Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Reports/Summary of Movement Conversations 2020/Table

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎日本語
Support ... this is great, go for it, this will support us, we need this, full support Add, clarify, edit ... this is good, but needs work, something's missing, we need clarity, go further, we have suggestions for improvement Oppose ... we don't like this, could have negative effects, it shouldn't happen, needs to be changed
Principles
  • Principles are fundamental - values on which the movement is built
  • Principles are seen as representative of community values
  • Particular support for Subsidiarity, Equity and Inclusivity, Distributed Knowledge, Accountability and Collaboration
  • Support - "a solid base to build who we want to be in future"
  • Should be highlighted more prominently as the value-based guidance for the next steps
  • Add / highlight our values around freely sharing knowledge
  • Stress our volunteer spirit
  • Ensure the principles are featured more prominently as the value-based guidance for the next steps
  • “Equity” applies not only to geography or identity, but also to on-wiki communities (ie. underdeveloped Sister Projects or smaller Wikipedias versus EN:Wikipedia).
  • "Efficiency" should be defined more broadly and positively as being related to commensurate effects and promoting most successful solutions (not only negatively as "not wasting resources")
1. Promote sustainability and resilience

Support paid API

  • Large commercial users of our content access the work for free and put a toll on limited resources
  • By increasing revenue generation, ensure the financial sustainability of Wikimedia
    Hiring local staff
  • Local staff can provide better assistance in professional work, especially for structured growth of communities/affiliates
  • Different than staff being based somewhere, this is for dedicated staff from a community for that community
    Compensation for non-editing activities
  • Voluteering is a Western concept and can't be the approach with all communities

Other

  • Support for reaching the highest potential for our partnerships
  • Support for tracking new roles in the movement

Add

  • Addressing paid editing: one of the absolute biggest issues we face today
  • Environmental sustainability and natural resources - (around access to verified information, reducing the movement's footprint, resilience for Wikimedians - natural and human-made disasters)
  • Explicitly mention sustainability of "emerging communities"

Edit

  • Clear definition of the word "cultural change"
  • Alternative to the word "track" - has negative connotations
  • Paid API should be studied in depth before application

Clarify

  • What is the justification for increasing spending?
  • Meaning of "3rd party ecosystems"
  • Paid API only for extremely large corporate users

Oppose paid API

  • May affect the financial (and thus political) independence of Wikimedia
  • May be the start of the commercialization of the projects
  • May affect the relationship with the community
  • Placing any part of any Wikimedia project behind a paywall, is an antithesis to the concept of Open knowledge
  • The same entities that might pay for API access would also be able to host a database dump
  • Might lead to equity problems separating first-class and second-class API users
    Other
  • If compensating "volunteers", they're not volunteers anymore
  • Editing and only editing is what constitutes this movement
  • "50% of budget should be spent in developing countries" in a footnote
2. Create cultural change for inclusive community development

Universal Code of Conduct

  • Finally!
  • Brings healthy working atmosphere, more welcoming to newcomers
  • Improving the atmospheres within the community helps attract more volunteers
  • Provides needed procedures that can create a strong impact on making the environment safe for minorities
    Charter
  • Support for a standard document of movement values, principles, and governance that guides interactions and affiliate bylaws

Evaluation process

  • Support for an evaluation process to account for our progress towards a more inclusive and benevolent culture

Overall

  • Strong support for proactive cultural change in favor of women and minorities
  • The need for cultural change and safety mechanisms is often misunderstood by those who do not live in more precarious situations
  • Support for accountability and transparency across stakeholders

IP Masking

  • It is necessary for protecting editors in politically unstable settings

Elaborate differences between online and offline communities

  • Documents that will be written, guidelines, implementation, processes

Universal Code of Conduct

  • Not enough: it speaks of "maintaining a healthy atmosphere" when it it isn't the case to start with
  • Make it adaptale to each community's unique circumstances and context
  • Elaborate how it connects to existing local policies and conflict resolution structures and how/by whom it will be enforced
  • Focus on prevention rather than punishment, building shared understanding of what is (un)acceptable by including harassers themselves
  • Edit "inclusive language": doesn't apply to all languages/communities
  • Should not be too complicated, there are already many project-level terms of use and guidelines
  • Insist on the need for enforcement and the necessary capacity/training (a code by itself won't solve all problems)

Charter

  • Provide a better definition: e.g. is it about “values”, “rights”?
  • Elaborate how the Charter will be adopted or how it will take effect (e.g. would it be mandatory?)
  • Accountability should also apply to WMF

Cultural Change

  • Provide a clearer definition: what kind of cultural change is needed (from which to which set of values)
  • What are the implications? Why do we need cultural change?
    Language
  • Explicitly mention contributor groups that are “included”, as in women, LGBT+, age groups, etc.

