check-in round. There were questions around how discussions from the sprint, particularly from the previous evening, would move forward, such as those around social change or people-centred structures. Building trust between working groups and having conversations around big topics were implicit objectives. Explicitly, representatives would work on refining structures from the previous day, continuing the exercise from the “structures” wall, and discussing principles before harmonising functions and structures could take place. Discussing next steps for after the sprint were planned for the last activity of the day. Some convergence on a structural level and coherence on principles were discussed as outcomes to aspire to for the day.

For some participants, the sprint had been seen as an end to phase II of Movement Strategy, and continuing work post sprint was not unanimous, although as with the previous days, participants were eager to work and move things forward at the sprint. There were conversations around structural recommendations and how these would not be the same as recommendation structures, having led to confusion among participants over the sprint. There were also discussions around language and the fact that the same word used by different working groups may not be addressing the same structural changes for the future of the movement. The need for a grand conversation around principles became more evident throughout the day. Key questions left by participants for further discussion from the previous day:

• May be the strategic direction is not enough to do all of this?
• Why aren’t we talking about principles? We need to talk more about the “principles.”
• Do we agree on putting the focus on people?
• Are these structures going to work well (or in the best way possible) with the same principle?

• Continue harmonising the “structures.”
• Decentralisation: what does it mean and what problems does it solve?
• Regroup structures from “what is it called” to “what does it do.

What structures need to exist?

As a first activity for day 3, it was decided that structures needed to be further discussed and come together in order to identify the functions they attempt to perform. Some structures would be obvious for the needs of the movement and its future. Others would require further research and exploration. Some structures could readily merge with existing movement structures and bring about needed change, while others would require completely new structures to be explored, set, and organised.

Appendix 2 presents the results of this exercise, comprising the overlapping structures, related recommendations, and comments from various participants.

Principles discussions

Although not originally planned in the activities of Harmonisation Sprint, it became evident that discussions around principles underlying recommendations for change must happen before further alignment could take place. Discussions helped move forward the process of identifying convergence and shared attributes across recommendations. In the activity, although participants articulated their ideas as principles, some are statements and require further work, including whether they align with the Strategic Direction or not. It was important that the ethos of Movement Strategy and the need to bring about structural change, and rather urgently so, were discussed. Appendix 3 presents the principles discussed by participants at Harmonisation Sprint.

Representatives were asked to first write down three principles from their working groups, this activity was then expanded to more than three principles and eventually became an open group discussion where the facilitator and the Information and Knowledge Management team captured open discussions, resulting in thirty six proposed principles. Representatives were asked to agree or disagree with the proposed principles as they emerged, and in multiple rounds comment and ask for further clarity. The option to discuss principles as a group and or to finish the structures work from the previous day was also discussed, and the majority of participants decided that principles conversation should continue.

Reflections on principles

Once the exercise wrapped up given time constraints, participants returned to the big circle for a final round of discussions and reflections on the activity. Some snippets include:

• Principles brought alignment and confidence to move forward with the process
• The third day of the sprint was very valuable and the principles discussion needs to be continued
• Given the number of people in all working groups, the various iterations, and the number of recommendations, to have come to this point and have thirty six principles is actually quite impressive
• This conversation needed to be had earlier, perhaps much earlier in the process, but even at the beginning of the sprint
• The principles need further work and refining, then to be shared with communities for feedback
• For working groups that had prepared principles documents already, it was valuable to share and discuss them explicitly
• This is all positive, but what do we really want? How can we prioritise 36 principles?
• Some principles that were deemed obvious and clear for one participant or working group, were not so for another at all
• How can the content and context of these principles be shared with the movement?
• Some topics may seem to be agreed upon widely, but there could be disagreements under the surface
• Language matters, a glossary for the recommendations is needed

General sentiments were that time was well-spent on this activity, that the principles conversation was long overdue, and valuable topics were discussed. However, the need for further refinement, conversation and next steps were also clearly expressed.

