Talk:Movement Charter

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following Wikimedia Foundation staff monitor this page:

In order to notify them, please link their username when posting a message.
This note was updated on 11/2023
This page is for discussions related to Movement Charter.

  Please remember to:

  Discussion navigation:

July 30 launch party[edit]

Hi all,

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee held a conversation online on July 30 to commemorate the release of two key draft chapters of the Wikimedia Movement Charter, Global Council and Hubs, to workshop some important questions, and to openly receive feedback. Around 30 Wikimedians were present on the call with more watching the livestream on YouTube.

The participants shared their thoughts about proposed limits to the Council membership, the Council’s future role in funds dissemination, and the minimum requirements for Wikimedia movement Affiliates to be involved in launching and operating a Hub. You can watch the entire session in this YouTube stream recording.

Please find the specific topic summaries for the Global Council and Hubs drafts in the respective talk pages (Global Council, Hubs).

Best, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. M. Hossaiin (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary from 2 August call[edit]

On August 2, more than 40 community members, including affiliate staff, from Latin America and the Caribbean reunited in the "Coordination and exchange of information meeting for LAC" to learn more about Hubs and Global Council, the new Movement Charter draft chapters, and discuss other priority topics for the region. During this meeting we shared regional updates about different topics, had presentations including research on a regional Hub concept conducted by Wikimedistas de Uruguay, and regionally-connected members of the MCDC presented their new drafts of the global council and hubs. There were moments to make questions around and what kind of feedback is request from the movement, about the size and composition of the MCDC and different models of Hubs across the movement. You can refer to the session notes in the Etherpad or watch the recording of the call on Commons. GBordoy (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The MCDC’s participation in the regular call of Wikimedia affiliate Executive Directors – August 2[edit]

MCDC members joined the call of affiliate EDs on August 2 for a 20-minute conversation about the new drafts of the Movement Charter, namely Global Council and Hubs. Instead of a presentation of the topics, which many of the affiliates present had already received on other calls, this meeting was focused on starting a conversation with a key movement stakeholder, the affiliates.

The EDs group inquired about the best ways to interact with the drafts (a joint letter as EDs, individual answers, as affiliates, etc). MCDC members reaffirmed that it is less about the structure and more about the content. EDs were invited to share their own feedback when they can and if there is time, capacity, and resources, to invite their community members to participate or to have wider group and community discussions to gather feedback. MCDC members also invited feedback from under-resourced communities, encouraging them to consider if the draft concepts would facilitate their growth, among other aspects.

MCDC emphasized the value of the EDs’ input given their individual experience and knowledge, as well as highlighted the importance of receiving further community input. It was clarified the end-of-August deadline is not the final cycle and that conversations will continue at thematic/regional events after Wikimania. It was agreed that content-specific conversations with the EDs group will take place in October. MCDC members were grateful for the EDs’ group for their warm welcome and collaboration. --AAkhmedova (WMF) (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary of a discussion of the German-speaking community in the Kurier.[edit]

On July 29, 2023, following the publication of an article on the draft on the Global Council and Hubs presented by the MCDC, a discussion on these drafts started on the talkpage of the Kurier (the Kurier is similar to the Signpost of the English Wikipedia and a central forum of the German-speaking community). In the following two weeks, 21 people participated in the discussion and posted 110 comments. For the full course of the discussion, see here:

This is a summary, provided in good faith to share the results with the MCDC. Disclaimer: the summary is not a representative collaborative text. If you participated in the discussion, please feel free to edit, add to or clarify this post.

On Hubs[edit]

A small number of comments addressed the draft on Hubs; they were generally favorable. The language of the draft was apparently not well understood and needed further explanation. People criticized that hubs could only be established by two affiliates. This was seen as an obstacle and a disadvantage especially for those communities that already suffer from a lack of infrastructure. If this won’t be changed, it is to be hoped that existing affiliates will recognize the need to establish such an organization.

