Talk:ESEAP Hub/Governance/ESEAP Preparatory Council/ESEAP Hub Governance Systems Proposal

Guidance on how to share your feedback and comments

This is NOT a formal vote. We are seeking the ESEAP communities preferences and feedback to develop further.

1. Express your preference for one or both Governance systems: If you like one of the proposed systems, please go to the end of section "Sign here if you like this option" of the system you prefer, add a new line, then leave your comment beginning with "# ~~~".

   You can show your "Like" to both systems, however, we want to know more about "Why" you like it/them. This is not a vote, the number of signatures alone will not determine which system goes to the Summit.

2. Express your opinion and feedback on a specific System: If you have questions, concerns, or suggestions for improving a particular system, please leave your comments in the "Question & Suggestion" section of that system.
3. Express your opinion on both Systems or bigger issues: If your feedback applies to both systems, or to the overall governance model for the ESEAP Hub, please leave your comments in the "Comprehensive discussion & other opinions" chapter.
4. Join the Conversations in the Question & Suggestion sessions: You are encouraged to reply to other user's comments in the "Comprehensive discussion & other opinions" and the "Question & Suggestion" sections. Please avoid adding comments in the signature sections, which is reserved for expressions of support only.

Comments for Option 2: Strategist System

Sign here if you like this option

1. With a large number of people, option 1 may become time-consuming and complex to reach consensus. However strategist should consult widely with community members before making major decisions and report back to the community. WAqil (WMYS) (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

2. I may prefer this option but re-electing regularly may be a good idea.--S8321414 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Comprehensive discussion & other opinions

• I might as well start the ball rolling. At this early stage, I am not very keen on either option. My initial preference would be for a structure more closely resembling that of the CEE Hub, which has a Hub Coordinator overseen by a Steering Committee appointed for a year-long term during the annual meeting of the CEE group (and also some formally appointed special advisers and a separate Hub group).

In my view, and I have experience in the management of charitable organisations employing paid staff, both of the options are not really a suitable arrangement for running such an organisation.

Option 1 involves a Working Group, but that group is appointed by the hub coordinator (not a good model in my view) and is really only an advisory body. That being so, it seems to me that Option 1 confers too much power on, and provides too little assistance to, the hub coordinator.

Option 2 involves Strategists, and while that may be a good model for operating the editorial functions of online Wikimedia projects, the Hub will have a very different function. In particular (and this is also a problem with Option 1), there is nobody under this Option with whom the hub coordinator can easily confer on a regular basis in the manner of conferral between a CEO and a Chair of a Board. In my experience, the ability to confer in that way is particularly important to deal with, eg, sensitive issues that need to be dealt with promptly without fuss. Also, what if very few people want to be Strategists, or very many people want to be active Strategists? If there were, say, 20 or more Strategists who want to be active, then that's far too many. The proposal that a Strategist hold office for life (subject only to formal removal) is also problematic.

Ideally, in my view, the hub coordinator would be overseen by a group of 5 to 10 or so people who would be formally appointed by the group as a whole on a regular basis. That is the CEE model, and unless someone from CEE tells the Manila strategy summit that that model simply does not work properly, that is the model I am likely to continue to favour. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I second @Bahnfrend's argument, as those two proposed systems are quite complex. The current governance system of CEE Hub is quite simple and easy to adapt. I am thinking of having just a Steering Committee (SC) and staff -if we have a budget for this role- and it would be more feasible. For SC membership, we can start initially from the established Wikimedia affiliates in our region, and later we could add more members, especially from smaller communities, as needed to ensure equity in the decision-making process. Biyanto R (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)