Next steps

Harmonisation Sprint concluded with a closing activity connecting and binding participants together, literally using yarn. But before that, discussions around next steps took place. There were many conversations around: timelines; various ways the 3 “walls” could come together (i.e. content/themes, structures, principles); the further involvement of external experts and WMF/WMDE guests at the sprint; the final shape and output document for this whole process; the gravitas of the decision of the WMF Board of Trustees and next steps; the crucial importance of community outreach and engagement; expectation management for the next steps; consensus models for moving forward given the diversity of working groups and representatives; the need for recognition of the incredible effort of the working group members and their work on the recommendations; the need to make the recommendations concise and accessible; an opportunity for a pause and reconfiguration after the sprint; imminent tensions that could arise around recommendations, convergence and consolidation; the need to continue many of these conversations.

The design team from the core team shared a presentation around the originally anticipated next steps and offered to review content generated at the sprint, share with the representatives and other working group members, and present various options for ways forward after the sprint.

Appendix I: Thematic grouping of the recommendations

This table presents thematic grouping of the 89 recommendations developed by the Movement Strategy working groups in the lead up to Harmonisation Sprint. The themes were identified in various iterative processes including in-person events, such as Wikimania, and in online discussions, such as Steering Group and harmonisation calls. The qualitative analysis software Quirkos was used to tag and flag various passages and sentences from the recommendations along these points of thematic convergence, so recommendations could be made accessible for representatives and readily brought together for discussion. It was also intended that through this approach, the richness of the recommendations would not be overlooked as many recommendations touch upon multiple thematic areas. This list is not comprehensive of all thematic convergences. The core team presented this as a starting point for conversation at the sprint, working group representatives reviewed and added further recommendations to various groups, and also added additional themes that they identified important for further discussion.

Theme	Working Group
	AD	CB	CH	DV	PA	PT	RA	RS	RR
Diversity and inclusion	AD 2, 4, 6, 7, 9	CB P, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9	CH 3, 4, 5	DV 1, 2	PA 1, 2, 5, 7	PT 6A, 6B	RA A, B, C, D, E, F, I		RR 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, scenario
Capacity Building (as a theme)	AD 4, 5, 8, 9, 10	CB P, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10	CH 1, 2, 3, 4	DV 1, 4	PA 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11	PT 1, 6A, 7, 10	RA A, B, E, F	RS	RR 2-3, 6, 7, scenario
Roles and responsibilities (as a theme)	AD 1, 3, 5, 9	CB 1-10	CH 1, 2, 3, 4	DV 1, 2, 4, 5	PA 2, 6, 11	PT 1, 6A, 8	RA A, B, C, D, E ,G	RS	RR 2-3, 4-5, 7, scenario
Training	AD 5	CB 1, 3, 4, 7	CH 3, 4, 5, 6	DV 4, 7	PA 10, 11, 12	PT 6A, 6B	RA E, F		RR 6, 7, scenario
Peers	AD 5, 9	CB P, 1, 2, 3							RR 2-3
Mentorship	AD 5, 3	CB P, 1, 3, 8	CH 3, 6	DV 1, 4	PA 10, 11	PT 6A			RR 2-3, 7
Leadership	AD 1, 8, 9	CB 1, 2, 8	CH 2, 3	DV 1, 5	PA 2, 10, 11	PT 10			RR 2-3, 6, 7
Advocacy	AD 6, 9	CB 1, 2, 3	CH 3, 7, 8	DV 1, 2, 4	PA 1, 2, 3, 11, 12		RA A		RR 4-5, scenario
The charter	AD 6	CB P					RA A		RR 4-5, 6, scenario
Code of Conduct	AD 1, 2		CH 1	DV 4, 5					RR hybrid scenario
Decision making	AD 1, 9	CB P, 4, 5, 10	CH 1, 2	DV 2		PT 1, 2, 3	RA A, B, C		RR 2-3, 4-5, 6, 7, scenario
Shared understanding	AD 1, 3, 6	CB P, 1			PA 2, 9	PT 2, 5	RA A		RR 4-5
Transparency	AD 1, 5, 6	CB 1				PT 3	RA A		RR 2-3, 6
Underpinning values	AD 2, 5, 6	CB 3, 4	CH 1, 3, 4, 7, 8	DV 1, 2	PA 1, 2	PT P	RA A, B, E		RR 4-5, scenario
Guiding principles	AD 2, 6, 9	CB P	CH 1	DV 1, 2	PA 2, 7	PT 1, 3, 8, 10	RA A, F	RS	RR 2-3, 4-5, 6
Decentralisation	AD 5, 9	CB P, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10	CH 3		PA 6	PT 1	RA D, E		RR 2-3, 4-5, 7, scenario
Regional hubs		CB 2, 3, 4, 9	CH 2, 4		PA 6		RA B, E, D		RR 2-3, scenario
Thematic hubs	AD 3, 4, 5, 9, 10	CB 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10	CH 3, 6		PA 3, 4, 6	PT 1	RA E		RR 2-3, scenario
Partnerships (as a theme)	AD 6, 7	CB P, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8	CH 3, 4, 8	DV 2, 6	PA 2, 7, 12		RA E, H	RS	RR 2-3, 4-5, 6, 7, scenario
Technology (as a theme)	AD 4, 7, 10	CB 1, 2, 7	CH 3, 4, 8, 9, 12	DV 1, 2, 3	PA 3, 4, 9, 10	PT all	RA E	RS	RR 2-3, 7, scenario
Community health (as a theme)	AD 1, 6, 10	CB P, 1, 2, 3, 9	CH all	DV 1, 2, 4		PT 2, 6A		RS 1, 3, 4	RR 2-3, 4-5, 6, 7, scenario
Participation	AD 1, 2, 8	CB 3, 6, 7, 9, 10	CH 1, 3, 4, 6, 7		PA P, 1, 4	PT 3, 6A, 6B	RA A, B		RR 2-3, 4-5, 6, scenario
Recognition	AD 2, 8	CB 2, 8, 9	CH 2, 6	DV 2	PA 1, 11, 12		RA B
People-centred	AD 2	CB 2, 3, 7, 8, 9	CH 5, 10	DV 2	PA 9, 10, 11, 12		RA B, I		RR 2, 3, 4, 5
Volunteers	AD 2, 8	CB 4, 7, 8, 9	CH 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12	DV 5	PA 11	PT R6B	RA A, B, C, E		RR 2-3, 7, scenario
Conflict resolution	AD 1	CB 1	CH 4, 5, 9				RA E		RR 2-3, 7, scenario
Safety			CH 4, 8, 9						RR 4-5
Resource allocation (as a theme)	AD 5	CB 1-10	CH 3, 11	DV 7	PA 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11	PT 1, 3	RA A, E, D		RR 2-3, 7, scenario
Systematic approach	AD 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10	CB P, 1-10	CH 1, 2, 4, ...	DV 1	PA 2, 4, 6, 11	PT 1, 8, 10	RA A		RR 2-3, scenario
Power structure	AD 9	CB 1, 10	CH 2, 3			PT 1, 3, 4	RA B, C	RS 2, 3	RR 2-3, 6, 7
Evaluation		CB 1, 5, 6	CH 10	DV 2, 4	PA 8, 9, 11	PT 1, 3, 4, 8, 10	RA A		RR 2-3, 6
Knowledge sharing					PA 9, 13
Revenue streams (as a theme)		CB 2, 4, 5, 8			PA 2	PT 1, 7	RA A, E, G	RS	RR scenario