On the Global Council[edit]

There were many comments on the draft on the Global Council. All were characterized by disappointment, outrage, or resignation. Many community members felt their assumption confirmed that the Wikimedia Foundation was unwilling to share powers. The "equity in decision-making" promised by the MCDC and the Movement Strategy, allowing a stronger representation of all groups in the Movement, was regarded by many voices as an obviously vain hope.

In particular, a kind of parliament or general assembly was missed, as well as powers beyond those already exercised by various volunteer bodies. There was a clear desire for the Global Council to be more than just an advisory body.

On communication[edit]

A few comments related to information policy. Community members expressed their anger or disappointment that, given the importance of the Movement Charter, no emphasis was placed on distributing information globally. The German-speaking community has therefore begun to remedy the lack of information for Europe on its own initiative and will soon be holding a German-language Zoom call on the topic of the Global Council.

Best regards, Denis Barthel (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for this useful summary, Denis! RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sharing information is sharing power - For a Wikidatafication of our structures and processes[edit]

The Wikimedia movement is based on sharing free knowledge. But when it comes to share power, what we need first is a reliable information tool, because sharing information is sharing power.

Natural text is nice for presenting, explaining and discussing, but when it comes to give opinions, make decisions, vote, we need more facts, more figures, more statistics more factual arguments to do an informed choice.

In order to get a clear picture of the Movement Charter's new structuration propositions, to have the same level of information, understand the interactions, make informed decisions, allow changes in the future, I suggest we create a reference point with a set of Wikidata elements describing our operators and how they interact in the structures and processes of our movement. We could then use them for describing structures, projects, and monitor them more precisely.

Having a Wikidata set of what we do and how we organize ourselves in the Movement is very different from a Glossary. It's not a list, it's a tool.

Such a compass could serve as a point of reference for both the new Global Council, the Community and the Foundation.

This would help us to be more reactive and precise, especially in those time where AI is changing the game and we have no idea how 2030 will look.

So it should be a key to successful implementation of our 2030 strategy in a fast changing world.

Writing the Wikidata elements of all our operators, the processes and structures which use them and creating the grammar of their interactions could also be a common task supported by the whole community. Using the same factual infos should also help us to get more well-argued comments and more concrete propositions in the discussions.

This is typically one of these "alternative proposals that can mitigate, if not eliminate, major disputes between community and WMF regarding global site policies in the future."

In fact we realize nearly all our actions with five operators : ACCESS, CONTENT, RESOURCES, TECHNOLOGY, CONTROL.

ACCESS : Who is eligible to undertake which tasks ? Conditions of access (with Control), unequity in access due to gender gap, knowledge gap, underrepresented groups, regions, languages...), access for paid editors, external entities, AI...

CONTENT : edition (based on human, knowledge, (machine ?) resources), indexation (wikidata), publishing on line (made under Control)...

RESOURCES : includes 4 types of resources : financial resources (from fundraising to fund dissemination), human resources (volunteers, paid staff), environmental resources (carbon footprint servers, travels...), knowledge resources (books, magazines, educational material, etc..) and machine resources (bots, AI...).

TECHNOLOGY : the means which allow us to work together and makes our projects living on line.

CONTROL : the whole chain of control of access and content of our platforms and movement, from the patrollers, the admins, bureaucrats etc... to the legal team. Includes also the financial and technological control.

As a piloting tool, this set of Wikidata elements about our movement would ease the analyze of our structures and projects. What are we doing exactly ? With which means ? What should we change or replace and why ? When ?

For example, creating a tool for easing the addition of a citation in an article for new editors is Access + Technolgy + Financial resources to make Content edition easier.

Another example  : We speak about Hubs and Sister projects in the MCDC discussion. With Wikidata elements we could precise what these Hubs or Sister projects are exactly doing. Is it about Content, Access ? Both ? etc...

We could understand the way our processes are build, in hierarchical or in a transverse way, the interactions of our different operators and how these interactions may evolve in the time or the progress of a project or a structure.

The description of these elements and interactions in a database will make it possible to observe, analyze, decide, act, verify, etc... our processes and structures with more precision. It will allow us to monitor structures and projects in real time and modify them accurately and faster.

This is the basis on which we could move forward and ameliorate our common understanding of a lot of complex processes and projects we need first to describe correctly and in a synthetic way.

Wikidata makes it possible. Waltercolor (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to central notice banner call for feedback[edit]

Dear @Mehrdad, I waited until near the end of the call for feedback through central notice banner on the one-page draft of the movement charter to give my feedback, and answer the questions in the draft. I hope the charter will not be set in stone, but be amendable. The draft doesn't include a chapter on how the charter can be amended yet.

In the draft is a single question about hubs. My suggestion is to replace the chapter on hubs with a single sentence, with something like "Two or more affiliates can create a hub as a mutual support structure." Regarding the question "Should there be a limit to how many hubs an affiliate can join? (Please elaborate on your answer.)" my answer is "would any of the mcdc pose a limit on the number of friends I can have?"

The second question in the one-page draft is about the role of the Global Council in fund dissemination. Just about ten lines above the question it has been written in the draft "The Global Council will not raise funds in any way." Without funds, the Global Council will have nothing to disseminate or distribute. This model will not work. What could work - and was envisaged years ago in the strategy recommendations, was to have equity in decision making and be inclusive of the large number of underrepresented groups in the movement in decision making. This calls for both a rather large Global Council and with decision making power, and not only advisory functions. It would call for allowing affiliates and projects to raise funds locally using banners on the projects (with geo-ip targeting) - and a Global Council as a federation of affiliates and projects to redistribute proceeds of those fund raisers by the affiliates and projects. (It requires some creativity to make it legally happen in a way the WMF retains its non-profit status in the U.S.). I expect the large Global Council to elect among themselves an Executive Committee, and that the Global Council will have their own paid staff.

The third question is regarding structure. As already noted above - from the onset the Global Council was thought to be a large body with an Executive Committee. Naturally the Executive Committee will be elected by the Global Council. To be able to effectively manage resources (and limit liability of volunteer committee members) it should be incorporated as a not-for-profit legal entity, and naturally a membership organization. Not only (all) affiliates should be member, but membership should also be open for individuals. The Global Council could equal a General Assembly of members. Please be aware that this is not new. Since 2008 there have been every year conferences of affiliates in Berlin (with the exception of 2021 due to Covid when there wasn't one, and 2013 when the conference was in Milan). Those gatherings have nowadays an invitation only character, and are only for representatives from affiliates. The theme of the conference have most times been strategy for the movement, or direction setting for the global movement. However with no formal status or mandate. The movement charter can and should formalize an annual gathering of the Global Council / General Assembly, with a status and mandate for decision making. The remark by one of the MCDC members on another talk pages that a General Assembly would be to costly is out of sync with reality. There have been such gatherings since 2008, so changing the status of the conference to a Global Council meeting as regulated by a movement charter would not by itself incur more cost.

The fourth question is about membership, especially limits to the membership. In my view the Global Council will be a memberhsip organization, allowing both individuals (natural persons) as affiliates (with or without legal entity) to become member. The limits being for individuals to be a contributor to one of the projects, and for organizations to be a recognized affiliate. The General Assembly should be accesible to all members. In case this becomes to impractical in the future, an elected large body could stand in. Attendance to the conference in Berlin was about 200 people. So I imagine a Global Council of 200 people. This is much larger than in the draft text, which talks about 9-13 members of 17-21 members. Those numbers are in my view more applicable to an Executive Committee, not for the Global Council itself. I can imagine a gathering of one representative per country like the IFRC. Discussion about cap numbers are details in comparison with the huge disparity between the current draft of the movement charter on Global Council and how I - and many others - think about a Global Council.

Regards, Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will respond to the first question in particular, Ad. Nobody would suggest that there should be a limit built into the Wikimedia movement charter on how many friends you may have. However, at the same time, why would the movement fund your friend group? Hubs are intended to be an awful lot more than a bunch of friends. Part of the motivation behind the diversity and equity sections of the strategy are to reduce the perception (as well as the reality) that it takes having the "right" friends in order to get funding and support within the movement. Risker (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear @Ad Huikeshoven, thanks for leaving this note here. The charter is very much amendable as a draft, thanks for your feedback. We hope to share a summary report of the feedback received so far by the end of the month. I just want to mention that there was no thought about the size of the Global Council at the onset and there still isn't. There are arguments for different sizes and different roles, as well as continuous worries about layers of bureaucracy being added here. Also adding a layer of complexity that the definition of affiliates and the affiliate model in general as well as their size and membership remain contentious and a large challenge in the movement though I like your pragmatic suggestion of how the Summit could be rather readily repurposed. Thank you for participating in the discussions. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to the discussion on Movement Strategy Recommendations and the Charter[edit]

As I have led the movement strategy process from 2018 to 2020, and as I have been asked for my opinion, I believe it is my responsibility to provide context and emphasise the value and legitimacy of the recommendations.

Statements of Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) members, particularly during the first MCDC open call, have raised concerns. It appears that some individuals do not feel entirely bound by the Movement Strategy recommendations and that there does not seem to be unanimous agreement within the MCDC on this matter. This has been met with astonishment and disappointment, and criticised by participants. It is also seen as disrespectful of the substantial time, energy, and passion invested by hundreds of volunteers and staff during phase I and II of the 2030 Movement Strategy Process.

The strategy process was thoroughly designed to be inclusive, involving a broad and diverse range of movement stakeholders. The working groups of phase II, responsible for writing the recommendations, were carefully composed to ensure equitable representation of volunteers, staff, regions and people from emerging communities. They interviewed external experts, conducted research, modelled governance scenarios and deliberated through multiple versions before publishing the final product. Its participatory, open nature and multiple rounds of feedback gave the process its legitimacy.

The Playbook we developed after the process has been recognised by other NGOs and researchers (e.g. foreword in playbook, video interview) as an exemplary model of an inclusive and participatory approach to crafting a movement’s strategy.

The movement strategy process was of course not flawless, but it was groundbreaking. For the first time, it made the case for why and how Wikimedia can be a social movement, and clearly articulating the values and principles at its core.

The products emerging from phase II are a set of recommendations and a set of principles, both rooted in the strategic direction. They were intentionally called recommendations and not goals, assuring in this manner that the subsequent work remains iterative and participatory, consistent with the wiki spirit. As Kaarel said in the call, “evaluate, iterate and adapt” is not only a recommendation but also shapes the practices guiding all the work we do following the recommendations. Some of the recommendations include concrete initiatives, while others are more abstract.

Recommendation 4, “Ensure Equity in Decision-Making”, is the basis for creating a Global Council, hubs, the movement charter and of assembling a group of Wikimedians drafting it, today’s MCDC. While the Global Council aspect of Recommendation 4 left some aspects open, these must now be addressed in the charter. From my perspective, the MCDC can and should build upon what the recommendation outlines, rather than falling behind its intentions.

The charter's purpose is to establish a binding agreement among stakeholders, members, and communities, ensuring smoother, more representative, equitable, and participatory governance of the movement. It will serve as a written set of shared principles and guidelines for this 20-year-old movement. Many affiliates, including the Wikimedia Foundation, have aligned their strategies with movement strategy. Communities have used the strategy to advocate for greater representation, equity in decision making and knowledge equity, and for funding these endeavours. Both affiliates and the WMF have assumed responsibility (MSI grants, annual plan) for numerous initiatives aimed at implementing the recommendations. This collective effort demonstrates strong support and endorsement through action and resource allocation.

I hope we can concur that the recommendations provide the appropriate and legitimate foundation for drafting the charter. The principles and the strategic direction act as our guiding star, and the recommendations are the basis for crafting the charter. We still have a way to go to build the governance needed to become the movement that the world needs us to be. Let’s overcome negativity and resistance to change, remaining focussed on our core ambition and not losing sight of the guiding star. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fully agree with Nicole Ebber's statement, as a person that has been actively involved in some stages of the Strategy Process. The Movement Charter drafting process is an outcome of this strategy, and the MCDC should feel bound by the recommendations. I would also encourage the MCDC to make the drafting process more inclusive and participatory. Tarkowski (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support We are part of a movement that takes as a base what we have learned and built prior to the current stage. It is clear to all of us who participate in the strategy process to a greater or lesser extent that the Charter and its process is a result of the Strategy. Taking its recommendations as a basis for its development is fundamental. ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The movement strategy is a dead letter that isn't subject to the same repeated on-wiki improvement as other processes and content. Until it becomes a live document that can be edited and improved on-wiki, its legitimacy will be limited. TomDotGov (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Nicole, that rings true to me. (As someone only involved in some stages, but appreciating the thorough transparency and iteration involved) Tom: Can you elaborate? It was commented on, edited, and improved here on meta as it was developed. No more static than any other page summarizing a snapshot of collaborative work. Similar to the Movement Charter page this is the talk page of [but with broader participation and more iterations, iirc]... –SJ talk  02:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Movement Strategy Process did lose some legitimacy early on (at least on de.wikipedia), because it did not address power structures enough (cf. e. g. Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Cycle 2/German Language Kurier discussion). And now such a lack of legitimacy is the (or at least a) stated reason not to work towards a solution for the very real and pressing problems in this area? And again the large Wikipedias and the Wikimedia Foundation and/or large affiliates are expected to continue fighting it out, like they have done regularly in the past? What an utter waste of effort. HHill (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update from Movement Charter Drafting Committee[edit]

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) derives its authority to draft a proposed Movement Charter from the election and selection process of September and October 2021. This process involved members of the contributing community, the affiliate community, and the Wikimedia Foundation. The MCDC began its work in November 2021.

The MCDC developed principles for its activities, which were published in January 2022. The MCDC has developed proposed drafts for multiple chapters of the charter, which have received comment and review. All of the drafts proposed have been developed using the Movement Strategy 2030 recommendations as the guide. All of the draft charter proposals made to date are in agreement with those recommendations.

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is now assessing and incorporating the received feedback from the recent community consultation: the committee is committed to respond to the summarised feedback as we have done in March with the previous consultation round. The Movement Charter Drafting Committee will continue to develop proposals for a Movement Charter based on the 2030 recommendations and expects to publish a first complete Charter draft in April 2024.

On behalf of the Movement Strategy Drafting Committee, Risker (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I posted the following message to Telegram and am pasting it here for posterity. [1]
The message above starts out with: "The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) derives its authority to draft a proposed Movement Charter from the election and selection process of September and October 2021."
I must note that this is not complete. I'm not sure why it is declared by itself with no other context. The authority for the MCDC also derives from the fact that MS Recommendation 4 states:
"Establish a temporary committee, consisting of participants representative of the diversity of the global Movement, who will work openly, transparently, and in close collaboration with the broader movement and communities..."
This is important because we cannot forget that the MS Recommendations themselves are part of the "authority" that the community has defined over these many years of ideation, negotiation, and finalization. If a significant portion of the MCDC does not believe this to be the case, then we have reason to worry. - Fuzheado (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recap of the Movement Charter Open Call, October 5[edit]

As first published on Movement Strategy Telegram channel, October 6, 2023

Thank you all for a great level of engagement on the Movement Charter Open Call yesterday. We had many participants on call and there have already been 198 views on YouTube. For those who missed it, here is the link to the recording on YouTube. This call also sparked the ongoing discussion in this Telegram group, so I decided to give some context so it’s easier for everyone to follow the conversation. I hope this is helpful.

Content recap[edit]

The topic of the call was on the Global Council and diving deeper on preferences regarding its structure. Essentially we explored 3 different models in the breakout rooms to understand better what is the reasoning behind each. Namely, these were 1) No Global Council, 2) General Assembly, 3) Small Committee. The guiding question for the conversation was: “Why do you think the proposed model is the best for the Global Council?”

No Global Council model - In the discussion it was surfaced that there does not seem to be a full consensus regarding whether or not and how to set up the Global Council and we seem to be far from alignment across the movement. Also, there is an expectation that the Global Council would not change much regarding the representation of the smaller communities and affiliates, and larger ones already have a voice, making structural change redundant. You can find the notes from the discussion in the Jamboard and also rewatch the report back on YouTube.

General Assembly model - It was a large group discussion, where several areas of reasoning were highlighted. These included 1) diversity and representation aspect, giving opportunity for equity and inclusiveness and representing diverse voices, 2) legitimacy and transparency aspect, as for important decisions representation seems to be the key for legitimacy, 3) human and community capital aspect, essentially having more people power to fulfil its mission. Also it was noted that a General Assembly model would codify existing annual convening and the scope of the decision-making authority of the Global Council was discussed. You can find the notes from the discussion in the Jamboard and also rewatch the report back on YouTube

Small Committee model - The core reasoning behind the model seems to be its feasibility and effectiveness. It was suggested that a small committee can make decisions faster and would be the only model that creates a platform for meaningful actual discussion. It was suggested that it would make sense to start with an incremental change and setting up a small committee feels the most feasible option. Points were made about the small committee model being less taxing on volunteer time and also having lower administrative overhead. You can find the notes from the discussion in the Jamboard. Unfortunately, we did not get a report back on YouTube, as we ended up discussing important questions regarding the foundations of the Charter itself.

Thought provoking conversation[edit]

During the reporting back section of the call there was a point made about the discussion in the General Assembly breakout about the authority of the Global Council. There is a perception that in the Movement Strategy recommendation “Ensure Equity in the Decision-Making” there seems to be more authority projected to the Global Council than in the current draft of the Movement Charter. Question was raised regarding the position of the MCDC regarding the recommendations.

In the response, an MCDC member commented that the status of the recommendations is an agreement in principle, yet there has been no clear ratification or even endorsement of the recommendations by wider communities and affiliates. It was added that, as a result, the committee needs to be careful and attentive as not to push forward matters that have never been shown to have a global or movement support as givens.

This line of exchange brought about a strong reaction of astonishment among many of the call participants, as it felt that such a statement is shaking the foundations of the Movement Strategy process overall, and the Charter drafting in particular. More concerned voices mentioned a breach of trust and requested the MCDC to reaffirm its commitment to Movement Strategy.

As the discussion evolved, it was noted that in the Article 2 of MCDC principles there is a commitment to “consider the decisions and definitions made during previous discussions in the Movement Strategy process” and “When changing these is necessary, the MCDC will share this clearly, for transparency and awareness of the process.”

In my process support comment, I noted that while the Movement Strategy recommendations are indeed essentially recommendations, which means not all of them need to be fully implemented, we did have more than 100 talented and knowledgeable movement contributors from affiliates, project communities, and also Wikimedia Foundation committing a huge amount of time to analyse and discuss the situation and the future of the movement to come up with these recommendations. As a result, the recommendation should not be easily disregarded and it should be a go-to guidance for our alignment in action as we move towards 2030.

This particular conversation can be rewatched on YouTube here.

Next steps[edit]

With the Movement Charter process support team we are closely monitoring how the conversation evolves.

.➼ The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is already having an internal discussion regarding the next steps. I would expect resolution around that following their next virtual meeting on October 12 the latest. We will keep you updated. ➼ The content from the call is taken forward to the drafting activities of the committee, supporting and informing revisions around the Global Council draft. There might be follow-ups as we will try to specify some of the points made. ➼ Open discussion yesterday raised some fundamental questions and points regarding the process aspects of the Movement Charter development. I will follow up on these topics here and probably also on meta next week, once we are past immediate reactions on the open call and can constructively converse about the needed changes in how we approach this process.

I am grateful for your kind attention and have heartfelt appreciation for your passionate commitment to the future of our movement

--KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2023[edit]

I would like to sign up to join the zoom call. could I please do so? Please advise. tagging @ramzym Sm8900 (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

request assistance from @RamzyM (WMF), @RamzyM, @Xeno (WMF), @Abbad (WMF). thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, unfortunately the call is ending -- you can stream it live on YouTube here, which will be the recording. Thanks for your interest. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok, sounds good. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recap of the Movement Charter Open Call, November 2[edit]

Thank you all for great engagement as well as constructive atmosphere on the Movement Charter open community call last week! We managed to dig deeper into some discussion points and, hopefully, can continue to build on these conversations to 1) find points of shared understanding and agreements, 2) debate through the areas where we have opposing or contesting perspectives. I am providing a summary overview of the discussions for reference.

The call was designed to start building towards convergence or consent across different Global Council models that were discussed on the previous open call on October 5, namely 1) No Global Council, 2) General Assembly, and 3) Small Committee model. As part of the exercise we started mapping common denominators across different proposals:

Expectation of change to shift the current system.

Key topic areas for involvement: a) money, b) product, c) brand.

Purely community matters to be handled outside of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

➼ Perceived consensus around two essential needs: 1) representation, participation, and legitimacy, 2) effectiveness and progress of work. Hypothetically, the first could be met by a larger body and the other with a smaller one.


Only a part of the call was dedicated to finding the common denominators, as there were points raised that merited deeper discussion. Here are some of the key considerations:

➼ The models are only skimming the surface of the discussions and the focus would need to be on the purpose / function of the Global Council and addressing the key questions and problems that have been left unanswered. Some of these questions include:

  • Should we be organized in a centralized way or a more distributed way? (e.g. en:The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar)
  • Should revenue generation be a shared duty or not?
  • Should brand, fundraising and infrastructure managed by a central organisation?
  • What is our Target Operating Model as a whole?

➼ There was a line of discussion around what powers currently held by the Wikimedia Foundation the organization would be willing / comfortable to move to a Global Council.

  • It was noted that legal and risk assessment needs to be done to potentially define this. There are some legal restrictions in how and where the Foundation is set up.
  • It was proposed that decentralization can be a form of spreading or minimizing the risk.
  • The bottom line, however, was that the focus should not be on disempowering the Wikimedia Foundation, rather creating a better system for the future movement.

➼ There was a lengthy discussion around finances in relation to the Global Council as well as more widely sustaining the movement growth in the current world situation.

  • Question was raised: "If and how much we can increase revenue by decentralizing fundraising?"
  • It was noted that a stronger base of donors can be built on more local / regional level than global level (with an example of Wikimedia Deutschland). It was argumented that a centralized model is more efficient (with an example of Wikimedia Foundation banner fundraising).
  • It was noted that there are available funds that the Wikimedia Foundation is not tapping into and even cannot tap into.
  • There was a suggestion to provide room for experimentation around fundraising to the new global governance body.
  • It was also noted that some of these resourcing discussions are really "Western centric" and are not relatable for a number of Wikimedia communities.

➼ Finally, there was a point made that we should focus first on what we want to do, before we start formulating what we cannot do.

Next steps[edit]

There were number of next steps suggested on the call:

➼ It was suggested that these conversations would need to be continuous to make progress.

➼ As a means, a survey / strawpoll method was suggested to gauge energy around different models.

➼ It was also recommended to use the format of structured debate on the different positions discussed, rather than continue with repetitive and inconclusive conversations.

Here is the link to the full Etherpad documentation

Here is the link to the meeting recording on YouTube

--KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary of the Community Conversations on the Movement Charter in the Igbo Community Round 2[edit]

The MC Community conversation for the Igbo Wikimedians Community was held online on 12 and 13 October, 2023. This conversation was attended by over 20 members of the community and together we explored the 4 latest drafts of MC and the MS Initiative 4 Equity in Decision Making. The conversation generated variants opinions and reactions from members of the community concerning the Open Questions regarding Fund Dissemination, Open Questions regarding Structure, Open Questions regarding Membership and others. Their feedback was collated and documented on the designated Etherpad for Feedbacks from Community members and also published on diff post . Iwuala Lucy (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Iwuala Lucy -- it is well noted and received. Best, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement from the meeting of Executive Directors, October 24-25 2023[edit]

Statement for the MCDC from the meeting of Executive Directors, October 24-25 2023

On October 24-25, the EDs of Wikimedia affiliates met in Utrecht, the Netherlands (and online). One of the topics of discussion was progress in Movement Strategy Implementation, with a specific focus on progress concerning Movement Charter and Global Council.

The following text summarises that discussion and reflects commonly shared concerns and opinions. The views and opinions expressed are those of the EDs present, many of whom have been actively involved in the Strategy process since it began, and not necessarily those of the affiliates they represent.

The Movement Strategy outlines Inclusivity & Participatory Decision-Making as a basic principle for Movement governance. The principle of Inclusivity & Participatory Decision-Making invites us "to address existing privileges and barriers of participation". It provides a prescription for the Movement's governance: "Intentional effort must be made to ensure all voices are included and have a clear role in decision-making processes that impact them and our Movement."

It is closely connected to the recommendation "Ensure Equity in Decision-Making" that is the basis for the Movement Charter and the Global Council.

In our opinion, the Movement Charter should mark a shift in decision making in the Wikimedia Movement from community consultation to community empowerment. The current Movement Charter draft, however, maintains the status quo in terms of power and responsibility, without a clear justification of why this would be the best solution.

We ask the Committee to share insights from their deliberation process, and document how decisions are reached (including options that were considered and discarded).

We ask the Movement Charter Drafting Committee to revisit and rewrite the Movement Charter text with the spirit, intent, and content of the principle of Inclusivity & Participatory Decision-Making in mind.

The recommendation "Ensure Equity in Decision-Making" states that "we will establish a Movement Charter to provide a sense of belonging, as well as clearly defining roles and responsibilities for current and future members of our Movement."

From our perspective the current Movement Charter drafts go into too much detail to effectively function as a general agreement between Movement stakeholders to establish common ground for the long term.

We ask the Movement Charter Drafting Committee to strip the Movement Charter text of detailed content and only focus on principles and essential structures. Detailed content should live in the texts of specific policies and agreements that can more easily be revised and amended over time.

Posted on behalf of the ED group. Sandra Rientjes (WMNL) (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Sandra Rientjes (WMNL) and the Executive Directors Group,
Thank you for sharing this thoughtful statement regarding the content and presentation of thought processes behind the development of the Movement Charter. As the supporting staff member to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, I acknowledge the reception of this feedback and its transmission to the committee. It is considered in the development of next iteration of the Movement Charter draft. Thank you for taking your time for reflection and coming up with a collective statement as a group, which is helpful in consolidating the feedback. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WIKIMOVE podcast Episode 14[edit]

FYI, the latest episode of the WIKIMOVE podcast has an extensive conversation about the Movement Charter, with Wikimedia Norge’s Executive Director, Elisabeth Carrera and myself. Here are the relevant links and sections in case folks are interested:

- Fuzheado (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for this link! may I please suggest that these discussions should generally occur in video format? that's my own personal opinion. i find discussion in video format to be more helpful, and I find format in solely audio to be basically not helpful. thanks, @Fuzheado. Sm8900 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023 Movement Charter Conversations in Kashmiri Community[edit]

The Kashmiri Wikimedians User Group recently organized a series of Online Conversations from 17 Oct to 29 Nov to gather feedback from the community regarding the published drafts (Roles and Responsibilities, Hubs, Global Council, and Glossary). The Kashmiri community actively participated, contributing valuable thoughts and insights. The collective feedback from the Kashmiri Community is now published on this meta page. The implementation of the project is documented in this diff post. Thankyou. signed, 511KeV (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]