Talk:Movement Charter/Archive 3

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Ratification methodology

Below are questions related to the ongoing Community Consultation about a proposal for the Movement Charter ratification methodology. Feel free to share your input on the questions below! --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC).

Question 1: To ensure a fair and inclusive election for a vote that impacts the whole movement, what methodology should chapters and thematic organizations use to vote on the ratification of the Movement Charter?

Please select one of the following options:

  • Their entire membership (as of 3 months prior to the vote) cast a vote.
  • The decision-making body of each chapter and thematic organization cast a vote on behalf of their respective entity.
  • Some other way – please share proposals.

---

  • Should hear everyone's opinion
opinion: To ensure greater percentage of participation, "Their entire membership (as of 3 months prior to the vote) cast a vote". is greatOlugold (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Their entire membership (as of 3 months prior to the vote) cast a vote. --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the opportunity to provide input! Wikimedia Deutschland currently has about 100,000 members, the majority of which has never edited Wikipedia. Now, given that the charter will affect the active contributors to our projects – in my opinion that's the people who should be able to cast a vote on this important matter. I'd consider it very unfair if people who're not active in our projects have a say in how those who contribute should govern themselves. Also, if only half of all members of WMDE voted, it would literally be ze Germans who'd decide whether the charter should be ratified or not (given that most other organizations don't have nearly as many members) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for this example @Frank Schulenburg. Let me use it to put the options we had come up with in this context:
    • Their entire membership - this could indeed be the 100.000 members, but see my comment in bullet 3 below.
    • The decision-making body: for WMDE this would either be the Board of WMDE, or maybe the general assembly - though I think it is the custom that the WMDE GA only votes on proposals directly related to the chapter itself. Am I correct here?
    • Some other way: WMDE has in their bylaws the distinction between non-voting and voting members, the latter being ~3.100. As far as I understand these are the ones that have the active voting rights, so in this example WMDE could also for instance organize an active (online) vote for their voting members, limited to this specific group.
      So maybe 'consulting members who hold voting rights according to the chapters bylaws' could be an option as well? Or wouldn't that work?
    WMDE is by the way not the only chapter making some kind of distinction like this, I know for instance also WMBE does it, so it's a valid remark.
    I am not really sure if I understand you correctly about "the German votes taking over": the Voting Group for affiliates is based on one affiliate - one vote. So even if all 100.000 WMDE members vote to express to their affiliate their opinion, the outcome of this vote will decide on the one vote by WMDE, either confirming or apposing the charter. Ciell (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Question 2: To ensure a fair and inclusive election for a vote that impacts the whole movement, what methodology should UGs use to vote on the ratification of the Movement Charter?

Please select one of the following options:

  • UGs will determine the voting method themselves and report back only on the results of the vote.
  • UGs will submit to the Charter Electoral Commission evidence that their full membership has been consulted when they report back on the results of the vote.
  • The Charter Electoral Commission will specify the voting method to be applied to all UGs.

---

  • The Charter Electoral Commission will specify the voting method to be applied to all UGs. --Ameisenigel (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  • User group members who're actively contributing to our projects should have the same vote as other active contributors who're not members of a user group. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks again @Frank Schulenburg! A concern here could be that there is no transparency in how many members the UG's actually have, let alone a list of active members in the UG - aside from the people that have once listed their name on the UG's project-page on Meta, as an endorsement for the UG. A UG does have 3 'agents', but there is no standard on how a UG makes a decision, or the level of transparency that they would need to provide when making a decision on behalf of the UG. A UG is a light-weight affiliate and does not require bylaws.
    To clarify: here again, every UG has one vote: same as for chapters, and these votes will be collected in the same Voting Group as the ones by Chapters and Thematic Organizations. Ciell (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ciell, I'd like every active contributor to our projects to have the same voting power as others. If I'm a member of a small user group (the same applies to other affiliate organizations) with let's say 10 members, that would give me 1.0 votes as an active community member and then 0.1 votes on top of that as a user group member (if all members of the user group can influence the "user group vote"). The more user groups / chapters / whatever organizations I'm a member of, the more voting power I'd have. Now, unless there's a good reason for user group members to have more voting power than people who're not organized in user groups, I'm not in favor of this voting methodology. I'm in favor of the simplest voting rules I can think of: (1) Only active community members have a say in how they will be governed in the future, and (2) every eligible community member has the same voting power. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Frank Schulenburg,
Am I understanding you correct that your 1) would be as the proposed individuals VG, combined with the voting group per project, as proposed in the methodology? These are dependent on the level of online user activity. (Same of in an election vote for the WMF Board of Trustees for instance.)
And then 2) would be in the third VG, the affiliates? I think that still leaves us with the question how transparent the process within the UG would need to be. What level of transparency (if any) should be given by the 2 (or 3) agents of the UG (and to whom) about the consultation of the UG members, and how the decision was made? Also, what would in your opinion constitute a "eligible community member" for the User Groups in the affiliate voting group? Ciell (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ciell, much simpler. I'd only like to vote once – in my role as an active contributor to our projects. I don't have any urge to then also vote a second or a third time in my other roles as a member of some group or chapter (and pile up some additional voting power that way). Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, I simply don't understand which problem we're trying to solve by having user groups or chapters vote. We're not doing it for the purpose of representation. Because the user group / chapter members are already represented sufficiently by casting their individual votes. – What, on the other hand are the problems with having user groups or chapters vote? I've already laid out that such a practice would give some people in our community more voting power than others. Second, if every user group or chapter gets one vote, how is that fair? Some of those entities have only a fraction of the members that others have. Is it fair that a user group with ten members gets the same voting power as a chapter with thousands of members? Let's be bold and apply the simplest voting methodology possible: one person, one vote. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Understood now, thanks for clarifying @Frank Schulenburg! Ciell (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Question 3: What percentage of individuals should vote in favor of ratification to ratify?

Please select one of the following options:

  • 50%+1
  • 55%
  • 60%
  • Other – please share what percentage.

---

Questions about the Charter Electoral Commission (CEC)

Question 1: How will the members of the CEC be recruited?

Share your ideas here:

  • Asking for candidates in the different communication channels of the Wikimedia projects, like on central talk pages of the different projects and language versions and on the Wikimedia-l mailing list. After there a period open for applications a community vote to elect the members of the CEC. All people with an account and at least 5 edits in the last six months should be allowed to vote.--Hogü-456 (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • ...

Question 2: Who will select the 5 members of the CEC out of all eligible candidates?

Share your ideas here:

Question 3: What types of experience would you like to see from members of the Charter Electoral Commission? Should there be any formal minimum criteria for eligibility?

Share your ideas here:

  • They should probably have some experience editing Wikipedia or one of its sister sites, and behave thoughtfully towards other editors.
  • 500 edits at least
  • ...

Feedback on non-question areas note

Hi all - just want to stress that we'll gladly receive and consider feedback on any portion of the draft methodology! The questions above are just areas where we specifically wanted more community consideration :) Nosebagbear (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Why do affiliate members get the chance to vote for multiple affiliates and also a project, if eligible, but project members only get to vote for one project even if eligible for multiple projects? Barkeep49 (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for this idea @Barkeep49. How would you actually see this work in practice? Would you imagine there to be a limit to the number of projects at all, or simply a possibility for users to vote for all projects that one would be eligible for? Ciell (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest all projects that a person is eligible for as they are part of knowing whether or not that project supports the mcdc and that seems to be the intent here. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This is one of many such examples of bureaucratic empire building that will eventually destroy Wikipedia. I demand that for any new line written to WP administration several lines get deleted, also, we should cut down staff and word count of regulations to the status quo ante of 15 January 2002, one year after the founding, that's quite enough. We can't allow activist busybodies to take this project over, it would be the end. The Magna Carta contains around 3,550 words and serves as the basis for the legal and political order of dozens of countries. If written well, with the best interest of the project –not its administration!– in mind, that's more than enough. Tickle me (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems to confuse the purpose of the Movement Charter. Whereas the Magna Carta is a document outlining rights, this document needs to outline roles and responsibilities for many distinct entities. A more apt comparison would be the UN Charter containing 111 articles across 19 chapters. I assume you perceive the UN as unnecessary bureaucracy too, so I will preemptively note that UNICEF alone has saved millions of lives. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 23:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The WMF will not save any lives, just alienate volunteers and mislead people into wasting their money. Wikipedia is not a nation, it is an encyclopedia; Wiktionary is not nation, it is a dictionary; etc. The WMF should have no right to impose their bureaucracy on these projects, which do the most good in the world when the communities that are to be thanked for them maintain agency over them. The WMF (which is a much more hierarchical and non-voluntary system) should serve purely to handle technical matters and make difficult decisions as a last resort. The more active and less passive the role of the WMF is, the more the spontaneous and voluntary activity of the projects it governs suffers. 77.102.33.213 12:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
This is actually one of the things the charter is trying to tackle - putting in writing that all have their own responsibilities and can take their own decisions, but also where you can go if you don't agree with a decision and where you can request help if things get too complicated. Please realize that many of these things have grown organically in the past 20 years and are already very much in force, but this has not been captured in one central place yet. This is what the charter aims to do, while also making sure that the scales are correctly balanced again.
The question on this page now is: how should all the votes be weighed in the ratification process of the Charter, which is planned for 2024? Ciell (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Bureaucracy is bureaucracy. I know it when I see it. Those with power in the WMF should be embracing genuine passivity with regards to their governance, not pouring oil on a fire by coming up with more policy creep in response to complaints about policy creep. 77.102.33.213 13:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree that the development of the charter is creating more bureaucracy, and I would like to invite you to review the upcoming new Charter drafts in Q3. But please do so with an open mind: the drafters in the committee are volunteers and please have trust that we also do not want to create extra procedures where they are not helpful, or limit what volunteers can do - whether in a global context, or simply at their local projects. Ciell (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I should also note that whether it would make more bureaucracy or not, the entire point of this page is to ensure that it isn't "imposed". Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there going to be a way for the community to reject the establishment of a movement charter? If not, it's being imposed. TomDotGov (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@TomDotGov - assuming that something like this process is agreed to, then any of the voting groups could reject establishment by voting it down (tl;dr: "yes"). Speaking personally, unless it was by a whisker, I'd take two failed ratifications as a sign to move on - and the MCDC also built in a dissolution clause into ourselves at the start, so even if there are members willing to take numerous failed versions eventually they'd have to stop.
The process also includes a clause that would mean any successor created by the BOT would also need to use the same process for at least a year. Although I'd be surprised if, after a failed ratification attempt or two, anyone rushed to try the process again for some time. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
That's actually a good thing to hear, as it means that this won't just be a revote scenario. Is the documentation for these processes available publicly? I spent a little time looking for the MCDC dissolution clause, and couldn't find it. TomDotGov (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@TomDotGov: It's the finale article from the MCDC principles. Ciell (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I could see the MCDC stay on a bit after while the process of forming the GC takes place by the way, to do a proper on-boarding for the Council members. Ciell (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

“to reduce duplicate representation”, nice call. I'm member of and leader of a handful of user groups, but that's a general issue that I don't want to tackle here. Do I understand correctly that I can choose freely from all projects where I am eligible? Certainly, my vote is more worth when I choose the wiki with least (possible) voters (e.g., metawiki instead of enwiki). That's not very fair for users who are active on a crosswiki level. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@DerHexer The plan is indeed to have someone with, say, 600 edits on en-wiki and 400 edits on de-wiki, to be able to pick between the two. Obviously this does indeed mean your vote has greater impact at the project level if you pick a smaller project.
Continuing purely for me, not the whole committee: it is not the only place in the methodology where no singular ideal option existed. Neither first edit, or edit count or advanced permissions is a flawless method for determining what an editor actually views as their "true home project". Free choice (limited to those where an individual is eligible to vote) is also not ideal for the reason you note - someone might pick off electoral benefit rather than their actual viewpoint. Ultimately, this safeguarded option felt like the best selection - if you disagree that would be good to know - and even more so if you could advise what option would work best/least worst :) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Double voting

This relates to questions 1 and 2. We are a complicated group of people in a complicated movement, we have many people who legitimately qualify for votes via multiple chapters and or user groups. That's fine, provided we retain the principle of one person one vote - however many times you qualify for a vote in one election you may only vote once. Otherwise all sorts of unintended problems can occur including people objecting to the creation of new units that would give people extra votes.

Similarly, if we want people to think of themselves as one movement where all are equal, you need to count all the member votes across multiple organisations and go with the majority. Yes that could mean something going through that is extremely popular in a couple of chapters and loses by narrow majorities in a much larger number of chapters. But "only vote once" and "most votes wins" are good principles that give defendable decisions even when they are very close results. WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Contribution

Creating criteria based on seniority or productivity is tricky. There are a lot of people thinking that is Wikipedia itself for one or the other, and its don't help to create a environment of respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. Assume good faith sometime seems only a utopia dream (that I dream). Using a nomination-based criterion is unfair because it confers power to create an oligarchy. Voting based on 50%+1 is difficult because it divides voters into groups and creates feud. Going back to what it was before is a mistake because today Wikipedia is better than yesterday. Creating transparent rules is a two-way street, it's include some and exclude others. I believe that anyone who doesn't want to follow rules shouldn't participate in a collaborative project, and anyone who wants to create rules based in yours thinking should set up their own organization. I would include that starting from the premise of impartiality is a mistake, partiality is why every user and contributor is on Wikipedia, one to prove their point of view, and the other to legitimize it. What I mean is that there is no solution that does not cause conflict, therefore, bureaucrats must carry on their bureaucracies, and whoever does not like it, have recourse to the channels created to complain or become one of them, both good options. In time, I support MCDC and my vote/opinion are: Question 1: Their entire membership (as of 3 months prior to the vote) cast a vote. Question 2: The Charter Electoral Commission will specify the voting method to be applied to all UGs. Question 3: I prefer 66.66 percent. As it is a kind of constitution of the Wikimedia projects. CEC Question 1 and 2: ok Question 3: the minimum criteria should be to be a bureaucrat or/and contributor. Eder Dias Capobianco (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Conversation hour #1, April 18

@Arcuscloud, Nada kareem22, Uncle Bash007, Onwuka Glory, Garlen Jo, Christoph Jackel (WMDE), Gilbert Ndihokubwayo, Olugold, Akwugo, Iwuala Lucy, জয়শ্রীরাম সরকার, Chinmayee Mishra, Akbarali, Tarunno, Yahya, Bajoga2021, Aishik Rehman, MdsShakil, MS Sakib, Rachmat04, BHARATHESHA ALASANDEMAJALU, and Empat Tilda: the Zoom meeting link has been posted on the landing page -- looking forward to see you in a few hours! Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Kindly share the link to the landing page. Olugold (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah @RamzyM (WMF), pls share the link to the landing page.. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@Olugold, @Uncle Bash007: This is the landing page containing Zoom link for today's conversation: Movement Charter/Community Consultation#Community conversation #1: 18 April 2023 at 10:00 UTC. Thanks, ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 04:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing Olugold (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank u Uncle Bash007 (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Conversation hour for Wikimedia committees and stewards, April 20

@Carlojoseph14 and Olugold: the Zoom meeting link has been posted on the landing page -- looking forward to see you. Best, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I attended today. my votes are on the Movement strategy Forum Olugold (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback is being noted

Thank you for all the feedback! This is an acknowledgement that all comments here are being monitored. A summary of them is being compiled and will be shared back here in a few weeks after the consultation. The MCDC will refer to the same summary when refining the ratification methodology draft, later on. As a reminder and as mentioned in the community consultations page, there are several channels to provide feedback on the ratification methodology, including an upcoming meeting on April 24th! --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Community conversation hour #2 April 24

Hello Onwuka Glory, LiAnna (Wiki Ed), Tiputini, Jefferestiw, Rosiestep, VALENTIN NVJ, DaSupremo, Ad Huikeshoven and Toastmein - this is a reminder the second community conversation hour on the Movement Charter ratification methodology will take place today at 17.00 UTC. Here comes the Zoom link: wikimedia.zoom.us/j/85011160136, see you soon. Thanks. --AAkhmedova (WMF) (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Wikimedia Deutschland

We appreciate the MCDC dealing with this difficult task of designing the voting process. We will call it ‘voting’ in the following, as we understand ratification technically as the act of taking a signed treaty and ratifying it through the proper governance channels, which can only be done if the outcome of the voting process is in favor of the charter.

For many of the open questions on eligibility and majorities, there are no easy answers. These deliberations pave the way for the upcoming ones around participatory decision making and the composition of the Global Council. WMDE’s Movement Strategy & Global Relations Team has a few thoughts, questions and suggestions:

  1. The result of the vote depends on two related factors: (1) the quality of the charter and (2) the extent to which the constituents feel they have been consulted, represented and involved in creating it. Therefore, the reach of and participation in community consultations will be crucial to people turning out to vote, and voting in favor.
  2. Using the vote as another feedback round and then doing another round on potential changes seems unnecessarily muddled. To our point above - we strongly believe that consultation (not just on drafts but on big directional questions) and integration of feedback should occur before the vote. People should then feel like they vote on the best possible version of a movement charter.
  3. What are the thoughts on voter turnout, in relation to each of the groups? We have no good answers, except in relation to affiliates. In our opinion, and in standard practice, in the future, becoming an accredited Wikimedia affiliate should involve signing and ratifying the charter. As a consequence, the same should be true for the existing set of affiliates during this initial process. 100 % of them should first vote and then ratify the charter (and if there are unacceptable parts, should provide input in changing them during the drafting period).
  4. With what resources will voting be encouraged? We are concerned about turnout and the result of the vote. At this point, we see a reduction of resources with the Foundation to get the vote out. MCDC, Affiliates and others should think about how we can best use the upcoming months to bring the charter content to the various groups, get their involvement and, as said above, promote meaningful participation. How do we best use Wikimania, regional meetings, the Wikimedia Summit? WMDE is ready to help here, and we invite others to join in this important work. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello @Nicole Ebber (WMDE)
Thank you for the feedback. This is to acknowledge that your feedback has been noted and will be communicated to the MCDC as part of the community input report in May. It is expected that the updated version of the ratification methodology to be shared in September-November 2023. Regards, AAkhmedova (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Nicole, WMDE,
Thank you for sharing these thoughts and suggestions. They are, as previous engagements from your side, much appreciated.
Also, thank you for your offer to help with the outreach side of our drafting work: it is duly noted and I thank you for thinking of us.
Ciell (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

A mini community conversation of Wikimedia User Group Nigeria ( Owerri Wikimedia Network), held on the 4th of May,2023.

Question (1) The voting group: The community generally accepts that every member, affiliates and Wikimedia Board members have the right to vote and be voted for.This is because if a Group member is sent as a delegate voter, the delegate voter may not represent their interest as intended,hence the need for every individual,affiliates and Wikimedia Foundation board members are free to vote and be voted for. Question (2)To ensure a fair and inclusive election for a vote that impacts the whole movement, what methodology should User Groups use to vote on the ratification of the Movement Charter?: The community agreed that to ensure a fair and inclusive election for a vote that impacts the whole movement, the Movement should adopt the Board of Trustees method of voting. This is to ensure equity,inclusivity and fareness which would bring about uneven growth, harmony and easy diversification. Question (3): What percentage of individuals should vote in favor of ratification to ratify? The community agreed on 50+1 voting as a qualification for a winning to any specified position. They said if an individual scores above 50, that's to say the individual is well known within the community and Movement. Question (4): How will the members of the Charter Electoral Commission be recruited? The community agreed that the Charter Electoral Commission officers would be recruited based on their membership to the Movement and their contributions to Wikimedia Foundation. contributions like support,help, care and over all community building. It would be based on the number of years in active service to the Wikimedia foundation. Question (5):Who will select the 5 members of the Charter Electoral Commission out of all eligible candidates? The community generally agreed that the electoral body set up for the electoral process among the Board of trustees should be vested with rights and privileges to select the 5 members of Charter Electoral Commission. They said , the recruitment should be based on merit devoid of anarchy. Question (6): What types of experience would you like to see from members of the Charter Electoral Commission? Should there be any formal minimum criteria for eligibility? The community further echoed on Innovation and creativity, the individual must be so creative and innovative on advancing the course of the foundation. Of course, there should be a formal minimum criteria for eligibility, like having at least 3 years membership and must have a good number of well written Works. He or she must be in good standing with Wikimedia Foundation. The individual must be transparent, impartial and open to new ideas. Onwuka Glory (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Onwuka Glory – the feedback well noted. Thank you for providing the translated version as well. Best regards, AAkhmedova (WMF) (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Summary of the ratification conversation results

Here is the summary of the ratification community conversations from last month. Many thanks again to all those who participated! Your feedback is still welcome on what may have been missed in the summary --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC).

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_3&oldid=26547956"