Preliminary glossary of themes, as per working group discussions

Capacity Building

• Shared needs, skills and resources for all, with a minimum set of fundamental elements that can be useful for building personal, organisational, and group capacity
• Creating a system that allows all ecosystem stakeholders to find the information, peers and resources they need, to contribute their expertise and to find the expertise of others

Decentralisation

• Discussions by working groups around moving away from a centralised approach of governance and resource allocation, and instead to transition to and build capacity for decision-making at the local level, factoring in context and the need for flexibility based on community participation and locally-identified needs
• This conversation for some groups is used interchangeably with deunification of a central institution and for others is on a gradient
• Some working groups have discussed that when legitimacy from established structures is required or organisational liability is at stake, then institutionalised bodies can either step in based on protocols and/or get called in by local bodies, such as in a crisis situation or when local community capacity is not strong
• Opening up processes, inclusion of communities in decision-making, developing capacities across our movement to ensure more participation and mentorship

Decision-Making

• The ability to move ahead with decisions and enabling our movement to make their decision-making processes transparent and efficient
• Enhancing the capacity of volunteers and affiliates to take decisions
• Participating and contributing to decisions that affect entrenched privileges, introduce diversity and inclusion, and disrupt the status quo
• Decision-making processes comprise identifying the problem or opportunity, developing alternatives, evaluating alternatives, and inclusively choosing and implementing the best alternative and then evaluating the decision

Diversity and inclusion

• Diversity within and across the movement, and not just in editors, but in content, context and structure
• Radical rethinking of the design of our projects, intended audiences, existing software and technologies, and open discussions around policies, finances and governance structures of the movement
• A shift from the current content-centred culture to a people-centred one, to focus on and support everyone's learning experience, as a reader or contributor

Evaluation

• Evaluation as an integrated and ingrained concept for all our efforts going forward, as a super meta-recommendation and an all encompassing attribute
• Evaluation not seen as only an end to meet standards of fiscal and operational responsibility, but to include capacity, and non-programmatic and non-financial components, like being accountable to donors, constituents served, the public and regulators
• Effectiveness is making the greatest impact possible with the available resources to achieve the mission for the greater good of those served and society
• Participatory evaluation should be adopted as a core value to take part in designing programs and initiatives (both volunteer led and affiliate organised)

Guiding principles

• Complementing the organic growth of our movement with well-planned principles and overarching frameworks to ensure sustainable growth and meaningful impact
• Also like by-laws and charters, providing explicit instructions for action and structure, a manifestation of values

Hubs

• A one-stop-shop for diverse resources, user-friendly knowledge management, repository of information, and networking for support and collaboration
• For coordination of efforts, not to replace or dominate local activities, but to enhance and support them with a mixture of training, knowledge, resources, partnerships, and various opportunities that may not be apparent or readily-accessible locally
• User-friendly virtual hubs (can also include physical) of knowledge transfer, institutional memory, capacity exchange, partnerships, and mentorship

Participation

• Formal and informal efforts to involve volunteers/constituents in contributing to the projects and making decisions
• Engaging editors, readers, and partners in open and participatory methods (ongoing outreach activities, strategic discussions, and establishing participatory decision making mechanisms) within their own communities and organizations

People-Centred

• Celebrating achievements in the movement based on people, such as new readers and more diverse types of contribution
• People-centered development focusing on improving community capacity to take decisions in a participatory manner and cooperate with various stakeholders to achieve better outcomes for the development of communities
• Structures that encourage cross-community conversations while maintaining the integrity of volunteers and values of the projects

Power Structures

• Structures that have significant input in the governance of the organization/movement
• Elected/appointed boards/committees are tasked with the responsibility of making decisions for the growth of the entire organization/movement
• Members of the structures should understand their own roles and responsibilities and how they help further the mission of the organization

Shared understanding

• Open and participatory discussions regarding processes and the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders for the health of communities, progress of the projects and needs of the community members
• Developing context specific and/or movement-wide solutions with diverse stakeholders to tackle and address problems

Systemic approach

• A systematic or holistic approach to existing activities or practices that were historically done on a case-by-case basis, going from ad hoc to more established and formal (although still flexible to contexts)
• Based on guiding principles, protocols, evaluation, and institutional history

Transparency

• Quality enabling stakeholders (internal and external) to access movement-related or organisation-specific information concerning the mission and operations of the movement for decisions of importance
• Promoting structures that care for transparency and accountability, particularly around decision-making, governance and allocation of resources

Universal code of conduct

• Agreement upon the basic principles of conduct to ensure healthy communities and functional systems in our movement
• Protecting volunteers from abuse, harassment and burnout, safeguarding communities from internal and external discord
• Ways to systematically address the health of individuals and communities

Values

• Where as principles give instructions on structures, values are more implicit and crosscutting
• Guiding principles could be written based on values

Volunteers

• Including communities and contributors of the movement (newcomers and experienced)
• Acknowledging and recognising the efforts of volunteers as significant for the stability and growth of the movement has been a common thread of discussion amongst mahy recommendations

Appendix II: Structures

This table is a representation of conversations and activities started at Harmonisation Sprint around finding convergence in working group recommendations and attempting to align them at a structural level. This activity commenced with discussions around thematic convergence in the recommendations, i.e. ideas mentioned frequently by working groups and prioritised in various iterations. Related recommendations from different working groups were then deconstructed at the principles, structures and results levels, and different approaches at aligning the recommendations at the structures level were collectively attempted. The table below is the final iteration of structural conversations and grouping of some components of many working group recommendations. Although certainly not comprehensive or all-inclusive, it is one of the three main conversations at the sprint, along with thematic groupings and principles, and presents an opportunity for further input, reflection, and consolidation by the working groups, the core team and external reviewers.

Structure	Recommendation	Comments
Global coordination committee	Several global council committees to support movement entities, volunteers to enable coordination and shaping in thematic areas
	Deployment Council that supports people to join the Open Product Process
	P&T Ethics committee that supports all developers and program managers to build ethical tech
	A well supported and funded Strategy group to ensure that the recommendations are resourced, supported and implemented.
Global governance and accountability	A global council which enables movement entities and project communities to set global strategy resource allocation and make radical decisions (as a last resort)
	A supervising body which supports the hubs to ensure that funding has reached the expected activities or goals to ensure accountability	Related to rules
Frameworks	A mechanism and staff support to enable equity on decision-making (e.g. on resources) across all communities	Committee? Don’t agree
	A framework co-designed with partners that enables communities, partners and networks to work collectively sustaining the fre knowledge ecosystem. Focus on knowledge equity.	Define what are frameworks
	A system, decided by Regional Hubs, to compensate people. This is to reduce barriers to participation and address lack of privilege.	Who gets paid for what?
	Movement-wide protocols/process/group to every decision or change impact on community health diversity and growth
	A system of accountability held mutually between peers, communities and hubs (i.e. it doesn’t point back to the ‘centre’)	Principle?
	Multilingual supported system for finding and getting resources for all communities	Double with CB platform
	Partnerships framework that supports all actors in the broader free knowledge movement to align and cooperate on mutually agreed upon strategy and goals	So a group which decides what partnerships everyone can do?
Centralised / movement wide	Code of Conduct for all online spaces to help communities maintain good working climate	Duplicate - committees
	Development Platforms & Proper Tooling: Specifically for niches and currently poorly served technical user groups	Platform
	Technology Ethics Board to make recommendations about the use of technology and its impact in the world	Committee?
	Global (and equitable) decision-making body to set global priorities, e.g. focus on future knowledge consumers
	Deployment Council: for setting the requirements for deploying new functionality to the wikis	Committee?
	Creation of accountable bodies that enable diverse representation of entire ecosystem - to support and ensure
	Movement wide open product proposal process	No why
	A mechanism to facilitate and support community leadership (current of potential) to work based on new, enhanced, non-traditional structure of power and authorities
	An advocacy community process that enables people in our movement to understand and engage in advocacy smoothly and transparently
	A system of communication and legal assistance which supports advocates to protect themselves and the movement	Double with CB unit
	Capacity building and other resources to support the wider free knowledge movement to help it grow
	Movement-wide engagement models with clear roles and responsibilities	For tech?
	Movement-wide structures and programmes to ensure security and safety for all who come into contact with Wikimedia
	Research, training and resources which supports all movement actors to provide the information needed to solve global challenges including the SDGs
	The development of a multilevel cohesive global to local organisational ecosystem that includes the autonomous capacity building unit and regional plus thematic hubs to drive capacity building actions (training, knowledge, networks, repositories, revenue streams, programmes, etc.) and actors volunteers, community leaders, developers, etc. across the Movement	Double with CB unit
	A decentralized network of movement entities with software development capacity which supports all members of the movement to use software trained to their specific needs
	An iterative strategic consultation which supports movement members needing software and movement entities doing software development in harmonising their values and priorities
Hubs / orgs	A basic support structure to support the whole movement by providing essential infrastructure that can be decentralised. Eg: Tech infrastructure, trademarks and global fundraising	Not a hub? Centralized How come WMF is just a hub?
	A thematic hub which supports all movement actors within a given topic area to allocate different types of resources to them (financial, technical, expertise etc) to help them reach further
	A network of hubs which support organisational and institutions to work towards the vision and strategic direction with logistical, financial and practical support
	Designated movement entity possibly affiliate that supports movement entities and volunteers to do content partnerships
	A [thematic / regional hub] that has autonomy and supports [the movement both on the global and regional level (affiliates, individuals, online communities, etc.) to [advise, advance, and provide capacity building opportunities that make sense on the local level / relevant to local communities]
	A capacity building unit which determines core capacities which develops tools processes and capacity builders to support the provision of capacity building or organisations	Combine with below?
	An autonomous CB unit to support all stakeholders who require CB support, services platforms, etc. to support the general advancement of the movement
	An advocacy hub that enables advocates to work on sustainable systematic change (protection of advocates/knowledge management)	Governance or coordination?
	Non-fundraising opportunities (in-kind donations, government grants, earned income) to support movement organisations to generate revenue	Function instead of structure?
	Distributed vision that enables communities to play the role of regional or thematic leaders responsible for leading partnerships in different areas.	Why can’t communities do that? Why are hubs needed here?
	Merchandising which support movement bodies to generate revenue *incomplete text	Not a hub?
Regional	Regional hubs to structure the peer to peer learning and to support emerging leaders	Implications are multifold Why regional instead of topic or both
	Regional hubs which bring the decision making (about resources, programmes) closer to the communities
	Regional and thematic conferences, trainings, supported by Wikimedia Foundation and Affiliates to support organisational and individual capacity building
	Decentralised programmes to support newcomers find their way
	A regional hub which supports all movement actors within a given geographic area to to allocate different types of resources to them (financial, technical, experts etc) to help them reach further
	Expand payment methods to support (movement organisations) to generate revenue	Also global Everyone expected to fundraise?
Local	A structure of a local body/team which supports local communities, volunteers to provide and receive training, mentoring and coaching to ensure self-management on the local level
	Self management structure that enables communities to have redistribution of power - power decision-making
	An even distribution of support Capacity Building, facilitators, coaching (mentorship) and leadership that enables communities and partners to acquire required skills & support
	A distributed power, responsibility and decision-making process (system) that enables communities to make decisions at the lowest level that affects them	Principle?
	A variety of teams which support volunteers and staff to conduct work with direct impact
	To create internal partnerships that enables affiliates to mentor and support new communities. Focus on knowledge equity	What does internal partnership mean?
Network	A developer support network which supports technical contributors in developing software efficiently	Paid staff? Volunteers / community? Define
	A global network of Wikimedia advocates that proactively advises on/drive global / international and regional advocacy focused efforts
	A global network of communities of practice that enables advocates to increase the impact of advocacy
	A network of liaisons with a people-centred mindset in every community to adopt a people-centred culture
	An informal network of active and consulting advocates aka “advocacy hub” to support advocates to get resources and peer support for their activities
	Dedicated staff (at the Foundation and affiliates) supported by volunteer working groups and/or creation of more culturally and regionally appropriate resources.	Hubs?
Rules	Expectations on diverse, inclusive accountability of movement entities to ensure equity in decision making	Related to RA supervisory body
	A movement charter which supports the whole movement to have a shared understanding of values, principles and behaviours
	A joint set of rules which supports projects and communities to take action against inappropriate behaviour (easily report bad conduct)
	A limitation of roles person to support organisations to avoid burnout and bottlenecks in the processes	Contradicts some of the “local” column
	Community driven processes which support advocates and beyond to design engagement paths and entry points for Wikimedia advocacy	Move to programs
	Term limits which support projects and organisations to rejuvenate their leadership and make leadership positions more attainable and accessible	Contradicts some of the “local” column
	Research, training and resources which support all movement actors to understand the current and potential roles of Wikimedia and the wider free knowledge movement in global challenges including the Sustainable Development Goals	Training and resources? Move to programs
	Movement-wide rules and guidelines re: elections, terms of functionaries to open up power structures	Contradicts some of the “local” column
	New roles to support projects to take the burden off the current roles and allow for a more equitable distribution of power	Too vague, not a structure
	Movement-wide principles for fundraising, movement organisations and donors to ensure ethical fundraising
Programs	Community driven processes which support advocates and beyond to understand and design decision making in advocacy topics
	A program to support projects and organisations to train to avoid conflict, resolve conflict and support people in the aftermath of conflict
	An organisational development programme which enables people to start, grow , mature, professionalise their organisations along a self determined path	How do we choose whether this function is fulfilled by: hub, program, platform, WMF, ...
	A leadership program which supports people in training [and] mentoring existing and emerging leaders	Training?
	Capacity building boards, committees, and people on governance roles to enable them to work effectively
	A process of matching skills to responsibilities which supports boards and tech leadership to have the skills to effective tech vision and oversight
	A structure of training system and mentoring which supports new leaders to increase the number of movement actors with leadership capacity
Conflict resolution	An Ombudscouncil to support the whole movement by providing high level conflict resolution	Needs review Committee?
	Coaches who support teams to work effectively, ensure voices are heard and de-escalate or absolve conflicts	Training? Regional? Local? Rules
	Training framework to support participants to safely and comfortably report bad behaviour and people responsible for taking decision against bad behaviour to make better decisions based on processes and policies	A platform? Role of a coach Frameworks or training?
Committee	A sub-committee of the future global strategy body (global council) that helps get the framework for CB to enter implementation at all levels	Rephrase?
	An advisory committee + steering committee which supports a community-consultative process to articulate the principles and values of the Wikimedia movement in a living document or charter	Is this committee permanent or ad hoc?
	An expert council for ethics in technology which supports technical contributors and movement entities doing software development to avoid unethical use of software
	A steering committee which support a community-driven process on the development of a movement-wide code of conduct to ensure and encourage Wikimedia values	CoC is the structure?
Platform	A modern development platform which supports technical contributors to develop software efficiently
	Documentation, resources and training to help other groups outside the movement who are interested in collaboration on a massive scale to learn from what we do, reuse our models and processes
	A premium/paid Wikimedia API which supports extremely high volume users to generate revenue for the movement
	Organisational structures which support paying customers to implement and use MediaWiki through sales, course development, delivery and technical support
	A mechanism and repository of resources (people, information, case studies) which supports a network of advocates to mentor, advise, and facilitate advocacy actions
	A system of knowledge dissemination which supports communities involved in participatory decision-making to make informed choices
	A platform for productive and inclusive discussions which supports communities involved in participatory decision-making to make informed choices
	A structure of technological council to support global movement entities doing software development to ensure coherence of the software ecosystem	How to ensure gatekeeping is not happening in a bad way?
	A multilingual searchable platform for resources on capacity building for all community members
	A clear simple training model / framework (e.g. computer-based training, video, etc.), which helps all types of functionaries to implement, enforce, observe, follow-up the intended CoC suggested by CH WG
	Discussion/Decision-making/Governance Platform: in the sense of a technical platform to facilitate the things above

Appendix III: Principles

This compiled document presents all of the principles discussed by representatives at Harmonisation Sprint. This discussion helped the group move forward in the process of identifying convergence and shared attributes across recommendations. Although it wasn’t originally planned in the activities, it became evident at the sprint that discussions around principles underlying recommendations for change needed to happen before any productive alignment work could take place. Representatives articulated these as principles but some are statements that require further discussion and work, including alignment with the Strategic Direction.

No.	Principle	WG	Notes / comments
1	Empower previously excluded	PT	✔: RR, CB, AD, PT, CH, RS, DV, RA ~: PA
2	Empower change Through accessible, usable, changeable platforms	PT	✔: RR, RS, CB, CH, DV, AD, RA ~: PA
3	Equity lens Through which resource allocation happens Resource allocation drives equity This dictates prioritisation of resources It shifts power, gives access and opportunity	RA	✔: RR, PA, AD, DV, CH, CB, RA ~: PT, RS
4	Capacity Building is a motor for equity and participation	CB	✔: RS, RR, PA, CB, AD, CH, DV, PT, RA
5	Inclusion and accountability in decision-making	RR	✔: RS, RR, CH, DV, PT ~: PA, RA, CB
6	Security and safety of all participants stands above the autonomy of projects and communities	CH	✔: AD, RR, PA, PT, RA, CB ~: RS, DV
7	One size does not fit all - capacity should be adapted / adaptable to context	CB	✔: AD, PA, CB, RR, DV, RS, CH ~: PT, RA - Does one size fits all imply we can’t for example have a universal code of conduct?
8	Self-management empowering people to their greatest possible extent to pursue a shared vision	RR	✔: RS, RA, CH, DV, AD, RR, CB ~: PA, PT
9	Self-determination or autonomy Projects/structures have to fit people and not the other way around People choose how they work together, subsidiary decentralization	AD	- No decision without ‘nothing about us, without us’ - Self management and decentralisation should be considered together - Clarity around the term ‘subsidiarity’ - Other terms for the same principle? - Clarification and assessment criteria
10	Limiting circumstances: Liability (central entity may be sued) Standardisation (e.g. software)	AD	* Connected with above
11	Structures must adapt to the context and support a thriving movement	RR	~: RS, PT, PA, CH, RA (what changes?), CB
12	Decisions are to be taken at the lowest possible level	RR	✔: RS, RR, PA, CB, RA, PT, CH - Complicated - Nothing about us, without us - As close as possible to those impacted
13	Support anyone’s learning experience (as a contributor or as a consumer in any activity)	DV	✔: PA, CB, PT, RA (clarification) ~: RR, CH, RS
14	People-centric approach (a movement of people to serve people)	DV	✔: RR, RA, CB, RS, PA ~: PT, CH
15	No one (who shares the value) with the will to contribute should be stopped by the structure	DV	✔: RA, RS ~: RR, PA, CH, PT, CB - Partnerships with non-aligned organisations?
16	Lifelong learning for life	CB	✔: AD, CB, RA ~: RS, RR, CH, PA, PT
17	Users enabled by knowledge from Wikimedia to positive change the world	PA	✔: RS, CB, PA, RA, PT - Is it a principle?
18	Movement Organisations will be free from undue influence, including a clear separation between financial support and website content Movement organisations will not allow ads on websites	RS	✔: RS, PA, CB, CH, RR, PT ~: RA
19	Try to minimise barriers (social, technological, linguistic etc) for participation and decision making	CH	✔: PT, RS, AD, PA, RR, CB
20	Participation in the projects and all processes related to the projects should be accessible and safe	CH	✔: PT, RS, AD, PA, RR, CB
21	Diversity Without different people, we have fragmented knowledge Respect to knowledge protocols, empathy to contexts, adaptable structures	AD	✔: PT, PA, AD, RR, CB ~: CH
22	Transparency People need to have clear pathways in the movement and rules of engagement Practices, processes, tools, narratives	AD	✔: CH, PT, AD, PA, RR
23	We cannot do this alone. We can only achieve our goals if Wikimedia Movement works with others	PA	XX
24	Partnerships need to be based on a decentralised and participatory vision. Devolve power from hierarchies to trusted network. Partnerships must strive to bring new voices	PA	✔: CH, RR, PA, CB ~: AD, PT, RS
25	Cooperation, consultation and collaboration between movement entities	RR	✔: CH, RS, AD, PA, PT, RR, CB
26	Everyone supporting Wikimedia is a Wikimedian	DV	✔: PA, AD, CB ~: RR, CH, PT
27	Responsibility of Power: Technology Development is governed by a whole community	PT	XX
28	Product and Technology planning is an open and transparent process	PT	XX
29	The ability to sustain and maintain a Product and Technology should be distributed	PT	XX
30	We are a socio-technical movement We need to monitor and understand the impact of Product and Technology decisions	PT	✔: RS, AD, RR, CH, CB ~: PA
31	Usability and accessibility	DV	✔: RS, RR, PT, PA, AD ~: CH, CB - “needs refinement”
32	The wisdom lies everywhere in the movement	CB	✔: PT, AD, CB ~: RS, CH, RR, PA - “needs refinement”
33	Decentralization	??	~: “not use decentralization as a principle” “
34	To assure that the movement merits the respect and trust of donors and the general public, and that said groups can have confidence in the movement. We subscribe to many of the principles outlined in the ‘Donor Bill of Rights’	RS	✔: RS, PT, AD, RR ~: CH, CB, PA
35	Participatory decision making (in context) We address barriers to participation We acknowledge and shift privileges People in power reflect what we want the movement to be	RA	✔: RS, PT, RR, AD, CH, CB ~: PA
36	Anyone who shares our vision gets access to resources Partnerships can address conditions of open knowledge or access to knowledge People in power reflect what we want the movement to be	RA	✔: RS, AD, RR, CH, CB ~: PA
Further discussion issues and questions on principles posted by representatives Does one size fits all imply we can’t for example have a universal code of conduct? How will the equity principle be applied in resource allocation? (Example of British Museum) Need to distinguish/clarify the core non-negotiable principles and adaptations in specific contexts Is there an issue at the core set of non-divergeable principles / processes Complicated decision-making “at the lowest level” Feasibility of lowest level of decision-making How absolute is it as a principle? “Learning experience for everyone,” shifts the movement from knowledge to learning? Issue: broader discussion on what ‘people-centred’ means in relation to mission; present and future What about platforms Wikimedia has no control over, e.g. Facebook? ‘No advertising’ ‘Website’ too narrow Need to unpick ‘advertising’ more Further work on terminology