Talk:Movement Charter/Archive 5

Archives

---

• Archive 1: December 2020 - August 2022
• Archive 2: September 2022 - March 2023
• Archive 3: March - September 2023
• Archive 4: September 2023 - March 2024
• Archive 5: March - June 2024

Wikimedia Foundation perspectives on the Global Council

Dear All,

I am sharing some inputs shared with the Movement Charter Drafting Committee on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in January, prior to the Committee’s in-person meeting in Atlanta, USA. At the next Open Conversation with Trustees on March 21 we shall dedicate time to talk more about this process and the Foundation’s hopes for a Movement Charter. Maryana will shortly post an update about highlights from Talking:2024 that will also provide some useful insights into these inputs:

The Board has a few questions about the purpose of the Global Council (GC), the problems it proposes to solve, and the ways its decision-making will be accountable to key stakeholders (the wider movement, our movement financial and volunteer contributors, and the public our projects aim to serve).

It seems we still do not have clear answers to these questions. This is not surprising, given the complexity of the topic. It is even to be expected, given the realities of the way the MCDC has had to work. However, at this point, this lack of clarity is concerning.

We have received questions from the MCDC about what the Wikimedia Foundation considers possible or "off limits" for the GC. It has been difficult to provide answers for several reasons. First, there are few clear, hard boundaries around what is or is not possible unless we start with a shared agreement on what we are trying to accomplish. In addition, the Board cannot consider whether a particular proposal for the GC would be acceptable without considering its full implications, as well as understanding the perspectives of other stakeholders.

As you know, the role of the Board of Trustees includes a “fiduciary duty of care” in leading the Foundation to achieve its purpose. In addition to guidance on the proper use of funds the Foundation has received from Wikimedia donors, we have to make decisions prudently and only after due diligence that informs the Foundation’s obligations to the mission. We cannot commit the Foundation to unclear use of assets or staffing resources. This is why it has been difficult for the Board to state specifically whether we will ratify the Movement Charter or not, especially when it has not been fully fleshed out so that the Board can understand its implications and future risks.

To that end, ahead of our upcoming meetings, we are sharing the Board’s perspective on some of the roles currently held by the Foundation that we believe could be transferred to a GC, as well as some of the changes we do not plan to make.

Areas of responsibility to assign from the Foundation to the GC

As you heard in the call we hosted in November, the Senior Leadership team has discussed the relationship between the Foundation and different potential models for the GC as part of the preparation for the Foundation’s annual plan. These conversations start from a need to respond to significant changes, threats, and challenges in the environment around the Wikimedia projects—which require long-term planning to ensure our projects continue thriving. The conversations led to finding the areas where there is a potential for greater volunteer leadership in decision-making, specifically in grant-making and technical strategy.

The Board has also recently commissioned an evaluation of the Foundation's affiliates’ strategy to understand better how this process can be changed.

We propose that the Foundation could assign (transfer) the decision-making leadership to the GC in these areas:

1. Decision-making on Fund dissemination. There is an opportunity for the GC to enable greater participation in important aspects of grantmaking activities, currently led by the Foundation, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. These aspects include setting strategies, policies, and standards for grants, determining funding allocations, identifying important metrics, and reviewing program outcomes. This work can build on and learn from the strategy implemented through the Regional Fund Committees, in line with the Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #27. The Board of Trustees is ultimately responsible for setting the Foundation's overall budget and planning, welcoming advisory input from the GC on the grants portion of the Foundation's budget.

2. Decision-making on Affiliate recognition and strategy. The relationship with affiliates includes models for affiliation, recognition and derecognition. The GC should be able to modify or approve the movement roles and models for affiliation within the Wikimedia movement, including hubs, chapters, thematic organisations, and user groups. It also includes the strategy for supporting organizations as they grow and to expand how they support the Wikimedia mission. Some of these duties currently are performed by the Affiliations Committee, and other responsibilities are less clearly owned. The creation of a GC presents an opportunity to address the movement's needs, building on findings from a recent evaluation of the Foundation's affiliates’ strategy.

The recommendation on Ensuring Equity in Decision-making mentions that movement structures “will be rolled out at a sustainable pace”, and there is some experience in these areas of working with the communities and stakeholders’ input (like the Funds Dissemination Committee work, different Grants committees over the years, and the Affiliations Committee), so this particular transfer of responsibility seems to be quite doable in the near term.

The Board also proposes piloting an advisory role related to product and technology development, which would be a new level for volunteer leadership, but one attracting considerable interest from the communities, in line with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #31:

3. Advice on Product & Technology: Product & Technology work is part of the Foundation's core activity, but there is still a benefit in developing a shared technical strategy that creates a closer partnership between staff and volunteers. An advisory council could help provide feedback and advice for the Foundation's Product & Technology department, help to report on progress made by volunteer and staff developers, and share strategic problems and questions that can be incorporated into multi-year plans that are necessary for technical development.

There are different ways the GC could lead in these areas. We invite the MCDC to consider how to create a structure that can efficiently and effectively take on these responsibilities in a manner that improves the affected stakeholders’ experiences across the movement. In our view, the success of these changes will be measured by the GC’s ability to create more effective decisions for the Wikimedia movement that advance the Wikimedia mission as outlined in the 2030 Movement Strategy principles, recommendations, and initiatives.

Changes not under consideration

In conversations with the MCDC and other volunteers, we have also heard a desire for greater clarity on what changes are not under consideration. At present, the Foundation plans to:

1. Continue to serve as technical platform operator. A significant amount of the Foundation's current responsibility is connected to the technical and non-technical expectations as the platform operator for Wikipedia. Given the importance of Wikipedia's continuity, that will continue to be at the center of the Foundation's planned activities. This does not exclude other Wikimedia organizations engaging in technical work in addition to or in collaboration with the Foundation (e.g., Wikimedia Deutschland and Wikidata).
2. Maintain the Foundation’s current legal structure. We want to ensure the Foundation can better focus on the important responsibilities and unique risks within the Wikimedia movement. We are not considering changes to the Foundation's place of incorporation or corporate structure at this time. It might be appropriate to consider changes to the Foundation’s structure after the GC has been established and has stabilized its functions, but we do not plan to do so simultaneously with the launch of the GC.
3. Continue to serve as brand steward. We believe that stewardship of the Wikimedia brand is also part of the Foundation's core responsibilities, which it must retain. This includes continuing to manage the Wikimedia trademark portfolio and taking the lead in considering how our movement is perceived in the world. Publicity and public perception are considerations that go beyond responding to media requests or issuing press releases. For example, if people are harmed at an event associated with the Wikimedia name, this may impact the Wikimedia brand globally. The Foundation is not legally obligated to provide trust and safety support to many events, but brand stewardship means the Foundation is responsible for monitoring major risks and mitigating them appropriately in coordination with communities.
4. Retain the current principles for banner fundraising on the Wikimedia Projects. We see banner fundraising as inextricably intertwined with the operations of the website. As the platform operator, there will be legal and policy obligations for fundraising activities that rely on the Foundation's infrastructure. The Foundation will not be able to share donor data in ways that are not consistent with policies or privacy laws. We continue to believe that a future-proof revenue strategy for the Wikimedia movement will require diversifying streams of revenue beyond banners, and that should be where we focus fundraising resources.

Changes to the above points are not necessarily off the table forever, but they are beyond the commitments we can recommend to our colleagues on the Board of Trustees at this time. Major, potentially highly disruptive changes require careful consideration and evaluation before the Board can approve them. It would be imprudent for the Board to commit to transferring core Foundation responsibilities to a nebulous movement entity. However, if the GC is successful and proves to be highly capable of administering its responsibilities, it could open up additional possibilities to share or hand over responsibilities, as mentioned in the Ensure Equity in Decision-making recommendation: “the GC may later develop further capacities and take on more responsibilities over time”.

Once the more fundamental questions about the GC’s scope and function are more fully addressed, a process of evaluation of the GC would need to be defined, based on measures of success, as movement structures’ “function and effectiveness will be continuously evaluated to allow for adequate design, iteration, and consultation”.

We hope that these concrete suggestions from the Board may enable a direct and productive dialogue with the MCDC, enabling us to focus on the responsibilities we can likely be transferring to the GC from the outset.

--NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Slides of the March 18th European affiliates meeting including gathered feedback on the BoT suggestions

As part of the European affiliates online meeting in March 2024 with 28 participants from 22 different affiliates and communities, we discussed the suggestions and red lines published by the Board of Trustees above. You can find the complete notes on the Etherpad (chapter "

Reflections on the Global Council"), though I'll list the key points here for easier reading (and obviously, the points I highlight here are my personal editing choice):

• Concerning the Global Council running the grants/funding system for non-WMF entities
  • The Global Council should have more competencies than just administering grants
  • The position or vision of the WMF on the global council could be clearer
  • Statement doesn’t explain how the WMF will be held accountable within the new system
  • The Global council doing grant making would effectively make the communities argue amongst each other, leaving the decision-makers at the WMF out of it.
  • We still have not resources to onboard new affiliates. Once a new one is approved, they are left alone to fend for themselves.
• Concerning the Global Council running the affiliates system
  • Huge amount of work and bureaucracy of managing an affiliate system is being outsourced to the Global Council and it is unclear who is paying for the resources needed to manage this or who decides how much that is. Looking at AffCom right now a repeat of a massively understaffed system is in no one's interest.
  • Suggestions by the WMF BoT for the Global Council appear like they’re supposed to make the Global Council “busy & weak”
• Concerning online banner fundraising on Wikimedia projects
  • The "current principles for banner fundraising" do not exist in written form and favor the status quo over any meaningful change within the 2030 strategy
  • The WMF not using this donor data to share information or message by the local affiliates is a huge wasted opportunity; there have apparently been instances where this has been done, but there is no written process or documentation
  • "Looking for funds elsewhere sometimes requires starting capital" (for example borrowing money from the WMF); requires are more thought through approach to enable affiliates to do this
  • Issues with the grant-making system hinder long-term planning

I would expect all of this to be discussed in more detail at the Wikimedia Summit 2024. Kind regards, Philip Kopetzky (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Philip Kopetzky: Thanks to all who worked on that set of comments; many make sense to me. I don't particularly think a GC should handle affiliate recognition or grant administration. I do think that federating grant-administration for a new tranche of funding, including regional microgrants, makes sense (and don't think anyone is trying to make a council 'busy and weak'). I also think helping regional affiliates to develop their own mailing lists and donor lists and competency in fundraising is important to equity, empowerment, experimentation, and sustainability -- all of which could be separated from some of the operational details of "current banner fundraising". –SJ talk  04:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sj: Micro grants is definitely a process that we know works well if the people administering these small funds are close to the people using them (Wikimedia CEE Spring is a good example of that). Concerning fundraising, donor and mailing lists are quite difficult to develop without the main tool we have at our disposal. As long as WMDE and WMCH are still able to do their own fundraising it stands to argue that this model can be replicated, and that the WMF's limited capacity to do banner fundraising also means that there is still a lot of potential, even when at the same time the Wikimedia Foundation is proclaiming internally that this is the current fundraising is the highest amount we'll ever see. It would be a start to have an open conversation about this, it's just not something the Wikimedia Foundation has any interest in doing, hence the red lines set by the Board of Trustees. Philip Kopetzky (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The most important of all seems to me what @NTymkiv (WMF) did write: "unless we start with a shared agreement on what we are trying to accomplish". Wasn't aware the Movement Charter has been drafted without any kind of consent between WMF and others and I'm happy the WMF Board has taken time to offer clearity here. Despite the clarity the comment seems to have for me, to be foreseen is that many, or some, people could be (utterly) disappointed when the WMF Board has to say no in the end, or have to cut back a lot of provisions from the Charter - for reasons given above. Maybe also because the reasoning might not be fully understandable or comprehensable by all volunteers concerned. Wordings like "we have to make decisions prudently and only after due diligence" might not be fully understood within its legal context and consequences by everyone. Therefore, with the most respect, is given into consideration to look for ways to better match (underwater) expectations of volunteers, raised by the ongoing work on the Movement Charter, discussing it and leading to what is being called a 'ratification', with the challenges, duties and obligations of the Foundation and its Board. When possible, it should be avoided that volunteers will be (deeply) hurt or (strongly) disappointed in the end and might even think about leaving the project. They're putting much energy and time in drafting the Charter and discussing it, firmly believing the constitution of a Global Board that will function as a representative body of all volunteers (and affiliates?) is on its way. Thanks for your attention, work and engagement. --VanArtevelde (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The full draft of the Wikimedia Movement Charter will soon be shared

Hi there,

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is happy to announce that the full draft of the Movement Charter will be published on April 2nd, 2024. This will kick off the community engagement period from April 2nd to April 22nd.

The Movement Charter is a proposed document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia Movement, including to lay out a new Global Council for movement governance.

Everyone in the Wikimedia Movement is invited to share opinions on the full version of the Charter draft – this is the last chance to offer feedback before the Charter draft is updated for the ratification vote in June 2024.

How to share your feedback?

• share your message or question here on the talk page;  
• attend a community drop-in session on April 4th at 15.00-17.00 UTC;
• or email movementcharter@wikimedia.org.    

Read the Committee's latest updates for more information.

On behalf of the MCDC,

RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, if the draft exists, it isn't being posted for improvement on-wiki. TomDotGov (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TomDotGov, the new draft will be published Tuesday April 2nd, and we (the MCDC) will be welcoming feedback and proposals for improvement via the talkpages. We just ask for a little bit more of your patience, thanks! Ciell (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"this is the last chance to offer feedback before the Charter draft is updated for the ratification vote" — will there be continuous engagement and response to feedback this round? Will the ratification vote be all-or-nothing? –SJ talk  04:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

We anticipate engaging and responding to feedback throughout this round. As to the ratification vote, voters (whether affiliate or contributor) vote either yes or no to ratification; however, all voters have the option to add free-text comments. The comments will be aggregated for anonymity purposes and reported back, although depending on the number and variety of the comments, the results may be published subsequent to the results of the yes/no vote. Risker (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Opinia

Polska wersja strony nie jest w całości przetłumaczona więc jestem Przeciw  Oppose Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Marek Mazurkiewicz, the translators are working on the translations for the next draft this week. The new draft will be published next Tuesday - April 2nd, and Polish is one of the languages in which the Charter and its glossary is expected to become available in. I hope that helps! Ciell (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Tłumacze pracują w tym tygodniu nad tłumaczeniami kolejnego projektu. Nowy projekt zostanie opublikowany w przyszły wtorek - 2 kwietnia, a polski jest jednym z języków, w których Karta i jej glosariusz mają być dostępne. Mam nadzieję, że to pomoże!

@Marek Mazurkiewicz, już jest dostępna wersja polska. --Wargo (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Recruiting members for the Charter Election Commission

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) invites qualified Wikimedians to apply as volunteer members of the Charter Election Commission (CEC). The MCDC will select five (5) individuals for this role. The selected candidates will come from a variety of Wikimedia projects.

The CEC is a temporary commission formed specifically to provide guidance, support and management of the voting process seeking ratification of the Movement Charter. Its work will be complete at the time the vote result is published.

Responsibilities of the Charter Election Commission:

• Work with the selected MCDC members to finalize rules of the election
• Formalize process for addition of voters to the SecurePoll voter list
• Review, improve, and finalize the voting process for affiliates
• Directly manage the affiliate voting process
• Oversee the SecurePoll voting process
• Resolve unplanned or unexpected issues that arise during both the affiliate and SecurePoll voting processes
• Act as liaisons with WMF staff assigned to the technical aspects of SecurePoll
• Act as liaisons with scrutineers
• Announce the result of the affiliate and SecurePoll voting processes

Successful candidates will hold the following qualifications:

• Must meet at least one of the voter eligibility criteria for the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election
• Must be fluent in written and verbal English
• Must be able to commit up to 5 hours a week between April 15 and July 30, 2024 to this project, including a weekly video call with MCDC liaisons
• Must be willing to work using Zoom, Google Meet and Google documents
• Must be willing to sign a confidentiality agreement, as CEC members will have access to some non-public information of persons
• Candidates who have experience in leadership with respect to SecurePoll election(s) or affiliate selection processes for WMF Board of Trustees seats are preferred
• Candidates who have experience as members of a Wikimedia movement committee, Affiliations Committee, or similar decision-making body are welcome to apply

Interested Wikimedians are invited to apply for consideration to the MCDC at mcdc {AT} wikimedia.org by April 8, 2024, stating their Wikimedia user name, their relevant experience, and identifying the Wikimedia project they consider their main focus of contribution. Successful candidates will be notified by April 12, 2024.

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is responsible to develop a draft Movement Charter for consideration by the Wikimedia movement. A full draft of the proposed Charter will be published on April 2, 2024 for a final round of community consultations. The final draft of the Charter will be published by the MCDC in June 2024. Voting will start in mid- to late June and results will be announced in late July 2024.

For the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, Risker (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: Extension of call for candidates for the Charter Election Commission

The MCDC has extended the deadline for application to April 22, 2024.

For the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, Risker (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

2 April 2024: The full Movement Charter draft awaits your review

cross-posting from Wikimedia-l

Hi everyone,

It is my pleasure to share with you that the full draft of the Movement Charter has been published on Meta for your review today.

Why should you care?

The Charter is important as it will be an essential document for the implementation of the 2030 strategy recommendations. Participating in the Charter discussions means that you ensure that your voice is heard and your interests are represented in shaping the future of the Movement.

Community Engagement – April 2nd to April 30th

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) cordially invites everyone in the Wikimedia movement to share feedback on the full draft of the Wikimedia Movement Charter.

Let your voice be heard by sharing your feedback in any language on the Movement Charter Talk page, attending the community session on April 4th at 15.00-17.00 UTC, or via email movementcharter@wikimedia.org.

You can learn more about the Movement Charter, Global Council, and Hubs by watching the videos.

Thank you,

On behalf of the MCDC,

Ciell

Can we get English transcripts of the videos? It would also help if "the 2030 strategy" was explained or at least linked to. —Ost316 (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree: either transcripts of the video, or perhaps a recording of the presentation portion of the Zoom call. Thanks. - Fuzheado (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the note! TimedText captions in English have now been properly added to the Commons videos, also the French captions for the video on Hubs, which was originally in French. We will continue this practice for the future videos we will post on the Charter. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

For the information on the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy - you can find the central landing page on meta here, which has all the information from the Strategic Direction, Recommendations, and beyond. I hope you find it helpful, Ost316! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! —Ost316 (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@KVaidla (WMF) Thanks! Can you make me 'an admin of ..' and not 'the moderator of ..' in the subtitles? Ciell (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the correction and ping! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Setting up the Global Coucil

moved from Special:Diff/26531855

A very good document, I only have one question related to this heading. I do not understand the second bullet In the first sitting, the committees shall be appointed by the Global Council Board. what committees? Is ther a sentence missing? User:RamzyM (WMF)Yger (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)=

@Yger this means, the "first time they get together", so at the first meeting of the elected Global Council Board, they will decide on the subcommittees of the Global Council. See also this supplementary document: Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Global_Council#Procedure_and_Processes. Ciell (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I understand. It could easily be written clearer, liek you write to state the subcommittees of the Global Council instead of the committees Yger (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, and for the suggestion Yger! Ciell (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Technology Advancement Committee power

What happens if the Foundation disagrees with or ignores Technology Advancement Committee recommendations? 141.239.252.245 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The GC complains about it. Without a change to the Bylaws by the WMF Board, only the WMF Board has final say about what the WMF does. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

From the conversations we as committee had, I would say the WMF is absolutely willing to hear and include the opinions of the GC subcommittee in their processes and decisions on Technical Advancement. As the MCDC is looking for proposals for improvement, @AntiCompositeNumber, what changes to the WMF Bylaws would you propose to address this exact point? Or do you mean your comment more in general, on how to solidify decisions from the Global Council? Ciell (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you think there should be a process whereby when the Council and Foundation disagree, that the question must be decided by the Board? 141.239.252.245 23:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that would be when the Independent Dispute Resolution would kick in. We ('we, the MCDC') are aware that it needs more development still (and that's why this document is not part of the Charter) but we do think there needs to be a future function/escalation path/body/whatstherightname to solve disputes at the most highest levels. Ciell (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Can the ratification survey please include a separate question to include mandatory dispute resolution by the Board when the Council and Foundation disagree? 141.239.252.245 01:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Global council board terms

I like the structure of the GCA and GCB. An elegant solution to the various ideas I'd seen the MCDC float. I'm concerned with the GCB having three year terms as that would seem to lessen the idea that it will truly achieve its mission to "be in charge of coordinating and representing the Global Council, and for this, derives its mandates from the GCA decisions." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Barkeep49, thanks for sharing your concern. As we (MCDC) for this consultation would like to hear proposals for improvement, do you have a suggestion what we could change to address this concern? Ciell (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Have the GCB have a shorter term seems like the obvious solution if people agree the ECB term is too long. I'd suggest yearly but even every 18 months would be an improvement so someone would need to get elected twice ECB during their three year GCA term. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Barkeep49, we have been talking about this quite a bit within the MCDC. The reason why we landed on 3 years, it that is basically always takes about a year to be onboarded into a new function: you first will have to do a full year cycle to have a good overview of what lies ahead so you can actually schedule work and anticipate on things farther ahead of you. So that's the second year and in the third your you will already start preparing new elections again. 18 month for a governing body of one of the largest websites and movements on the internet I think will not do justice to the responsibility and the weight of the decisions a GCB member will have to make. Ciell (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

And I think 3 years means that the GCB will not be accountable to GCA. You're placing the priority on other factors which fair enough, but for me the GCB really deriving their mandate from GCA is what I find important. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree that the term to serve on the GCB is directly related with the accountability. The GCB needs to account to the GCA every year by presenting the annual report of the past year, with explanations, at the yearly meeting of the Global Council. Ciell (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"safeguard donor rights, and financial interests of the movement"

Hi

Is there a definition of these two concepts available?

1. Who will define what is in the financial interests of the movement?
2. What are the rights of donors? Is this something that already exists or something that will be defined in the future, and if so by who?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @John Cummings,

Thank you for those questions. If you are looking for a formal document like the one seen here from the Association of Fundraising Professionals, then the short answer is that there isn't one at this time for the movement. However, that doesn't mean that it is absent entirely. The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation for instance states a fiduiciary duty of care as its obligation towards proper use of funds from donors. As donors play an important role in sustaining the movement, we as the drafting group consider that this ought to be mentioned in the charter. How it should be defined and documented should ideally be addressed by the Global Council. Runa Bhattacharjee (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

pdf version?

I admit to looking very quickly, but I am one of these people who can't read "on screen". Is there a long version in print format (A4 or so) that we can download to read on a different device or print? Thanks! notafish }<';> 09:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

download pdf version Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia language version I'm 'moving around', certainly not is a 'movement'

Wordings like 'movement' and 'community' have been used from the beginning, it seems. In the Wikipedia language version I do move around, that is the Dutch language version, unfortunately not much can be recognised that resembles a movement or community. A handful of (aging) people is working on articles and some of them do also handle a heavy load of tasks in management, dispute solving and enforcement. Most of them work for more than ten years for Wikipedia, without any payment, without any other 'reward' or nudging scheme. This group is becoming smaller by the year. A few diplomatic and friendly people can simply not disarm the harm done by negative shouters that are most commonly in a 'figting' or 'defending' mode. Working together towards a common goal is not the main mentality in the Dutch language version group. Newcomers are a rare species. Nothing can be recognised of what is known from true movements, associations and organisations wih a common goal. To make things a bit clearer, different wordings should be chosen for the different groups of people with different fields of interest working for Wikipedia and other WMF owned projects. Choosing the wording 'movement' for a mixture of the WMF, it's paid personel, the corporations the WMF sells services and content to, and all unpaid workers (volunteers), seems not 'right' in many ways and from many perspectives. It's not clear how many volunteering contributors see themselves as part of a 'movement'. Supportive of creating a body with formalised influence in decisionmaking, representing volunteers all over the world including the Global South, the group of volunteers should be defined clearly, apart from WMF and others. My suggestion is not to give this group the name of 'movement' but simply call it volunteers or something alike. Happy spring greetings VanArtevelde (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this need not necessarily be a movement. I would prefer a term like coalition, as we often don't agree, and these projects have their problems, but contributions happen to further global knowledge almost all of the time, and that is the goal of these projects.
Icandostuff (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Some history here. I started editing Wikipedia in 2004. At that time, we were volunteers working on a volunteer project. As volunteers we were largely motivated by our own intrinsic enthusiasm, and we built community around this shared passion. However, Wikimedia came into lots of money, and around 2009-2010 started hiring consultants to advise them how to grow the organization. It is in this context that the concept of a Wikimedia "movement" emerged. I am quite confident that none of us called this a "movement" until the consultants told us we needed to call ourselves one. And I think it was the emergence of this concept that Wikipedia stopped being fun and started being serious work. We're saving the world! And it is exactly this attitude that has made Wikimedia a joyless community to be in.

I have one striking memory of a time my friends were at one of those movement planning things in Berlin. They were not paid staff, they were volunteers. Yet when they wanted to take a step out and do some leisurely things, they were told no, they needed to go back to work. I am appalled that we would ever treat volunteers this way. But we are no longer volunteers volunteering our time for a project, we are a movement saving the world. Probably helped to make the Wikimedia Foundation a $100 million organization but it has exhausted and burnt out the rest of us. Harej (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the Wikimedia projects are IMO first and foremost a space on the internet, where people can pursue their hobbies, satisfy their curiosity and have fun while doing this. Even if one accepts saving the world or something similar as our main or ultimate goal, putting this goal front and center may actually be somewhat detrimental to reaching it. HHill (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Harej: Just to clear up the etymology, the 'movement' terminology came from Anthere and other community members before we started on that strategy, I used it myself. Our primary consultant for that was the creator of purplewiki, not a corporate suit. And I don't think that language choice has much to do with scale or public success. A coalition or communities instead of a movement could also work, but has similar ambiguities (in some languages one is more coherent than the other; coalitions are sometimes Capitalized and formalized, where as movements are not.)

@HHill: that was an insightful comment of yours; our main individual goals are often scratching an itch, not saving the world. –SJ talk  01:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Right to be forgotten

Sometimes, when individuals upload a picture under their own name on this platform, and that picture is subsequently deleted or undergoes some other alteration, the user may react aggressively or rudely. This can provoke responses from other users, leading to accusations and sometimes even vilification of the original poster. These conversations remain on the website indefinitely and often appear in Google search results, potentially impacting the individual psychologically or professionally, such as during a job search when an employer may come across such conversations. Therefore, users should have the right to request that their names be removed from these conversations while allowing the content of the conversation to remain. 2A02:A03F:8B19:501:B5F7:62B5:7011:21F9 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

See en:WP:Right to vanish, other wikis may have similar policies. Geardona (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is the Wikimedia Foundation's position for your information:

When we receive a Right to Erasure request regarding project content, we first direct the requester to experienced project volunteers, who routinely handle most requests to change content on the projects. Wikimedia projects have guidelines for content about living persons, and the volunteer community can review the guidelines and work with the requester to address their concerns.

When we receive a request relating to a user account, we provide the user information on the community-driven vanishing process. See the account-related requests section below for more detail on these requests.

We believe in a Right to Remember. Everyone should have free access to relevant and neutral information of public concern; delisting and removing such content from the internet harms our collective ability to remember history and understand the world.

SCP-2000 06:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I've observed instances where users are unfairly accused of various things, followed by other users using mirror websites to replicate these accusations in attempts to extort money from the accused. This pattern has repeated itself, with anonymous users spreading malicious rumors about individuals and then trying to extort money from them. Unless this platform takes significant steps to safeguard user identities, I believe its future is in jeopardy. The rights to be forgotten, to privacy, and to not be extorted for statements made should be inviolable.2A02:A03F:8B19:501:7842:5EE3:699:42B3 00:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Fix grammar mistake but otherwise support

Overall, I like the idea, structure, and content of the charter.

1.) However, there is a grammar mistake that I see in the table for the Movement Charter/Amendment: Under category 3 it states "Mandatory community consultation, two-thirds (⅔) support for change in in vote following consultation", is this intended to read something like "Mandatory community consultation, two-thirds (⅔) support for change in a vote following consultation"?

2.) Also under category 4 it states "Movement-wide vote, majority support for change", since we are stating things like "two-thirds (2/3) support" in the other sections, perhaps this should read something like "Movement-wide vote, with simple majority of one-half (1/2) support for change"? (Note I'm plainly reading so assuming majority means simple majority, and not something like super-majority).

 ▶ If category 4 is changed to something such as "Movement-wide vote, with simple majority of one-half (1/2) support for change", then the appropriate part of category 5 should also read something like "Proposals must meet criteria to move on to voting. Movement-wide vote, with simple majority of one-half (1/2) support for change".

I might be reading into it too much but I just figured that since we are being exact and this document will be around for a while, we might as well make it precise.
Either way, All the best,  Support Ian E (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Ian E. In particular, thank you very much for giving an example of a change that would be covered as a Category 1 amendment! Anyone who has ever worked extensively on a document, even one that has been read and reviewed by multiple copy-editors, knows the frustration of having a typographical or grammar error showing up the day after the document is published. You are correct in your proposed change pointed out as #1 in your post above. As to your second point, we had originally written "50% +1" (as 1/2 isn't a majority, as unlikely as it might be that one would ever see that number), but ultimately decided to say "majority". I think most Wikimedians would define "majority" as "more than half", but I could stand to be corrected there. Thank you again for your feedback. Risker (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Transparency as a value

Howdy. Are there any plans to add transparency to the values section? We are arguably one of the most transparent major websites in the world, with almost all of our decision-making on public display and available for public participation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Values are intrinsic motivators: I see transparency as a tool, more than a value.

Transparency helps us to trust and rely on each other, and therefore is a strong and important mechanism for subsidiarity, self-organization and accountability.

@Pharos, what do you think? Ciell (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Transparency can apply to several values, but I think the principal intention was to see it as a adjunct and enabler of Accountability. Pharos (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The transparency value of a source is relative. In my opinion, the rules for applying transparency values ​​are important as a measure of valid sources. Avamauza (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Avamauza Yes, we (the MCDC) absolutely agree transparency is needed in our governance. The MCDC for this has outlined Principles for Decision-Making in this supplementary document Movement Charter/Supplementary Document/Principles of Decision-Making, and transparency is the #1. Ciell (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Transparency after the fact, in the form of public explanations of actions, is different from intrinsic process transparency. The latter has been abandoned by this charter drafting process, and by recent WMF and other processes (an increasing number of phabricator bugs reference non-public google docs, for instance). I would say a lot of our movement's and site's success has derived from everything that happens on-wiki being composed of transparent and reversible process steps. I do see that missing in this document, which both implicitly and explicitly reduces overall transparency by creating new groups with private spaces & private documents, with neither tools for transparent collaboration on these issues nor expectation that they would work in public, and declaring their work to have some supreme representative authority.

In a fast-changing movement like ours, exhausting elections every three years provide at best nominal accountability. –SJ talk  02:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Ratification

Why is 50% needed to ratify, but 66% needed to change this in the future? In other words, what makes this version of the Movement Charter so special that it needs a lower threshold than would be applied to most other changes of similar consequence? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. We selected 50% for ratification following polling during earlier community consultations. It is my understanding that the fact it would require two separate majority votes (both individuals and affiliates) seems to be a mitigating factor in not requiring the larger majority. Certain types of amendments are proposed to require 2/3 support of Global council members only. Does this answer your question, AntiCompositeNumber? Risker (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I, as a member of the community, do not care that affiliates get to vote twice. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

They only vote once. Risker (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe they mean that members of affiliates get to vote as community members and then again as part of their affiliate membership. I am also uncomfortable with that process - I see no reason why someone should have over double the representation in this process because they host edit-a-thons. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The Charter describes both the volunteer side, as the (professional) organizations side. I for one would like to hear the agreement or rejection of the Movement Organizations, considering the roles they play in the movement - even if that means the people that unite in an organization would get an 'extra vote' (this however is the reason why there is a separate voting group proposed). Movement Organizations should have the opportunity to speak up in a vote about a document that outlines their roles and responsibilities. Ciell (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

They already have a vote as members of the community. Unless you are suggesting, as our governance structures have for the last over-a-decade, that their work is more important to the movement than those who only contribute online so as to merit at least 2x the voting power of everyone else. Note that I would be fine with a separate vote for affiliates, if those voting through the affiliate process (i.e. board members or anyone with a say in how the affiliate as a whole is voting) are disenfranchised from the community voting component. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

66% seems appropriate for ratification. Otherwise one would want to be able to make changes under the same conditions, to avoid a common source of policy failure. –SJ talk  02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Missing parts

The draft charter does a good job of describing existing and new proposed governance structures, but it would be nice to see some sort of analysis/options considered/problem statement/etc. before voting on this. In particular, some questions that are not easily answered by reading the charter:

• What parts of the charter are describing the status quo vs. proposing new governance structures or processes?
• For the new parts, what policy or governance problem is the proposal trying to solve?
• What alternative options were considered for the new structures/processes? What are the advantages or disadvantages of the proposed options?
• How has community input shaped the development and selection of these options?

If possible, it would be nice to have this content developed alongside the charter (rather than included in it) so that the community has something to evaluate when we are voting. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

+1 to all that, and I find this to be in roughly descending order of importance for getting some answers. - Jmabel (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Ajraddatz, for this constructive feedback to surface more context regarding the content of the Movement Charter. The need for further contextualization has come up in previous community conversations and for this iteration reader's notes (for example see here) and supplementary documentation has been added to the published content. I do understand that it does not provide the full overview, neither an analysis of root causes and reasoning paths. As a supporting staff member to the MCDC also in capacity of information and knowledge management, I will allocate time to surface further information around these topics. As such materials need review and validation from the MCDC itself, it might not unfortunately be available during this conversation round, yet we will do our best to have it for review as soon as possible. If there are any particular areas on which such analysis would be helpful, let us know, so we can prioritize and maybe have the content available earlier. Thank you again for your thoughtful engagement with the Charter content! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - definitely understand that this could be a bit of work, and I think the first two items (highlighting what is changing vs what is staying the same, and the problems being addressed by the proposed changes) would be the most important points. There may even be a way to do this in the charter itself, even just adding a "this section represents a new process, designed to ..." under section headings might help. I imagine this detail will help those with less experience on the governance side of the projects to understand the impacts of the charter. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Over-representation of affiliates

I am also concerned with the perennial over-representation of affiliates in the new charter. I note that the charter seems to be very silent on the operation of our wikis (the volunteers section seems to just say that global governance bodies will have as little impact on volunteers as possible), I assume in order to avoid concerns that these new structures will be used to control the communities in some way.

My concern is that the community is being left out of resource allocation decisions. I think edit-a-thons and the various other outreach activities that affiliates do are good, but those are not the only activities that need funding, and the proposed charter lacks space for meaningful inclusion of the community in movement governance. While WMF and movement resources have no doubt been more supportive of on-wiki activities and tools in recent years, the community has very little say in what that support and resource allocation looks like, leaving it entirely up to the good will of the WMF. That's a problem. I was hoping that the Global Council would be a way to take back some community power over the various entrenched spenders of donor money, but it looks like the charter - as drafted - will continue to favour affiliates and leave the communities without meaningful representation. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, as I was re-reading my comment, that the Global Council does indeed reference community representation. This is something, but without concrete details on how the Global Council will represent communities (how many seats will be allocated to the communities? what would the distribution be? how many for affiliate double-representation? what is the selection method? who is defining what diversity is in this context - are we trying to represent the global population or the global population that edits wikis? etc) it's really hard to understand the extent to which it will be successful at providing a voice for the people who do most of the core volunteer work here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ajraddatz,

the MCDC documented the details about Global Council membership in this GC policy proposal. It is not integral to the Charter since we ('we, the Movement') may want to work on this more after ratification of the Charter and specify details, as well change things more often in the first years of the GC than would be necessary for the Charter in general. And we propose to do it this way to not have to go through the whole process of amendments every time we change details for GC (or Hubs, that content has been moved to a supplementairy document for the same reason). I hope that makes sense! Ciell (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I can appreciate the reasoning, and I suppose I might be a little too pessimistic about the state of GC planning when it isn't finalized yet. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: I know this has been discussed countless times but again, can you briefly say more about what you are imagining?

Like, what needs to change to support on-site editors in getting access to governance, power, money, staffing, resources, and the rest. WMF is set up as a corporation, and affiliates may be corporations but at least organize to take power as they can. There seems to be agreement that organizations are fit to make demands. Which of these are attractive to you -

1. Editors get better representation from WMF/affiliates
2. Editors organize themselves into an affiliate and speak for themselves
3. Editors organize themselves into something other than an affiliate and speak for themselves
4. WMF/affiliates transfer power/money to editors without editors forming an organization
5. Something else?

In the politics of every country and organization, almost no one votes. I am aware of the lack of editor representation but it is a real challenge to advocate for a demographic which does not organize to represent itself. If there are a lot of interested editors who want to be represented, would it not be easiest for them to form an affiliate and request what they like to the extent of the support they have? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The big issue is that it would not be time or cost efficient to form an affiliate to do the things that we (in this case, people engaged in anti-abuse / global conduct work, but substitute in basically any on-wiki activities) need. I could get together, form a user group, apply for funding, hire staff, set up all the workings of an organization to develop the MediaWiki tools that we need. But I have a job and a social life and there is already an organization (the WMF) set up to do these things. Except they are accountable to their own management far more than the community, to the extent that even at the top of the volunteer hierarchy, it feels very much like I and the rest of the community are very junior partners in this endeavour. It's true that the WMF has gotten a lot better at providing support to stewards, arbcoms, etc in recent years, but that has been done not as a result of us having any say in things.

That's why the concept of a global council seemed interesting. Finally, a global legislature for the movement that would hopefully have some say over things like strategic planning, maybe even high-level budgeting. Finally an opportunity to take some of the randomness and "who shows up" nature out of global governance on the community side. Except as proposed, we just have the FDC + AffCom merged into one, and the community and the Foundation are only really mentioned in passing as things that exist that won't be impacted by these changes.

And I'll also note that we have tried the affiliate route - Wikimedia Stewards User Group was created by myself and DerHexer in 2019 as a means of getting us a seat at the table, at least in terms of strengthening our voting power in processes like these where members of affiliates can vote as community members and then vote again as members of an affiliate. Except now we are hearing about a desire to reduce the number of user groups, we are seeing similar user groups not being approved, and we are seeing things like the candidate requirements for the 2024 board elections that are prioritizing edit-a-thon type activities, again at the expense of the rest of the important work that happens here.

So yikes, how do I respond directly to your question. We could get around the problem of people wanting a say but not wanting to be engaged in every decision the same way countries do - a legislature/global council. But we need one that is actually designed to give the community say into things other than who gets $200 to rent a venue for a meet and greet. We have a giant organization funded by our work - it would be nice to have some commensurate oversight over their strategic direction. Something more than we are getting through the community (and affiliate, again overrepresented) seats on the board. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: when I raised the question last November in Toronto about how communities (specifically Commons, my own main focus) would be represented, especially those members whose participation is strictly online, I suggested to several people from WMF that perhaps Commons and other wiki-based projects needed each to form an affiliate (or in the case of some of the smaller wikis, for several wiki projects to group together in an affiliate). I got a pretty strong sense from the people I talked to that they felt that was the wrong way to go. I remain very concerned that there is very little clear mechanism here to in any way represent people whose involvement is exclusively (or even very much mainly) online. Which is to say, the bulk of the people who actually create the content that makes anyone give a damn about WMF. - Jmabel (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz and Jmabel: I agree that the only governance structures are WMF or affiliates. I also recognize that most editors get no representation through either of those.

Jmabel - while I do not think it would be right for one group to represent all of Commons, I do think that a few groups could. Perhaps Commons:Commons Photographers User Group, Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments, and Wiki Loves Butterfly could. I do not think there needs to be universal agreement, because we have this new hub model proposed that groups of groups can form a hub if the participants wish. If some commons groups do not want to join, then any active hubs still would have the standing to demand their share of the resources. I recognize that it takes administrative money to establish all this. I agree that yeah - editors have been neglected - but I do not want that to continue this Movement Charter is the latest promise to change things. If I had my way - investing in the untapped, unheard, editor pool of crowdsourcing is the most wise investment.

@Ajraddatz: The money available is on the scale of a US$billion every 7 years. There is more than $200 at play here. I have my doubts that it is possible to represent unaffiliated community without an organization. There are surveys and focus groups, but in the end, either the WMF or an affiliate designs those and interpret the results, and a process without stakeholder leadership cannot be trustworthy. I want money to editors but it is challenging for me to imagine an easier path for that than editors forming an affiliate, then asking for it. All the donations that come in are for "Wikipedia", which is the user community and not the WMF or affiliates. Users have the overriding social claim to all resources. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: sorry, but no, by no means can Commons:Commons Photographers User Group, Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments and the like represent Commons in the relevant respect. The photographers users group is narrowly about photography, and WLM is more or less the same (with a particular subject matter). Commons Photographers User Group sessions barely mention Commons: they are mostly about photographers geeking out about one or another photographic technique. Commons' issues that involve governance aren't about people uploading and licensing their own photos. While there is always room for improvement, that part works fine and barely needs more of anything from WMF. The issues are about curation (categories/structured data [SDC]), about effectively importing and hosting materials from GLAMs, about Commons' particularly tricky relation with NPOV, about the tradeoffs between Commons as a project in its own right vs. a media repository for other projects, about facilitating a highly multilingual project (Wikidata has comparable issues on those last two fronts). It's about how we can get infrastructure supported for all sorts of issues that are specific to Commons and have been precariously supported almost entirely by unpaid volunteers (online tools for cropping, rotation, etc; online tools for audio and video editing; transcoding and uploading videos that are not in our supported formats; automating, in various degrees, the process of the many edits to other wikis that need to be made when a file is renamed; tools that identify potentially problematic uploads; etc.). WMF keeps building unsolicited spiffy-looking AI-based tools that often turn out to literally create more problems than they solve (e.g. one that led to over a million bad SDC edits in exchange for perhaps 200K good ones) while leaving volunteers scrambling to support the basic tools that Commons needs day-to-day. These issues basically don't affect the Photographers User Group or WLM, and those groups are literally no more likely to have people who are involved with these issues than any other particular affiliate is. - Jmabel (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Honest question for Ajraddatz, because I'm trying to understand. You said, "the candidate requirements for the 2024 board elections that are prioritizing edit-a-thon type activities." I don't see that from Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2024/Candidate_application. Perhaps you are referring to "Wikimedia (or equivalent) movement building and organizing"? Thanks. - Fuzheado (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. Movement building and organizing is the language typically used to describe affiliate-type activites, instead of the core work building and maintaining content done by the community. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see those as exclusive, non-overlapping circles of a Venn diagram. We have plenty of folks who do "movement building and organizing" who are outside of the affiliates, or don't do any funded edit-a-thon like work. But I do agree with you that I'd like to ensure any movement charter supports the full breadth of the community, and not just of official affiliate structures. - Fuzheado (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, one group that would act like volunteers representatives would be those 12 positions in the global council, and because that it is important that those positions must be only for non-affiliates, the affiliates will already have the other 8 positions, if they could also candidate and vote for the 12 "Wikimedia community at large" positions, they would be over-represented and non-affiliates volunteers under-represented. The text should be more clear that 8 positions is for affiliates and 12 to non-affiliates. Danilo.mac talk 21:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The word "movement" may be problematic

The charter defines Wikimedia Movement "sociocultural movement". Generally, a movement, by definition, has really, really fuzzy boundaries. It's very hard, by design, to observe, define, enforce or in any way apply a high degree of structure to a movement, especially an org chart. A movement is loosely organized. Using the word "movement" for this initiative (which is brilliant, by the way) is likely to cause a significant amount of misunderstanding over time. — Fdeth (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these thoughts @Fdeth: as in this consultation we (the MCDC) are looking for proposals for improvement, can you maybe help us by suggesting an alternative? Ciell (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

A more eleborate definition of the Wikimedia Movement, is in the Charter glossary btw. Ciell (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Not an easy question. I'd venture a suggestion to go into a more boring, but clear direction and use "organization", "association" or maybe "alliance" - these terms, unlike "movement" convey organization, boundaries, and permanence. Fdeth (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions @Fdeth. Ciell (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Number of assembly members realistic?

The GCA [Global Council Assembly] is composed of at least 100 and at most 150 members. Right now there are the U4C elections and it took a while to get more than 16 eligible candidates. For the MCDC elections I think there have been 72 candidates. Is it realistic to expect a minimum of 100 Assembly members? What if there are not enough candidates? Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 19:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comment, Der-Wir-Ing. Would you have any suggestions on what you think would be a more reasonable number? Risker (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't like people who only complain and don't make proposals on what else to do. Turns out I'm like them. ;) Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 19:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I had this concern as well. I think it depends how candidates are sourced, and this is another area where the lack of detail established at this point hurts the proposal. If individual projects/affiliates were given a number of seats to fill through internal mechanisms, complemented by global elections for other types of candidates (geographical representation, DEI, etc), 100 might be at the high end of what makes sense. I honestly think that ~30 would be a more realistic number.

If, as indicated above, the Global Council text is being kept intentionally vague to permit further development in the future, maybe that number range should be removed or expanded on the low end so as to avoid locking ourselves into something unrealistic. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

For your information, there will be Wikimedia Summit 2024 in two weeks, with over 100 participants. In my view, the proposed annual meeting of the Global Council Assembly will be the successor to the Wikimedia Summits (and its predecessors). Reason one is that the upcoming summit will be the last one. Reason two is that the summit always more or less had as main theme strategy of the movement, which is going to be the number one responsibility of the proposed GCA. Reason three for having at least 100 members is to have enough diversity in the assembly, and get representation of currently underrepresented groups. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Then we can only hope that the next governance gathering will be less affiliate-only and more community-centered than the past Conferences/Summits; global governance concerns volunteers, communities and groups by no less. Back in 2017, Wikimedia Stewards were invited to the Wikimedia Conference so that their experience was represented at the gathering for shaping the strategy. The following years we didn't get invited because we weren't affiliated with the WMF despite our unique expertise. That led Ajraddatz and myself to creating the WMSUG to bridge the gap (but take a look at our concerns right now, as mentioned above by Ajraddatz). Functionary tasks are highly specialized and the number of actors low but our impacts extremely high (e.g., range blocks; see wikimania:2023:Program/Submissions/The effects of IP address range blocking on the Global South - 8FCWJD for example). Nevertheless, they are not seen in global community wishlists or easily comparable to offwiki work (which most of us do alongside, but not all of us!) which gets more credit in global elections and such. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the next governance gathering as described in the charter would be a sort of successor to events like Wikimedia Summit 2024, which have been held at this size annually for many years. But indeed with more of a community-centered approach, as the Global Council Assembly will certainly draw from a far wider pool than just affiliates. Pharos (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In practice, I think it will make sense to not choose the whole Global Council Assembly in a single election. Perhaps three or four elections, each a few months apart, would be wise to gradually build up the body. This is not inconsistent with the charter text, but perhaps could be developed more in a doc like Movement Charter/Supplementary Document/Global Council. Pharos (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Updated Charter FAQ

Hi all,

This morning an updated version of the Charter FAQ was published. Please go ahead and check it out! Ciell (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Equity vs Equality, Fairness, and Justice in the English language

Equity is a term that has become increasingly ambiguous in English. This ambiguity stems from the gradual bastardization of an existing term, leading to confusion and misinterpretation in its usage. In English, when most people refer to "equity," they intend to convey concepts akin to equality, fairness, or justice. However, the historical and legal roots of equity paint a different picture. In common law countries, true Equity is adjudicated in Courts of Equity, where decisions are based not on statutory law but on principles of fairness and moral righteousness. Additionally, in the realm of finance, equity represents ownership interest in assets, further diverging from the contemporary, colloquial use of the term. I think the

Given this multifaceted background and the potential for misunderstanding, I propose that we replace the word "Equity" with more precise alternatives such as "Equality," "Fairness," or "Justice" throughout this document. These terms more accurately capture the essence of what is often intended when "equity" is used in modern discourse — a call for equal rights, opportunities, and treatment for all individuals. By adopting this change, we can clarify our intentions and communicate more effectively, ensuring that our message is understood in its intended context without the need for extensive explanation or reinterpretation, and avoid misunderstandings that a topic may be taken to a Court of Equity for resolutions.

Some of the Maxims of Equity seem wrong in our context here. For example, Equity Will Not Aid a Volunteer (lawteacher.net)

Burt Harris (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

hello Burt - you are right to identify the word 'equity' is a bit challenging. In English it can mean 'fairness', or the legal concept of equity, or the financial term (value of a company), or also an actors' trade union in the UK. In this context it means the 'fairness' meaning which itself is a bit vague. This has posed challenges at every point of the movement strategy process, particularly as the 'fairness' meaning is not obvious to translate outside of English. In my view it would have been better to use different language in the original strategic direction in 2017. However, over the last 7 years the term 'equity' has become reasonably well-understood by everyone involved in the process. Further, alternatives like 'equality', 'fairness' and 'justice' also pose their own problems of translation and comprehension. Probably changing the language at this point would cause more confusion than it would solve problems. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Can the understanding of 'equity' shared by the participants be more formally elaborated at somewhere like the glossary? whym (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Whym, @Burt Harris: we had the term in a previous version of the MC glossary, but decided this was redundant since we list it as a value as well. If you think including it again addresses the issue you raise, please let us (MCDC) know. Ciell (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"if necessary after an interim vote"

This phrase is certainly not clear in and of itself. Is there an explanation somewhere of why an interim vote would be required, how it would work, etc.? (Please ping me if replying substantively.) - Jmabel (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there any means to remove someone...

... either from the GCA or the GCB, especially in the event of ill-conduct, abandonment of office, etc.? I see nothing laid out here (I might have missed something, though) and, in particular, nothing about who would participate (GCA/GCB policing own membership? Something from below?). - Jmabel (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, please ping me if responding substantively. - Jmabel (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jmabel, this is indeed not described yet. What would you propose to be added for this, and where? Ciell (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a concrete proposal, but clearly it needs to be addressed. We've had rogue administrators who had to be de-admin'd and (in some cases) blocked outright. We've also had at least one person near the top of WMF who was essentially pushed out after major conflict, and if memory serves this happened at least once on the Board as well. It seems very probably we will face a similar issue at some time on the GCA and/or GCB and will need a way to address it. - Jmabel (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Scope of power

This seems extremely vague as to the degree of power of the GCA and GCB: whether there is anything specifically decided at any particular level. It looks to me like this charter grants no specific powers to the GCA and GCB. Will the GCA have only whatever powers the WMF Board may delegate to it? Will the WMF Board always reserve the right to overrule the GCA even on what has previously been delegated? Similarly, will the GCB have only powers that the GCA delegates, and can the GCA always choose to overrule the GCB? (Feel more than free to change the parameters of the question if you consider this ill-framed, this is based on a quick first read of the full document, only small portions of which I had seen before today. And, again, please ping me if responding substantively.) - Jmabel (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jmabel,

1. In the previous legal review (the one before the August 2023 consultation), both the external legal team and the one with WMF were of the opinion that there are no legal reasons for the GC to be set up as a legal entity. Working with this in mind, it has been suggested to us by several that the formalization of the tasks assigned can be done in a Memorandum of Understanding between the WMF and Global Council. I am not a legal professional and have to rely on what others advise in these situations: if you see alternative ways to mold this into a good workable setup, I am happy to learn.
2. The GCB is indeed accountable to the GCA. The GC Board gets the GCA's approval for the strategic and annual plan, and needs renewed agreement if it is necessary to deviate from this, beyond the standing mandates.

Ciell (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Movement charter analysis from CEE

This analysis from the CEE constituents that was shared in the "Movement Strategy" Telegram group by Philip Kopetzky may be interesting for folks to read. Google slides link - Fuzheado (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing these concerns summarized in the Google slides @Fuzheado, and I am looking forward to reading about suggestions how these can be solved. Ciell (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm certain you all can figure something out at the Wikimedia Summit next week :-) Philip Kopetzky (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Philip Kopetzky: I am collecting feedback for The Signpost. May I feature these slides, and if so, would you upload them to Commons? To what extent do these views align with the organization of Wiki CEE, rather than you personally? Thanks. Also, are you willing to share a voting recommendation for ratification? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry - these are the slides for the analysis of the final version. It's an analysis worked on by several people from the CEE Hub, so the regional organisation, as a service for the communities in the CEE region. There are obviously personal views in the analysis, but these are informed by the needs of the CEE communities and what they will be looking out for in the Movement Charter. Philip Kopetzky (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Philip Kopetzky: Can I put this in Commons or would you like to do so? I need something more stable than a private google account link. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry - uploaded as File:CEE Hub Movement Charter analysis (final version).pdf. BR, Philip Kopetzky (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Speaking of the Signpost, how do you get an opinion piece like this published there? ;-) Philip Kopetzky (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Philip Kopetzky: Can you please briefly submit this piece at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#current_submissions?

I am inclined to support almost any submission but I do not like yours. Must you say this? The vote will be yes/no/ ---. Can you please encourage people to vote "---" and call it "none-of-the-above" or "spoiled ballot", which is how I interpret that option? In addition to that vote, there is also a comment field. Would you be willing to revise your opinion piece to make a recommendation that people post in the comment field? I heard but have not verified with the election committee that all comments will be public after the election. You could suggest some helpful comments, such as support for your cause.

My own position is that I am keen on maximizing election participation, and maximizing the expectation that community elections have consequences. I do not think it can be useful to have low turnout from abstention because we do not have capacity for strong leadership to interpret that low turnout as activism or a message. Spoiled ballots do signify discontent and it is easier for community groups to claim and interpret those. Regardless - thanks for your submission and I support it as is. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: It's not about the movement charter but the BoT election later on, if that's not clear enough I should probably be more precise? Should I then submit it for a later edition when the ratification is over? For the movement charter ratification I fully agree with you, that needs as much participation as possible. The BoT election probably not as much ;-) Philip Kopetzky (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Philip Kopetzky: Well there are people like me who will form opinions without even reading the complete title or first sentence but no, I do not think you could be any more precise or make it simpler. Maybe consider adding a picture that blinks or a tiktok with someone dancing for 5 seconds. Other than that, yes let's publish in next issue. Please submit it to the newsroom.

I do not think the board election will have a comment field, but spoiled ballots are still and option, as could be support for minority candidates. If you insist on a plan for voting abstention, then I wish you could follow up somehow to claim that a voting abstention program occurred because they are hard to detect. Regardless, please submit and let's publish.

I apologize for taking your submission lightly and without respect. I really do appreciate when people contribute and yes, the board has a diversity problem. If we could somehow get stats in something like d:Wikidata:WikiProject Wikimedia Foundation I think we would also find that WMF hires about 50% United States, almost all the C levels have always been United States, and most of the money is for United States. I hear you about the board compared to our values and expectations, but I think the reality might be that the board is the most diverse part of governance. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, the title is chosen as a bit of a controversial statement. Abstention in a STV system doesn't really work unless there's a huge dip in participation. Thanks for reading and commenting on it :-)

Not sure about employed people anymore, there has been a comparatively huge shift, Maryana spends a lot of time in South Africa for example. But one reason the "no money" problem is simply untrue is the fact that the WMF contracts everyone outside of the US through a third-party company that charges very high rates for their services. Just imagine that money would stay inside Wikimedia, however weird the legal constructs might look like for WMF Legal to be ok with it. Philip Kopetzky (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Who is making these decisions?

I'm not being snarky, these are sincere questions:

1. Who decided that it is, or it should be, a "movement"?
2. When was this decided?
3. What is the "expiration date" of these decisions ... if something was decided 5 or 10 years ago, are we still going to operate under the belief that this represents the view of current volunteers?
4. It's 50% ratification based on... a poll during a live community consultation? That can't be right? Surely nobody believes a charter with 50% buy-in actually represents, you know, broadly-accepted principles of the people involved, right? It's gotta be like 75% or at least 66%, before we can claim there is broad agreement, right?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can answer these. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• My impression is that the term "movement" has increasingly come into use over the last decade or so, as a term that embraces the WMF, hands-on contributors, the various affiliates and (to a lesser extent) similarly oriented outside organizations and individuals. I don't think there was any one decision to adopt the term. I think the fuzziness around the edges of a "movement" is one of the main reasons the term has come to be favored: it's not something where it is exactly clear who is in or out, and may often included ad hoc alliances that are not necessarily permanent, and individuals or groups whose agendas may or may not coincide in various degrees. - Jmabel (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: I agree with Jmabel. Beyond that, for "who" and "when", see Wikimedia movement, which attributes user:Anthere at Wikimania in 2008.

I confirm... Anthere (talk)

I confirm as well, the intention of the charter is to use "movement" in the sense of a broadly-defined set of communities with fuzzy edges.--Pharos (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The expected expiration dates are along the lines of the current Movement Strategy, the former Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017, and the prior https://strategy.wikimedia.org , which I think have lasted about 8 years each.

For voting, the election will be like Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections or the recent Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter/Voter information. The Wikimedia Foundation elections committee oversees these. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

In flux, incomplete, tries to do too many things at once

In its current form, this draft seems to create more problems than it would address. It expands one of our greatest weaknesses: elaborate exclusive formal bureaucracy. It ignores or suppresses many of our strengths: fast reversible progress, {{sofixit}} and radical participation. It proposes entire new structures and processes by encoding them directly into a charter: a brittle approach. It ignores on-wiki organizations and on-wiki decision making, which is where most of the self-governance of the projects, and thereby the movement, still happens.

— Philosophically, the motivation for a Charter and a global council is in flux in these drafts, diverging somewhat from its strategic origins.

— Narratively, it's not clear how the Charter came to be and what role it would play in the story of our projects. It doesn't cite the documents it builds upon. The main sections are declarative (they declare 'this is how things are'), missing the jubilant heart of our work, its iterative nature, and its impact.

— Rhetorically, it mixes selective statements about the past with assertions about the intended future, without clarifying whose future-intent is captured. It minimizes the role of online wikiprojects in movement organization, focusing on recognized affiliates, already a bottlenecked group.

— Logistically, the draft engages with many complex topics but does not solve any particular problem, perhaps a side effect of the demands of committee-based drafting! It mandates new overhead and creates new problems, with little flexibility. It requires a Council to do multiple hard things at once: onboard 100 people; manage affilates; advise on funds dissemination; compile annual strategy; resolve disputes — each with complex unsolved challenges that have led to past approaches being abandoned.

— Procedurally, proposing such a sea-change document as hard to update, only in "extreme circumstances" by a new body that does not exist yet, is unwise. Given the above, a lengthy ratification process may not be a good use of thousands of hours of community time.

A good charter strengthens consensus and identity. This would not do that. (A 50% consensus document will generally not do that.) It would however tie up 100 active community members in new bureaucracy for years, while adding another consultative layer to the collective Unaccountability Stack™.

---

So what can we do instead? