Talk:Hubs/Minimum Criteria for Pilots

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

This is a discussion space for minimum criteria for hub pilots. Since early implementation conversations there have been differing views regarding the process for the hubs. There have been advocates for starting the implementation only after the ratification of the Movement Charter, while others have supported piloting that is needed in the complexity. As a middle ground, this proposal of minimum viable criteria for pilots has been created based on different hub conversations that have happened.

The initial draft has been published as a basis for conversations on June 3, 2022. It might go through significant changes and amendments during the review. In addition to this talk page, the draft can also be discussed on Movement Strategy Forum (external link) and Movement Strategy Telegram Group (external link). --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content feedback section by section[edit]

Approval process[edit]

  • Meeting the criteria of 1) conducted needs assessment, 2) publicly available plan, and 3) governance model, as assessed by the Movement Strategy and Governance team.
  • Proof of public discussion and general approval from the related communities.
  • Validation by the Movement Charter Drafting Committee.
  • Validation by the Affiliations Committee.
  • For regional hub proposals, validation by the related Grants Regional Committee.
Original post on MS Forum (external link)
The approval process (review by the MSG team, AffCom and MCDC, and “general approval from the related communities” whatever that means) seems unnecessarily complex and heavy-handed. Why is it important to include AffCom in a pilot? How would general community approval look? And is this really a good use of the MCDC’s limited and valuable time (which could instead be spent on actually working on the movement charter)?

Inception[edit]

A stated goal[edit]

Clear explanation of the goal of the hub pilot. Including why this goal needs a new structure or cannot be achieved with the current Wikimedia structures.

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
What is the point of these, given that we have a recommendation about the need for hubs? Are we going to relitigate it now? Maybe for thematic hubs there is some value in justifying which thematic area does or doesn’t need a hub, but for regional hubs this seems entirely pointless.
Input from Wikimedia Hubs Telegram group:
I hope that the goal of all pilots is to set up the structure for a continuously running hub. That makes the second sentence is a little bit strange. Each pilot needs to explain why they are a pilot instead of just becoming the hub?
I would rather see that this was something like Stated purpose: Clear explanation of the purpose of the hub. Including why this purpose needs a new structure or cannot be achieved with the current Wikimedia structures.
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible--KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved entities[edit]

List of entities involved in the set up and oversight of the project. A hub pilot project must not be overseen by only one entity, as we already have an affiliate model and Wikimedia Foundation for such projects.

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
This seems to imply that hubs need to be “second-level” membership organizations where the members are entities. I don’t think that was intended so it should be rephrased.

Public documentation[edit]

Before moving to further activities, a project page needs to be created on Meta and copied to the Movement Strategy Forum for easy automatic translation.

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
[...] common sense. I guess it’s good to document them just in case, as long as they don’t add much to the planning burden [...]

Research/Planning[edit]

Needs assessment[edit]

Rooted in research to understand the needs of communities related to the region or the theme. All the communities in the region or in the thematic topic area must be reached out to participate in the needs assessment process.

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
[...] seem like important concerns that should be handled (mis-alignment with actual needs, conflict with another affiliate, and unwanted commitments arising from pilots are all plausible and significant risks).

Clear plan[edit]

Description of how the pilot will begin and continue to address the needs identified in the needs assessment. What actions the pilot will focus on in the first years (including which ones, how prioritized, why prioritized)?

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
[...] already included in the grant requirements. Some hubs might obtain funding in ways other than WMF grants and in that case consistently enforcing best practices might be useful, but it would be nice to avoid the duplicative work for the huge majority of hub pilots which do rely on WMF grants.

Shared governance model[edit]

Description of how the pilot will be overseen, including clear description of roles and responsibilities, and process for managing community feedback and input.

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
also seems like a common-sense good idea, except I find the phrasing confusing. Shared with whom?

Endorsement[edit]

Clear community endorsement. Including clear endorsement of the pilot from the communities to be supported by the hub pilot.

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
[...] already included in the grant requirements. Some hubs might obtain funding in ways other than WMF grants and in that case consistently enforcing best practices might be useful, but it would be nice to avoid the duplicative work for the huge majority of hub pilots which do rely on WMF grants.
Original post on MS Forum by user Nehaoua (external link)
Original post in Arabic: لا أعتقد ذلك. إن مشاركة المجتمع أمر حتمي منذ البداية والا مآله الفشل. ولنا في المجتمع العربي مثال حيث بدأ تصور المشروع جيدا، ولكن بمجرد اعتراض بعض النشطين توقف أو اُهمل، وصارالأمور اكثر صعوبة ونحن فقط في مرحلة البحث.
Automated translation in English: I do not think so. Community participation is imperative from the start, or else it will fail. We have an example in the Arab community, where the concept of the project began well, but as soon as some activists objected, it was stopped or neglected, and things became more difficult and we are only in the research stage.
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original post on MS Forum by user Qgil-WMF (external link)
Thank you @Nehaoua. To be clear, you are saying that it is important to have community feedback from the start even if that might make the project progress more complex. Did I understand you correctly?
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original post on MS Forum by user Nehaoua (external link)
Original post in Arabic: نعم نوعا ما، النقطة الأساسية أنه إن لم نُعلم المجتمع ونأخذ رأيه (او بالأحرى، دعم المجتمع للمشروع) قد يصير عقبة للمشروع ويصبح مشروعا نخبويا
Automated translation in English: Yes, somewhat, the main point is that if we do not inform the community and take its opinion (or rather, community support for the project) it may become an obstacle to the project and become an elite project
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original post on MS Forum by user Qgil-WMF (external link)

About the community endorsement, one way to approach this topic is to ask these questions:

Can a hub project move beyond research and planning without any trace of community endorsement? Let’s say that the hub proposal has ben announced and promoted, but there has been total silence from the affected communities.

Can a hub project move beyond research and planning even if there are clear signs of community opposition? Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original post on MS Forum by user Gnangarra (external link)
ESEAP has already moved beyond research and planning its an active community has been for 10 years come 14 July
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original post on MS Forum by user The_Land (external link)
Presumably if ESEAP is recognised as a hub, then it will start to do some things that it doesn’t presently do?
The idea of hubs is that in time they take on additional responsibilities that are either held elsewhere (with the WMF grants committees or AffCom), or they do things that aren’t presently done or aren’t done at all (e.g. better support for capacity building).
If a regional collaboration doesn’t have any interest in doing any of those things in future, it shouldn’t become a hub (in my view). If it does, then the existing governance arrangements aren’t sufficient.
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original post on MS Forum by user The_Land (external link)
Replying to Quim
I think it depends what “community endorsement” means.
The idea is that Hubs are rooted in the relevant communities - and this is a necessary criterion for them to succeed.
To my mind this does not necessarily mean that there has to be clear evidence of active support from the relevant online Wikimedia projects, in the form of a poll/RFC/whatever.
As we all know it is very difficult to get online communities to pay any attention to ‘movement governance’ issues. When the WMF wants to get their attention, it employs teams of facilitators to go and start conversations. The results are still often a bit mixed - there is not always lots of participation. If one asked the major European-language Wikipedias to endorse the concept of Wikimedia Europe… there would probably not be much participation still.
So what ‘endorsement’ means will probably vary between Hubs. If the Hub is mainly a collaboration of affiliates, will often be more sensible for the endorsement to come from the affiliates concerned.
Similarly, what does ‘community opposition’ mean?
We certainly need to be alert to community opposition. But this might be expressed in several different ways. Certainly in this process there will be community members saying “I don’t see the point of Hubs, it’s just another pointless layer of bureaucracy”. They are entitled to this view, but it’s not high-value feedback - the decision to trial Hubs is already taken, and the questions are about how to do it. More significant to my mind is opposition which suggests some structural issue - for instance, a minority group (however defined) concerned about being pushed into a Hub against their will.
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original post on MS Forum by user Gnangarra (external link)
responding to The Land’s comment

Presumably if ESEAP is recognised as a hub, then it will start to do some things that it doesn’t presently do?

Beside being a legal entity with its own funds ESEAP supports the community, brings WMF discussions to the region, its even hosting Wikimania and local events. The point of this is ESEAP isnt a pilot come 13 July its been active for 10 years building a community, supporting that community, advocating for the region globally, and connecting global activities with the region.
Within the region choosing a place to base a legal entity is unlike Europe or the US, its a lot more complex. It needs professional legal support to investigate the options and impact of being based in any single country so for now a local affiliate is the de facto entity and everything else is online.
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pilot Set Up[edit]

Original post on MS Forum by user Qgil-WMF (external link)

Inclusive leadership – The leadership of the pilot needs to be inclusive of diverse profiles (representation of gender, age, languages, regions…)

Connection to the Movement Strategy implementation process – Designated representatives for participation in the Hubs and Movement Charter discussions and commitment to follow the outcomes and decisions from these processes.

These two points have been identified in other discussions as too demanding for the volunteers in the leadership team who are already busy building no less than a hub pilot.

One way to soften the commitment but still bring these valid points to the pilots could be to explicitly strive for inclusive leadership and to commit to not deviate from the movement consensus and decisions about hubs.

Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original post on MS Forum by user The_Land (external link)
Regarding expectations around equity: A requirement to strive for inclusive leadership sounds sensible. I would refer back to the language used in this part of the Roles & Responsibilities recommendations:
Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_2/Roles_&_Responsibilities/6
"Wikimedia movement organisations will be governed by inclusive, diverse, and accountable boards. They will actively review and reflect on their own performance and composition, and take steps to ensure their membership includes people from a range of backgrounds and experiences reflecting the diversity of the communities and partners they seek to serve as well as the skills required, and to dedicate time and effort to the onboarding, training and development of Board members…
“Wikimedia organisations will continue to work in a wide range of contexts and exist at a range of levels of size and maturity. For this reason we have avoided setting out too much detail - for instance, we have consciously avoided trying to set quotas. We envisage that there would be a set of common standards (embodied in the movement charter) which are expected of large and well-established organisations, while these standards would represent an aspiration for smaller and newer organisations.”
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original post on MS Forum by user The_Land (external link)
And just a further thought:
It will be very difficult to find a specific diversity and inclusion framework that works for all Hubs. Every Hub will be dealing with a different context, and diversity and inclusion means something different in each context.
Two examples:
  • We have potential Hubs whose scope is mainly countries where LGBT rights are slim to nonexistent. In principle, the Hubs should be promoting LGBT engagement with Wikimedia. But in reality that may be very challenging, and we have to be very careful of volunteers’ safety and privacy.
  • We also have potential Hubs whose scope covers societies where caste exists. In principle, this is another axis of inequality that Hubs should seek to overcome. Indeed, I’ve heard some suggestions it should be among the top priorities for diversity and inclusion. But it’s very unusual for anyone who doesn’t come from a society with caste to understand the issue well, or to be able to look at a Hub and say how well it’s doing on that score or what it might do next.
Just to highlight some of the many challenges - and more reason for this all to be ‘light touch’ at present.
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Success criteria[edit]

Agreement on the goals the pilot needs to achieve to be considered successful, tied to the Needs assessment.

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
Not sure how Success criteria is different from having an evaluation framework with key results. Or is this specifically about the success of the pilot? I don’t think it’s realistic to predict a pilot’s course well enough for setting good success criteria; and in any case, we are not probing here whether hubs are a good idea. We have already agreed they are needed. If a pilot doesn’t immediately succeed, it needs help, maybe a different approach, but not being declared a failure.

Monitoring and Evaluation framework[edit]

Clear plan on how the progress of a hub pilot will be monitored and evaluated. Including clear definition of objectives and key results for the pilot.

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
[...] already included in the grant requirements. Some hubs might obtain funding in ways other than WMF grants and in that case consistently enforcing best practices might be useful, but it would be nice to avoid the duplicative work for the huge majority of hub pilots which do rely on WMF grants.

Overlap Mitigation Plan[edit]

Clear mapping of its mandate against existing structures and a plan for mitigating potential overlaps.

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
[...] seem like important concerns that should be handled (mis-alignment with actual needs, conflict with another affiliate, and unwanted commitments arising from pilots are all plausible and significant risks).

Community engagement framework[edit]

Plan for how the supported communities can inform the work of the pilot, engage in its activities, and participate in the decision-making.

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
[...] common sense. I guess it’s good to document them just in case, as long as they don’t add much to the planning burden [...]

Inclusive leadership[edit]

The leadership of the pilot needs to be inclusive of diverse profiles (representation of gender, age, languages, regions…)

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
I don’t think this is a healthy aspiration for a pilot, given how small is our pool of volunteers with sufficient free time, interest in high-level movement strategy, and the necessary competencies and experience. Pilots which prove successful and gather resources and interest can then more easily diversify their leadership; it’s better for something to eventually be diverse than to not exist at all. (See also the Wikimedia Foundation’s board composition in its first few years - it’s always instructive to contrast the standards the WMF applies to others in the movement with the standards it applies to itself.)

Connection to the Movement Strategy implementation process[edit]

Designated representatives for participation in the Hubs and Movement Charter discussions and commitment to follow the outcomes and decisions from these processes.

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
[...] common sense. I guess it’s good to document them just in case, as long as they don’t add much to the planning burden (“designated representatives” for the MS events, for example, seems like an entirely unnecessary layer of bureaucracy).

“Off-ramp” plan[edit]

Process for stopping the pilot if it doesn't satisfy the success criteria.

Original post on MS Forum (external link)
[...] seem like important concerns that should be handled (mis-alignment with actual needs, conflict with another affiliate, and unwanted commitments arising from pilots are all plausible and significant risks).

Comparison versus user groups[edit]

This seems like a new model for Wikimedia movement affiliates, including and especially because the current text says that hubs should be reviewed by the Affiliations Committee.

I prefer to avoid making a new affiliations model when the one we have is time tested, community approved, and understood by tens of thousands of people.

Is it the case that the minimum criteria for hubs needs to be different from the minimum criteria for user groups? I say no - would someone like to argue a reason why it should be? If they can be the same, then let's just tell people to establish user groups, then add additional criteria for hubs. Like for example - "a hub needs to be a collaboration among multiple user groups or chapters". Bluerasberry (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for making these points and raising these questions! One of the core questions related to the new proposed model is indeed - how is the new model different from an existing and well-proven model? Why the proposed goal needs a new structure or cannot be achieved with the current Wikimedia structures? These are the questions also outlined in the proposed criteria and template. If there is uncertainty regarding added value, there probably should not be a new experimental model used.
Regarding the difference from existing models, it is indeed suggested in the section of Involved entities that "a hub project must not be overseen by only one entity, as we already have an affiliate model and Wikimedia Foundation for such projects". This is repeated in the planning template under governance and people sections. Hub pilot model should not be used just for a sake of doing something new, but there needs to be a qualitative and essential difference as well as clear value proposition. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Avoid multiple words for same concept[edit]

Whatever a hub is, this text calls it by two words: hubs and pilots. I propose to delete all instances of "pilots" and call them "hubs" only. Otherwise, someone should define the difference. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a great catch and call for consistency of language. Well appreciated.
There is a difference in the use of wording of "hub" and "hub pilot" and I have now tried to make it more consistent in the proposed draft document. In general, a "hub" is a new formal movement structure that will be defined by the Movement Charter. A "hub pilot" would be an experimental project that will test out the concept prior to a formal definition (rooted in the proposed piloting criteria). The idea is that the pilots will help us to become better informed about the realities of the movement, so we can provide a better and feasible definition and role description of a hub in the Charter. As a result, I have changed most instances of occurence of "hubs" to "hub pilots" and leaving it to "hubs" when it refers to the general concept. I hope it makes sense. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WMF approval required[edit]

The current criteria say that hubs have to have their governance model approved by the Movement Strategy and Governance team, which is only WMF staff.

Is this the intent? To exist, hubs need approval from a team which is only WMF staff with no community representation on that particular team? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are multiple layers to this assessment and this is a draft proposal. Happy to discuss the details and options (including online project community and affiliate representation in approval processes).
  1. The first layer that you are highlighting is about technical assessment of the proposal, i.e. whether it has 1) needs assessment, 2) publicly available plan, and 3) outline of a governance model. As it is technical assessment work, the current proposal is indeed that it will be done by the Wikimedia Foundation staff members to reduce administrative overhead on the movement side.
  2. Regarding the engagement of the communities, it is suggested to have a necessary condition of "proof of public discussion and general approval from the related communities."
  3. In addition, there is a suggestion of a review by the existing committees that have community representatives. It is proposed that the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, Affiliations Committee and regional grant committees could partake in the assessment. There needs to be discussion with these committees and we need to see what options will be proposed in the review process, yet the general idea is that the MCDC could provide a review of the coherence of the proposal to the Charter drafting, AffCom to existing affiliate structures, and grant committees can provide a regional review perspective. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interaction between communities and the hub (bridged from MS Forum)[edit]

Original message in Arabic (external link)

كيف يمكن تقدير مدى تفاعل المجتمعات المعنية بالمحور؟ هل المجتمعات المعنية تعني فقط مجموعات المستخدمين أم تشمل مجتمعات مختلف المشاريع؟ إذا تفاعلت مجموعة دون أخرى كيف يمكن تقدير التفاعل العام؟

[Automated Translation from Arabic] How can the interaction of the communities concerned with the axis be estimated? Does the respective communities mean only user groups or does it include the communities of the various projects? If one group interacts without another, how can the overall interaction be estimated?

Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response provided at MS Forum:
  1. Regarding the interaction, it can be mostly estimated based on public or semi-public interaction, i.e. on-wiki, on meta or public / semi-public social media groups. This does not mean that there cannot be interactions in other formats, yet it would be great to ensure that the key outcomes of these interactions would be publicly reported (e.g. meeting summaries).
  2. Regarding the extent of what is meant with the communities, it is not intended to be limited to organizational part (i.e. chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) and should include also relevant online project communities.
  3. Regarding the overall interaction, it would be great to have a central space for bridging all the different conversation. Hub project page on meta could be useful for that matter. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quantitative or qualitative measurement for "community endorsement"[edit]

Original message in MS Forum

"Endorsement – Clear community endorsement. Including clear endorsement of the pilot from the communities to be supported by the hub."

Question: Is there a quantitative or qualitative measurement for it?

Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response provided at MS Forum
There is not yet a quantitative or qualitative measurement for the endorsement. Firstly, it would make sense to discuss whether this is a reasonable step or should be omitted. If there is an agreement that there indeed needs to be some level of endorsement or support, then details would need to be provided. I hope it makes sense. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criteria Design - About validation[edit]

As I could have the opportunity to lifted up during our SWAN discussion this evening, is important to understand how the process of creating these criteria was designed, and who was involved in discussions. Even if Validation by the Affiliations Committee is one of the bullets (so supposed to be one of the steps of the process), AffCom has not been consulted and has not been engaged in any discussion on this front. Which I think is problematic not having done it. --Camelia (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Camelia, thank you so much for bridging this conversation from the June 5 SWAN meeting to this public meta thread! This is really helpful and good practice.
The criteria were developed by Wikimedia Foundation staff responsible for documenting the hub events. I personally have had leading role in this. I am happy to clarify any procedural or content shortcomings of the draft to get us to a better place.
  1. The draft criteria have been pulled together from different conversations held regarding the implementation of hubs, including Global Conversations held end of 2020, beginning of 2021 and more focused discussions around the Hubs in November 2021 and in March 2022. This was the direct follow-up task from the March 12 event. It was communicated at the event that this task will be performed by the Wikimedia Foundation staff and then open this preliminary work to public review. With publishing of the criteria, this initial task is now completed and we have entered the phase of discussions and review with the communities. As also stated on top of this talk page "The initial draft has been published as a basis for conversations on June 3, 2022. It might go through significant changes and amendments during the review."
  2. The mention of Movement Charter Drafting Committee, Affiliations Committee, and regional grant committees is a derivative and summary of different conversations that has NOT been consulted with any of the forementioned committees. This is a theoretical proposal for the gap that was created by decision not to set up Interim Global Council with a mandate to oversee initial phase of Movement Strategy implementation. Movement Charter Drafting Committee would fill a gap of overseeing connection of hub pilots to the drafting of Movement Charter, Affiliations Committee would fill a gap in overseeing the connection of the hub pilots to existing affiliate structures, and regional committees to provide a review for the regional hubs based.
  3. Regarding the next steps, there would need to be 3 conversations: 1) discuss whether validation criteria for pilots make sense overall, 2) discuss whether involvement of movement committees is reasonable, 3) converse with respective committees to manage their expectations in terms of potential engagement or non-engagement in the process. The 2 first steps need to happen in a public way here on meta and other proposed channels, for the third, I will reach out to committees separately to start the discussion.
I hope this is helpful and makes sense. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Original message on MS Forum by user The_Land (external link) Hello

Thank you for this proposal.

Much of it seems very sensible. In particular, I agree that any proposal for a Hub has to be able to state:

  • who it serves
  • who is involved
  • who has been consulted and supports the proposal
  • what the Hub aims to do
  • where the ‘fuzzy boundaries’ are with the rest of the movement and how to deal with them [this is the area that is newest compared with existing affiliate models, and is particularly important]
  • how the Hub will monitor success, and what happens if it doesn’t succeed

This is all very sensible. If new pilot-Hubs have not thought about these questions then they will not succeed. (I get the impression that many of them have thought about these issues a lot, and their answers will be very helpful for the next wave of Hubs as well). I also welcome including diversity as an element of success for Hub governance groups. There isn’t a definition of what that means, and in practice I would not say that a new hub has to have a perfectly diverse and representative board. But it would be a problem if there was a Hub board that consisted of seven men from a single Wikipedia, for instance.

My main point of disagreement is in the ‘who has to agree before the Hub can be set up’. There is not yet an established governance/accountability model for Hubs. However this proposal seems to imply that, because there is not yet a new model, every single existing body has to agree: the WMF staff AND the Affiliations Committee AND the Grants Committees AND the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. Who knows, perhaps of the 50 people in all of those groups, someone might be able to find an objection! I would suggest that a more lightweight approach would be better. Particularly as both AffCom and MCDC are quite slow-moving committees and getting approval from either of them on any given question could take at least 3 months.

Personally I would be happy with the WMF team simply giving approval to a pilot-Hub so long as there is evidence of support from the affected communities. After all, Hubs are already agreed in principle (from the Movement Strategy recommendations) and this is an interim arrangement. In the long term I would not want staff to have sole authority over this, but eventually the MCDC will work out a process for recognition and funding of Hubs.

If it’s felt important to have more volunteer scrutiny of pilot-Hubs before they are set up, then I would suggest the Regional Grants Committees are most appropriate as they have the best knowledge of the context the Hubs will be working in. This is better in line with the strategy principles of decentralisation and subsidiarity.

I hope this is helpful feedback.

Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does piloting mean? Let's encourage more experimentation![edit]

Why not choose a definition of 'pilot' that hinges only on the type and scope of work done by the hub? And has nothing to do with approval.

At some point, there may need to be specific funding or trademark or other agreements that have approval involved. But I don't see a reason for the core idea of having a network of hubs supporting every community in the world to require that. –SJ talk  20:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear SJ, thank you for making this point and insisting on more clarity regarding what is actually meant with the piloting, and, as a result, open the space for true experimentation and innovation!
This point has been raised previously by proponents of hub pilots moving forward. Key points have been two-fold:
  1. Probing in complexity argument - based on complexity management there would need to be experimentation and probing to make sense of the complexity and get to a definition of hubs rooted in practice. A concrete example is "Safe to fail probes" in the Cynefin framework (which seems to be well aligned with the proposed approach in the question / comment).
  2. Momentum argument - based on reality where we have groups which have been functioning as de facto hubs or hub-like structures for years, the piloting seems to be an important step in their natural progress. Stopping ongoing hub projects on their tracks will be detrimental to the sustainability, progress, and growth of relevant communities.
There is further criticism that has been surfaced previously in relation to set up of Interim Global Council and also discussed recently in a Wikimedia-l thread around "Simplifying Governance Processes", which has again been raised in relation to this proposed draft of piloting criteria. The bottom line of this criticism is that the proposed criteria are too extensive and unnecessarily complex to be helpful and supportive of piloting (in line with the question raised in this thread).
There are, however, opposing arguments that need to be overcome or concerns that would need to be mitigated. In general, there are 3 major arguments also on that side:
  1. Equity argument - It seems that the currently privileged organizations are best positioned to pilot hub models. Moving forward with piloting would be, as a result, increase the existing privilege gap in the movement as these organizations would gain the first mover advantage. The recommendation is to create a more equitable framework.
  2. Agreement argument - There is no existing agreement in the movement what the hubs are or would need to be. This will be defined by the Movement Charter, which will take time. If there is implementation of the hubs in any form, there would need to be some level of public agreement to ensure movement level accountability.
  3. Structural change argument - It is difficult to undo structural changes, which increases the risks of structural pilots. As in the piloting phase people will be employed and coordination structures will be created, it is something that cannot be easily undone due to either legal reasons or structural inertia.
Proposed criteria try to overcome the tensions between these arguments. More importantly, they help to bring different discussions from different corners of the movement to light, so we can hopefully start to advance on the topic that has been stuck due to these "polarities" for some time now. It would be great to see further explanations and arguments from different perspectives on this talk page and other discussion spaces enabled for this purpose. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Kaarel :) To support your first set of points while avoiding the challenges of the second set, perhaps we can develop a category of self-identified hubs, iterating on patterns of work + collaboration. With a focus on bridging existing gaps, and on lightweight structures that avoid the structural-change challenges. With some rotating community carpenters helping w/ various barnraisings. –SJ talk  03:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary of June 5 discussions at SWAN meetings and Telegram (bridged from MS Forum)[edit]

Yesterday there were discussions about this draft on the Hubs channel in Telegram and the SWAN calls. One of the strongest complaints was that this draft and this conversation now put the breaks on the ongoing Hubs initiatives. A point made was that this conversation could have been done before, for instance in the second Hubs discussion in March.

First I want to acknowledge that yes, ideally this conversation should have started before. We didn’t have enough brain, hands, and time to bring it out before while working on other areas related to Movement Strategy implementation. We are aware of the disruption and extra time and dedication this draft and this conversation may bring to some projects now. Still, the Movement Strategy and Governance team believes that it is a necessary conversation to have if only to hear and document the opinions of the different stakeholders related to Hubs. Our concern is that postponing or skipping this conversation might lead to a worse situation in the future.

According to our count, there are three projects directly impacted by the proposal to set minimum criteria for piloting hubs:

Again, according to our count, the rest of documented projects related to Hubs are busy with their current work and are not delayed by this discussion. In fact, this conversation around this piloting criteria might help them share their own experiences and expectations, and fine tune their plans towards the agreed direction(s).

About the three projects identified as directly affected, their respective projects and situations are very very different. We are in touch with the three of them and we will do our best to find together the best path forward for each situation. --Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this update. Can someone explain what aspects of these three projects are impacted or slowed down by the proposal? (What sorts of expectations would be delayed?) I have a hard time finding any specific details about needs and timelines for these groups. In contrast, for instance, the EU policy network maintains this clear, concise overview of their work and coordination. But I'm not sure how this would overlap with the work of the two European hubs above. –SJ talk  03:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey SJ, just to clear one thing up. The EU policy network would become part of Wikimedia Europe. Also: the CEE Hub has an overlap with Wikimedia Europe but they have done a lot of work to get a clear picture of what a Hub could contribute to the de CEE members (who have very different needs than other affiliates in Europe). Wikimedia Europe intends to include affiliates from all of Europe and will be based in Brussels for practical reasons. At the same time the Annual general assembly will take place in Prague to illustrate this "All of Europe" membership goal, Jan-Bart (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resourcing most urgent needs of hub groups[edit]

Original message in MS Forum (external link)

IMHO (not speaking for any of initiatives here) it seems that WMF needs to own the situation and compensate with some resources (at least with interim and partial support), so that at least some of the (most) urgent needs are met and activities in dynamics of these can take place, rather than being delayed (or even worse restarted) and waste even more time and energy of volunteers and commited affiliates.

Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Original response in MS Forum (external link)

Thank you Zblace for raising this point! As Quim already stated: “We are in touch with the three of them and we will do our best to find together the best path forward for each situation.” This will be the approach with any other groups that feel blocked, that is trying to figure out the solutions in their particular context. At the same time, we will try to make progress regarding the alignment and movement level agreement, so the blocker could be removed overall and we have more clarity for the groups in the future moving towards piloting phase. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Process feedback[edit]

Original message on MS Forum (external link)

As I have said at the SWAN meeting, I think this fit into the generic pattern of the the WMF setting itself up as the facilitator of movement strategy but then not investing the resources to actually facilitate well. The implementation phase started two and half years ago (or to put it another way, we are supposedly at 25% implementedness of the 2030 strategy); if these criteria are so important it shouldn’t have been rolled out now. Let’s go for criteria that really are minimal (I don’t think the current ones do a good job at avoiding red tape) to minimize further delays (which are of course more problematic for the hub projects which are already in flight, but keeping the burden on volunteers low is also important for the hub projects which are not in the pilot phase yet. Also, maybe this is a good opportunity for a post-mortem and some re-thinking of what the future blockers are and how they can be dealt with before they actually block people.

(More generally, for initiatives other than hubs, I feel the WMF has set an expectation of being in leadership role by holding initial conversations and selecting priority initiatives, but then didn’t do anything whatsoever about them. The WMF is always the most successful when it is acting as a platform provider, not getting in the way, just making the necessary capabilities available. This forum is a great example of that: the WMF provides a good discussion platform to anyone working on the strategy, and builds its reach, but does not require any kind of coordination before using it. It would be great if in a similar wein the outreach and research needs for someone working on implementations could be considered, and then e.g. the MSG team would provide liaisons-as-a-service, with an easy way for anyone to get their own information included. Tech News is a great success story of this approach.)

Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original response on MS Forum (external link)
Thank you Tgr, for raising these points and following up from the conversation at the SWAN meeting, June 5. Couple of points from my side:
  • Yes, these criteria should have been pulled together much earlier. Overall, there was a too long gap between January 2021 and November 2021 event, when the focus was put to advancing the Movement Charter track and assemblying the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. We tried to get to alignment and agreement with the November 2021 event, yet it was used mostly to catching up with what had happened in between events, rather than looking forward.
  • To bridge the gap, we conducted the Hubs Dialogue project in February 2022 and followed up with the convergence discussion March 2022. The agreement of this task was to finally produce the criteria. However, pulling together materials from diverse range of conversations took more time than initially anticipated and so the criteria were only published now, beginning of June 2022.
  • As a person responsible for coordinating publishing of these criteria, I am committed to work with the team to figure out how these next steps agreed upon at the common discussions will be implemented more efficiently to ensure better progress and less frustration across the movement. Point well taken. ---KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original response on MS Forum (external link)
Technical note: Definition of “red tape” - “official routine or procedure marked by excessive complexity which results in delay or inaction”.
  • As stated in previous reply, pulling together the criteria has been based on a number of conversations. In an effort to be authentic to the matters surfaced, the list is probably indeed more comprehensive than minimum. I see that you have provided here content feedback, which is exactly in line with trying to get us to the minimum criteria. We would need to get more voices into that content conversation, so we can make progress on getting to a useful / usable criteria that serves its purpose of ensuring overall alignment and accountability to the movement, yet does not put too much burden on communities and volunteers.
  • There is a similar point made on meta, basically stating that piloting should have lean criteria and low barrier of access to actually support experimentation and innivation. The “equity argument” provided to support these criteria also calls us to the balance - while it is true that having public criteria and rules supports equitable engagement, it is also true that it should not create unnecessary barrier for the groups that want to be involved, yet do not have extensive resourcing available.
  • Doing a post mortem is an excellent point and opportunity to learn. True learning would mean that situations similar to current will be avoided or prevented in the future. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content feedback[edit]

Original message on MS Forum (external link)

  • Needs assessment, Overlap Mitigation Plan and “Off-ramp” plan seem like important concerns that should be handled (mis-alignment with actual needs, conflict with another affiliate, and unwanted commitments arising from pilots are all plausible and significant risks).
  • Clear plan, Endorsement and Monitoring and Evaluation framework are already included in the grant requirements. Some hubs might obtain funding in ways other than WMF grants and in that case consistently enforcing best practices might be useful, but it would be nice to avoid the duplicative work for the huge majority of hub pilots which do rely on WMF grants.
  • Not sure how Success criteria is different from having an evaluation framework with key results. Or is this specifically about the success of the pilot? I don’t think it’s realistic to predict a pilot’s course well enough for setting good success criteria; and in any case, we are not probing here whether hubs are a good idea. We have already agreed they are needed. If a pilot doesn’t immediately succeed, it needs help, maybe a different approach, but not being declared a failure.
  • Public documentation, Community engagement framework and Connection to the Movement Strategy implementation process are common sense. I guess it’s good to document them just in case, as long as they don’t add much to the planning burden (“designated representatives” for the MS events, for example, seems like an entirely unnecessary layer of bureaucracy).
  • Shared governance model also seems like a common-sense good idea, except I find the phrasing confusing. Shared with whom?
  • A stated goal – Clear explanation of the goal of the hub. Including why this goal needs a new structure or cannot be achieved with the current Wikimedia structures. – What is the point of these, given that we have a recommendation about the need for hubs? Are we going to relitigate it now? Maybe for thematic hubs there is some value in justifying which thematic area does or doesn’t need a hub, but for regional hubs this seems entirely pointless.
  • Involved entities – List of entities involved in the set up and oversight of the project. – This seems to imply that hubs need to be “second-level” membership organizations where the members are entities. I don’t think that was intended so it should be rephrased.
  • Inclusive leadership – The leadership of the pilot needs to be inclusive of diverse profiles (representation of gender, age, languages, regions…) – I don’t think this is a healthy aspiration for a pilot, given how small is our pool of volunteers with sufficient free time, interest in high-level movement strategy, and the necessary competencies and experience. Pilots which prove successful and gather resources and interest can then more easily diversify their leadership; it’s better for something to eventually be diverse than to not exist at all. (See also the Wikimedia Foundation’s board composition in its first few years - it’s always instructive to contrast the standards the WMF applies to others in the movement with the standards it applies to itself.)
  • The approval process (review by the MSG team, AffCom and MCDC, and “general approval from the related communities” whatever that means) seems unnecessarily complex and heavy-handed. Why is it important to include AffCom in a pilot? How would general community approval look? And is this really a good use of the MCDC’s limited and valuable time (which could instead be spent on actually working on the movement charter)?

Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback about the CEE hub specifically[edit]

Original message on MS Forum (external link)

Our timeline is (as has been in the previous years, and as has been discussed with the WMF) built around the CEE Meeting that’s happening in October and is the CEE community’s main discussion and governance forum. Since it’s very hard to get feedback from community members not heavily involved in movement governance without actually doing something that’s relevant for them, by that point, we would need to finish hiring and basic onboarding of hub staff, and have at least a vague outline of the actual programs. That’s four months, at least two of which will be seemingly taken up by this new roadblock in the process (after the transfer of the grants from one WMF department to the other already causing delay). That seems infeasible, so we will miss the feedback and oversight opportunity provided by the meeting, and will have to rely on the significantly less diverse and less rich feedback that we can get online. That would be an unfortunate outcome given that the new criteria’s stated main aim is ensuring community oversight.

Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original message on MS Forum (external link)
Let’s see how the 3 major arguments hold up when we look at the CEE Hub proposal:
  1. Equity argument - this argument fails to understand WHO the hub is FOR. The CEE Hub isn’t designed to make established affiliates even bigger, but to create more equity within the region by supporting underfunded communities (most of the staff work pertains to this). It is a bit unfair to explain to Malta that they’re not a priority and should wait another 2 years, for what exactly?
  2. Agreement: Regional hubs are networks of existing affiliates and communities in the region. It is up to them how they want to organise themselves and as long as they don’t start running ads on their language Wikipedia, how would a movement charter interfere with this, especially when the movement charter is based on the principle of making decisions as close to the affected people/communities as possible?
  3. Structural change argument - the CEE Hub was cleary classified as a 1 year project after which the next steps would have to be discussed. This also affects staff, which would be hired for 1 year only. That is a totally viable and legal type of employment in CEE countries, so it’s unclear what the problem is here.
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original message on MS Forum by user Qgil-WMF (external link)

Let’s see how the 3 major arguments hold up when we look at the CEE Hub proposal

Hi @Braveheart, thank you for participating here. :wave:
What I hear you saying is that the CEE proposal scores even better than the current draft. :slight_smile: You might be right! The CEE hub promoters and related communities have worked a lot, for a long time, and with very good results. You have got a lot of feedback along the way and you have been fine-tuning your project accordingly. So many people have said that the CEE hub initiative is exemplary and a source of inspiration for others.
Meanwhile, the draft published last week is the first iteration of a proposal. A draft looking for feedback, improvements, and consensus. In a few days we have got quite some feedback from some people, loud and clear. In this sense, the draft is being useful. :slight_smile: Our estimate is that we can go from this first draft to a version of consensus during this month of June, thanks to these weeks of discussion and the three events for different time zones.
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original message on MS Forum by user Braveheart (external link)
How is that supposed to happen when the first draft is unworkable, like Tgr pointed out? The global hub discussions have not yielded signifcant results because of regional and thematic differences, yet you portray them as successful in defining next steps that are ambiguous to the point where the strategy team can go in any direction they please, cherrypicking individual voices from Western Europe as “concerns” (which is apparent in the first “draft”).
You claim the CEE Hub grant proposal from the grants team two weeks before the decision should have been made, despite a clear lack of time and personel within the strategy team, instead of leaving the proposal with people who have done this for years and have experience in deciding what is feasible based on the proposal. That was five weeks ago, with no progress since.
You announce here that there are “discussions” ongoing with the three projects mentioned above, yet no discussions have taken place with at least two of them (I have no knowledge of the Content Partnership conversations), because so far there have only been handed down decisions conveyed by a messenger who has no decision-making powers. For Wikimedia Europe I’m not even sure they are fully aware of what you have written in this forum, because at the same time the statutes for Wikimedia Europe have been finalised and are ready for affiliates to endorse.
You describe the people putting these hub concepts together as “promoters”, as if this is something to sell to the wider community. The CEE Meeting has been happening since 2012, the network in CEE exists since 2011. There is nothing to sell or promote here, only to accept as existing in one form or another, however informal and unprofessional it might be, mainly because of the lack of funds compared to whatever new initiative the WMF dreams up next.
And the cherry on top came yesterday when your team wanted to know from the CEE Hub in how many tranches the CEE Hub budget should be paid out to WMPL. It really feels like we’re living in two different worlds. One where everything can exist at the same time (because as the first draft indicates, everyone with power right now should be made happy, while those without should be kept in their place), and one where nothing moves forward and nothing we do actually matters.
This situation is serious. We’ve wasted last year on an overbloated process that resulted in the MCDC taking itself so seriously that they spend 9 months on self-organisation. At the same time, you’re burning out exactly those volunteers and affiliates who have invested time, money and faith in this strategy process, by trying to make everyone happy in a process that was supposed to change the power dynamics and end this one-sided power-relationship for good. Something has to give soon, and the sooner we are open about these things instead of trying to pretend we’re one happy family, the sooner we can start addressing the actual underlying issues that have plagued the Wikimedia communties for the last two decades.
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original message on MS Forum by user Sm8900 (external link)
@Braveheart , I just want to thank you for your reasoned, specific, and thorough critique above for some issues that we are facing., I generally agree with you. one particular pitfall that we really need to try to actively avoid is general thematic vagueness. I am open to views on both sides of this issue, and also to both sides of the debte over moving forward thematically, versus waiting to achieve consensus. however your detailed critique above is exactly what we ned to gain some clarity for this process, and valid authenticity for our actions, overall. seriously, thank you.
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original message on MS Forum by user Qgil-WMF (external link)

How is that supposed to happen

Consensus on Hub pilots is supposed to happen by having more people and groups providing their feedback about the draft. We keep inviting more people to participate.
I have different information about the conversations we are having, but this isn’t relevant to the discussion of the draft.

“promoters”, as if this is something to sell to the wider community

I’m very sorry, in my mother tongues “promoter” doesn’t have the connotation that are upsetting you, and I wasn’t aware that this word could have this connotation in English. I just mean the people who speak on behalf of these projects.
When discussing a grant request of a large sum and for a long period, it is not uncommon to discuss how the payments of the grant should be distributed.
Yes, I agree that the situation of the MS implementation (and beyond) is serious, also the risk (and fact) of volunteers burning out. I also don’t think we are trying to make everyone happy. Some conversations and decisions have been put aside or postponed for years, the Movement Strategy implementation contains many of these, and we need to address them. Here we are taking one of these conversations (how hub projects can go from research to implementation) and aiming to resolve it in four weeks of community conversation.
We are aware of the risks this process may have in the CEE Hub project and we want to avoid them. We just don’t think that the solution to this problem is not to have this discussion about piloting criteria. We believe that we need to agree on piloting criteria for everyone and we can agree on a good path forward for the pioneering CEE Hub.
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cultural differences of communities. Are the pilots and guides really needed?[edit]

Original message on MS Forum (external link)

The interesting thing here is that groups like ESEAP have been running and meeting regularly since 2012, have run their own conferences and in ESEAPs case were successfully organising Wikimania 2020 until covid knock every thing sideways.

There are other groups / hubs with similar experiences, the real question is are pilots really needed the hubs already serve their communities according to each communities cultural norms and needs. These pilots and guides really just take away each communities cultural differences discards that to make them all be the cookie cutter look-a-likes rather than reflect cultural differences and community needs.

Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'll add to my original comment that this process is actually stalling and taking away from the development of hubs. IMHO its because people look at it go its too much bureaucy, making a formal entity for the hub requires exporing complex sets of laws and international trading conditions that local affiliates dont have. The big issues on where to base the entity, what insurances will it need, what functioning restrictions are there to grant making, who is able to hold official offices, what other barriers do we need to address. For ESEAP we have as a hub model an informal entity and then relied on affiliates to be the local organising entity where they can meet these issues. Gnangarra (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Consideration must be given to how these communities will be established as legal entities outside the USA/NA and EU where cross border issues are more open and flexible. Should we even consider them being created in those places rather the region itself? For ESEAP theres 30 odd regions we could chose from volunteers dont have the funding capacity or legal capacity to consider what are viable options? Its the external legal complexities that need addressing not piloting what has been flying for 10 years. Gnangarra (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the feedback and apologies for a delayed reply, Gnangarra! What I read from this feedback is that establishing legal entities, especially regional ones, is a complex matter and should not be a prerequisite for a hub pilot. In this line of thought, I would like to highlight that it has been nowhere suggested in the piloting criteria.
Regarding the particular example of the ESEAP collaboration, one of the aspects I have noted is lack of public documentation regarding the collaboration. It has implications on both regional accessibility and global learning. 1) Regarding regional accessibility, it has sometimes been difficult to understand what type of support and how it can be received by peers in the regional collaborative, 2) for the global learning it has been difficult to find what have been the key lessons learned from the ESEAP collaborative that could be implemented elsewhere. These points are included in the proposed piloting criteria, yet it is up to us to define whether they are essential for piloting and our development as a global movement.
The overall idea of "hub piloting" is to make the support more structured, better coordinated, and aligned with the needs of communities serviced. While I believe it would also be helpful for the ESEAP region, I would love to hear further voices from the region itself to validate that. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original message on MS Forum by user Qgil-WMF (external link)

The interesting thing here is that groups like ESEAP have been running and meeting regularly since 2012, have run their own conferences and in ESEAPs case were successfully organising Wikimania 2020 until covid knock every thing sideways.

Hi @Gnangarra, :wave: it looks like ESEAP has this point of the draft well covered:

Proof of public discussion and general approval from the related communities.

Can we consider this point applicable to any promoters of a hub, or could it be open to exceptions?
What I want to say is that with or without pilots, and considering all the regional and cultural differences, probably there are some points that are equally required or desirable for all hub projects. It would be useful for everyone to agree on which points in the current draft are “required”, “nice to have”, “this shouldn’t be in this list”, and also whether anything is missing.
Adding timestamp for when it was bridged to meta to be visible --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]