Universal Code of Conduct

  • Mistrust in WMF enforcement, e.g. Framban/Superprotect
  • Concerns around ongoing implementation initiatives (regardless of community input)
    IP Masking
  • Can lead to a huge amount of vandalism
  • Can lead to harassment
    Other
  • "Space free of conflict”: unrealistic ask, collaboration isn’t possible without conflict
3. Improve user Experience
  • Support for making the platform responsive and adaptive across various devices
  • Support for better and friendlier technological tools
  • Improvement on user friendly interface for a wide range of devices and advanced features
  • It addresses the needs of community
  • Support for enabling environments for newcomers to edit Wikipedia; highlighting the impact visual editor had for newer, smaller, and emerging communities/projects
  • Support for the development of additional tools to increase accessibility

Add

  • Balance feedback and interactions with new users and old users
  • Mention Sister Projects needs (lots don't even have a functional visual editor yet)
  • More emphasis on training and removing barriers to access for new users
  • Need for open communication channels between communities and developers
  • Focus on developing a Wikimedia chat
  • Balancing enriching, visually appealing content and make it not very expensive + carbon friendly
  • Spoken-word, oral knowledge is missing

Edit

  • It’s not possible to create accessibility for everyone; have more relaxed goals
  • Technical accessibility is useful, but takes time and will not work out for everyone the same
  • To make explicit lack of technical infrasctructure and technical barriers holding people back, e.g. in Africa (Art+Feminism).

Clarify

  • Relation of User Experience with Diversity of readers and editors UX =/ Diversity
  • Who's the owner of our software at the end of the day (and what's the role of the wider community)
  • Focus should be on knowledge production and quality content, not knowledge consumption
  • There is a risk of lower entry threshold for vandals
4. Provide for safety and security
  • There should be relaxation in allowing TOR and VPN to protect identities of Wikimedians from sensitive regions of world
  • Support for shared principles of behavior, in particular for online interactions
  • Strong agreement on more support for conflict management
  • Critical for volunteer participation and welcoming new editors
  • Very reassuring for some communities in countries where the geopolitical context makes it dangerous to contribute
  • Special approval for the psychological support

Universal Code of Conduct

  • Make it adaptale to each community's unique circumstances and context
  • Should be widely disseminated across communities
  • Clarify how to enforce safety standards and protocols for users facing real life threats and harassment
  • Need for proactive and radical steps missing to eliminate the abusers in order to "heal" the community
  • Will not be enough, requires support and training

Privacy

  • The recommendation should not remain "open" and "vague" about such privacy tools

Other

  • Explicitly mention "harassment"
  • Clarify protecting Wikimedians who are engaged with external partners
  • Explicitly mention Human Rights as a movement goal
  • External actors who would intervene should be close enough to understand the local context - link with regional structures

Universal Code of Conduct

  • Mistrust in WMF enforcement, e.g. Framban/Superprotect
  • Concerns around ongoing implementation initiatives (regardless of community input)
    IP Masking
  • Concerns around vandalism and harassment
  • Concerns around decisions made without transparency and accountability
5. Ensure equity in decision-making

Movement Charter

  • To set the course for a better distribution of power in the movement and greater accountability and evaluation of actors, including WMF
  • We need this for the movement, for engaging with partners and donors, for coordinating between stakeholders
    Global Council
  • Support for a global council composed of people from diverse backgrounds
  • Support for a system that would allow for diversity in boards and committees
  • Support for local decision-making, clear roles and responsibilities
  • Participation in global governance would empower local groups and increase transparency
  • Support for a platform where the WMF listens

Regional/Thematic Hubs

  • Support for adaptable localized structures and representation
  • Potential for: local leadership, organizational support, peers and mentorship, resource allocation, skill development, advocacy, safety and protection
  • Support for more decentralized structure of the Wikimedia movement

Resource Allocation

  • Current communities need more voice in decision-making, especially on the resources they need and access
  • Support for overarching governance that then redistributes power and funds through regional/local structures
    Open pathways to power positions
  • Makes sense
  • The movement needs renewal

Overall

  • Explicitly mention decentralization
  • Many questions about the role, legitimacy and authority of the structures proposed
  • Decentralisation and subsidiarity as fundamental principles should be clearly stated
  • Define what's meant by "equity"
  • Define what's meant by "governance," how does it apply to online communities?
  • Ensure checks and balances
  • Clarify the meaning of "empowering local communities" and what kind of group it targets
  • Add: all decision-making structures should be put to the test in an open-ended manner - existing and new
  • Voting should be made both more transparent and more anonymous
  • Specificy that central structures should not be too directive and have global readable and stable orientations
  • What will be the cost of all this and where will the resources come from (including human resources)?

Movement Charter

  • Define which values or standards apply to which stakeholders (e.g. in a Movement Charter)
  • Clarify how it will be created
  • Should be written by a set of people representative of diversity

Global Council

  • Clarify the voting and seat allocation process, elaborate how it will be created
  • Dissatisfaction with the role being only "assting WMF" as too weak
  • Clarify whether it represents the movement’s current OR desired diversity
  • Clarify the role and relationship to WMF, the existing Board of Trustees
  • Elaborate what kind of size is envisioned (is it a 200 ppl parliament or a 10 ppl council?)
  • Clarify relationship with hubs
  • Clarify relationship with existing structures

Regional/Thematic Hubs

  • Clarify the role and relationship to WMF, e.g. in terms of autonomy
  • Clarify the effect of Hubs on existing movement structures and organizations
  • Clarify how/by whom they will be formed
  • Should not replace existing structures but support them
  • Clarify if the hubs would be financially resourced enough to be able to provide added value
  • A definition of affiliates and their role in relation to the hubs are missing
  • Clarify how the hubs will be funded

Open pathways to power positions

  • Clarify what are “power positions” or what’s the problem this section addresses

Charter

  • Fear that a global Charter will enable some committee to take over project governance, make decisions and take actions that are not supported by democratic online voting
  • Fear of WMF centralism or intervention in projects
  • Creating more documents and spending money are strongly discouraged

Global Council

  • Strong concerns around costs, resources and operations
  • Concerns that it is focused on replacing existing structures without enough risk assessment
  • The BoT should be representative of the movement regardless of the GC
  • Concerns around adding bureaucracy
  • Could turn into a political-like body with zero-sum games
  • Not enough qualified people in the movement to fill the needed roles
    Regional/Thematic Hubs
  • Regional hubs can be a mess for local-global communities that are not confined to a certain geography
6. Foster and develop distributed leadership
  • The recommendation would help strengthen local communities
  • Appreciation of focusing on local communities rather than on the international level of leadership
  • Appreciation of focusing on peer-learning rather than vertical training
  • Support for the overarching keyword "distributed": "Distributed is much stronger as a word than decentralized"
  • Support for a movement-wide platform for knowledge transfer
  • Positive vision of what is to be achieved
  • Broad support for focusing support on underrepresented groups (women, people from emerging regions, LGBT, people of color)
  • Capacity building is needed, eg. to have admins from Africa
  • Support to subsidiarity and providing tailored support depending on context
  • Support for evaluation
  • Mention that we also need to invite leaders from outside the movement
  • Leave room to new people to adapt our leadership roles to their needs
  • Suggestion to replace "formal" with "intentional"
  • Doubts about equitable representation of leadership from the marginalised communities
  • Doubts on how leaders are generated
  • Better define who we mean by "leaders" (Online or offline? Volunteer or staff? Admins or Board member? All of the above?)
  • Who is going to pay for the development of leadership
  • Need more focus on new leaders
  • Leadership development plans should not be an additionnal responsibility WMF is adding to affiliates work. It should be designed by WMF or Hubs.
  • What about "non-leaders"? Mention that everyone needs to be empowered by benefiting from skills development to lead in their area.
  • Be more specific about resources needed and allocated
  • Add "motivated" and "recognized" to the adjective list
  • Mention the need for *legitimate* leaders (encourage and support legitimate ones, identify toxic ones)
  • A sane leadership network relies on groups, not individuals (resilience, handover...)
  • Mandate limits are not the ultimate solution, rather: distribute responsibilities, roles rotation.
  • Better link the recommendation with number 7, mention the need for language training in English
  • Emphasis on community representation at international events
  • Opposition for term limits
  • Opposition to the concept of "leader" and leadership
  • The term Leadership is seen as problematic in some cultures
  • No identification by activists regarding this recommendation
  • There is fear that the community will be exchanged by other people (due to new leaders)
  • WMF should avoid spending money on external GLAM, Education programs instead invest in volunteer development activities
  • Movement Leaders are created alone through commitment.
7. Invest in skills development
  • Support - this is a key issue for development of the movement
  • Crucial area for the growth of the movement and lacking from local UGs
  • The recommendation is seen as well covering community demands from 2019 consultations
  • Solid investment for under-represented communities
  • Support for mentorship, preferred over trainings
  • Support for a regional hub or linguistic hub for skill building
  • Support for skills development, especially focusing on critical pedagogy and alternative forms of education
  • Support for training and educational programs - editing skills, admin, organizational
  • Support for skill development and improving existing documentation in the process
  • Support for improved research and writing skills,
  • Support for for individual growth in the movement (e.g. W-i-R programs)
  • Support for fundraising and partnerships (e.g. with universities and nonprofits)
  • Support for improving tech skills
  • Support for various learning formats (tutorials, videos, videocalls, workshops, etc.)
  • Concerns around transparency of resources and spending
  • The term "cultural change" is frightening for some users as the implications are unclear
  • Skills development should be followed up and included in affiliates’ development plan
  • Priority for offline access/Kiwix - resources should be downloadable in an offline format for areas with low connectivity
  • Online skills should also be well articulated and iterated, not just offline skills
  • Asking questions about the implementation details such as dates and content
  • Recommendation is likeable because of the less emphasis on resources but on skills
  • Certification does not reflect quality, and would not have positive results or even be appreciated everywhere
  • Concern that certification could hold individuals back from progress, growth and innovation
  • Opposition to creating a new skill-building platform (rather use Meta, or Wikiversity)
  • We already have this platform, it's called a wiki
  • Concerns regarding costs
  • Opposition to creating bureaucracy around skill development
8. Manage internal knowledge
  • The self awareness and responsibility that comes with the movement understanding the need to be more open, connected and available to its internal stakeholders
  • Support for a participatory, multi-lingual, and searchable knowledge-base system with access to all movement learning assets
  • Support for improving documentation (for skill development, education, reducing redundancy)
  • If active users have special knowledge it should be used much more
  • Support because internal knowledge is not shared well
  • The suggested platform should be in many languages
  • Better to have video content than text
  • This is a key issue for development
  • In favor, but with dedicated staff
  • Needs to develop institutional knowledge retention
  • Support of the idea with reservations about whether it's really strategic
  • Doubts about who creates the metadata and resources being invested
  • Clarify how local communities will participate in knowledge management
  • Clarify whose responsibility it will be
  • Clarify why a new platform is needed (shouldn't we just improve Meta?)
  • A database of peers could endanger some people in contexts where being a Wikimedian is politically risky
  • Needs additional precaution about anonymity
  • Can become very costly
9. Coordinate across stakeholders
  • The Technology Council is a great point
  • This is a key issue for development
  • Specific request for 'contact point'
  • Interactions between stakeholders (affiliate or not) should be diverse
  • It will be a good welcome package to people who want to be part of the movement.
  • Support for emergent support structures like regional or thematic hubs, for effective communication, bringing the global closer to locally-relevant
  • Highly needed - lack of coordination in the past has led to many dramas
  • Indeed, need for bilateral and multilateral liaisons between affilates, online projects, etc.
  • Support for empowering for technical contributors.

Tech concil:

  • Tech council: support only if replacing the community to shorten the process of iterative decision-making. If it's to be an additional layer - it's a bad idea
  • Possible bureaucracy: Why technology is the only topic in need of a council?
  • Elaborate on the Tech council's role
  • How will it balance the noisy few and those who need the support the most but are passive?
  • Clarify what is meant by governance document drafts and decision-making distribution
  • May pose a challenge of "collaboration with the external knowledge ecosystem" in the affiliate work
  • Need for a definition or replacement of "stakeholders"
  • Mention the need for more liaisons who have in-depth knowledge and connection with wikimedia projects online communities
  • Define what "built-in coordination function" means
  • Mention the language barrier and how we can address it
  • Emergent support structures should only be implemented in a way that can be opted out by affiliates if they need to
  • Clarify what "emergent structures" mean
  • Coordination as an independent goal has no value
  • Introduce something like a request-for-comments system to which only recognized sub-organizations have access
  • Tech council - terrible idea, worst possible way to do software development
10. Prioritize topics for impact
  • Supportive of the recommendation
  • Prioritizing topics for maximum impact
  • Supporting volunteers who work in high impact areas
  • Positive feedback on analyzing the knowledge gaps for prioritizing content
  • Support for the need to understand the impact of our content
  • Support for helping a diversity of people contribute to a diversity of subjects
  • Support for bridging content gaps (gender gap, cultural gap) - this is already being done
  • Clarify "impact" and "prioritizing impact"
  • Clarify that engagement of volunteers will not be predetermined by movement organizations
  • Not clear how impactful editing can happen when edits depend on volunteer interest.
  • Supportive as long as it specifies that priorities will not be imposed globally
  • Contributors, not administrators, are “in charge of judging the credibility of information”
  • Not clear who will be imlpementing the recomemndation, e.g. WMF/affiliates/volunteers
  • Not clear if the focus is on funding or content
  • Focus instead on prioritizing partnerships/technology tools
  • If it's about content gaps (gender gap, cultural gap) then say it explicitly
  • Define what kind of impact is desired (shouldn't turn into a "top view" logic)
  • Focus should be on poorer content and the one receiving less attention, not those that will potentially have a big impact if improved, as we aim to cover "all knowledge" (no matter the impact)
  • Clarify relationships between impact, diversity and project independence
  • Opposition to: content guidelines, intervention with volunteer work
  • Opposition to decision-making power on content with "impact"
  • Concern that criteria for notability will be abolished by an external committee
  • Concern the volunteer freedom to evaluate the relevance of topics is in danger
  • If something has great numbers doesn't mean it has great impact
  • It stifles innovation, will drive volunteers away from the movement
  • Wikipedians should be free and should be allocated resources no matter what they decide to write about
  • Impact causes disagreement
  • There are editors who do not see how this recommendation relates to others
  • It's not desired for each minority group to write its own content
11. Innovate in free knowledge
  • The recommendation would support Oral knowledge collection and non traditional method for documentation
  • Would open the way for developing small-languages / minority cultures documentation tools
  • Taking into account the needs of other Free Knowledge organizations seems to be the right thing
  • Strong support for policy revision or refinement, e.g. Notability for marginalized countries and communities
  • Support for experimenting new policies to allow adapting to more diverse cultural contexts
  • Encourage projects that create new sources
  • Support for Wikimedia projects to remain relevant on the Internet by innovating with new formats
  • In agreement that we lack platforms to document Knowledge from Oral languages
  • Make working with Indiginous and oral content more explicit
  • Concerns about implementation: should be community-led
  • Mention that it needs to be a community effort to create ways to authentify oral sources
  • Lots of resources being spent on innovation which may be used by very few in the community
  • Support for oral content if on a separate project, too early or not possible to implement on Wikipedia (may depend which Wikipedia - some already do)
  • Innovating with new formats should be tightly connected to Skill Development
  • Mention the role of sister projects
  • Encourage bolder experiential learning
  • Oral content and inclusivity of non-writing cultures is important, but WMF has no legitimacy to lead on it
  • Reservations of conflict issues with original research policy
  • WMF cannot middle in Wikipedia policies
  • Fear of shifting Wikimedia function to Activism
12. Evaluate, iterate and adapt
  • Evaluation allows self-awareness and constructive criticism
  • This is basic, obvious and necessary
  • Support for iterating processes that propose changes through research and testing
  • Enthusiasm for the purpose of the recommendation
  • A culture of evaluation should be encouraged, only way to know if we're on the right track
  • Need clarification of what would be the metrics for evluation
  • Concerns that a lot more reporting required from volunteer projects and affiliates
  • Use evaluation to increase accountability of stakeholders so that they better align with the movement’s strategy
  • Indicators should be common to the whole movement and collectively defined
  • Evaluation and adjusting actions are useful, but it is not a strategic goal
  • If WMF wants to track metrics, they should do it themselves
13. Infrastructure scalability
  • Scalability is important. More servers for more free knowledge
  • A framework for scalable infrastructures would help develop Wikimedia contribution locally
  • Supporting mentorship
  • This is the recommendation that will allow us to reach 2030
  • Increasing developers’ awareness of community needs
  • Projects of upscaling should be co-built with communities (esp for online projects)
  • Need to embrace nuances and cultural differences of our communities
  • Proposing to divert traffic to reduce infrastructure load
  • Add: major technological issues that we will face as a movement, and clear actions around them
  • Highlight the need for greater communication in the movement more
  • Make more explicit technical development and the infrastructure for developer tooling
  • Clarification needed about "communication solutions"
  • Provide more technical tools ready for incubator and new languages, sister projects
  • Clarify communication/coordination spaces and dedicated teams for infrastructure scalability
  • Scalability is desirable, but seems more like a statement of principles
  • Potential threat from engaging third party developers
  • Devoting resources to building new communication systems to replace wikis instead of training and onboarding for our wiki-based projects interferes with recruiting editors to work on the projects.
General comments
  • Praise and support for how far the recommendations have come, what this process has meant for bringing so many stakeholders together, and the potential the recommendations offer for change
  • Positive feedback regarding diversity in content, policies and practices, governance and power sharing
  • Support for bold orientations that address Wikipedia’s current weaknesses (community health, newcomers retention, content gaps)
  • Support for technology not as a separate concept, but baked in as a lever
  • Support for finally addresing conflict resolution
  • Support for diversity to be made relevant for both online and organized communities
  • Strategy and the recommendations presented here will suit us and our work very well
  • Support for the overarching keyword distributed vs. decentralized as it better focuses on autonomy of parties involves
  • Positive comments on the overall document, better written with only small flaws
  • Support for the recommendations being at the right structural level with room for implementation
  • Positive comments on the process: affiliates finally have a say, emerging communities are happy to be consulted

What's missing - make more explicit

  • Make explicit the values of free of knowledge and volunteering as founding concepts of the movement
  • Better recognition of volunteers and their contribution to the movement, and the foundation
  • Don't forget the tech communities - there are major future issues in the technology sector
  • Add counter measures for the prevailing issues
  • Concrete recommendations around generation and allocaiton of resources are missing
  • Taking action against paid editing and related companies
  • In an era of fake news, to make explicit "trust" and incorporate the word into strategy, that Wikimedia wants to be a trusted source of information
  • Commitment towards Wikipedia - encyclopedists need to be reassured
  • Confusing for the same outcomes to be repeated across different recomemndations
  • Make it clear that none of the recommendations will result in user data collection
  • Importance of outreach towards marginalized groups,
  • Channels for feedback, resolving communication issues
  • Clarify the function of the “expected outcomes”: whether they are only "proposed" or already set
  • Greater ambitions for partners and partnering

Language

  • Flesh out the core of each recommendation and the changes it will bring - clarify each "expected outcome"
  • Improve the language of the recommendations - vagueness, lack of focus, explicit gender and diversity attributions, translation issues, and lack of explicitness of concepts - even native English speakers have difficulty in understanding
  • Dissatisfaction with the wording, and professional ("corporate") register of the languages used
  • Our commitment to Wikipedia and encyclopedists must remain
  • Language is missing LGBT+ terminology
  • The need for environmental sustainability is missing
  • Translation quality

Implementation

  • Insist that recommendations can only work if the community is deeply involved in implementation
  • Main asks are around: technical support, financial support, skills development, and coordination - main concerns about implementation
  • It is frustrating that details regarding implementation have to be developed in the future
  • Emerging communities may require more support
  • Criticism of the language - vagueness, lack of clarity, high reading grade level
  • Process is seen as top-down, WMF-led, affiliate focused
  • Mistrust towards the process and movement strategy in general
  • Process seen as "cover" for things happening regardless
  • Opposition to over-consultations - not to be consulted for every change in the document but only for major stages in the process
  • Opposition to Wikipedia being controlled by any entity, including WMF
  • Criticism of too much focus on affiliates, to the exclusion of online communities
  • Fears of change to the trademark and its commercialization
  • Just all around opposition to change - platform, diversity
Glossary
  • Cultural change
  • 3rd party ecosystem
  • Define 'Movement' - definition provided in the Glossary is not satisfactory
  • Diversity seems to still be a vague concept, only defined as the inverse image of the average contributor
  • Glossary needs to be fully translated and more complete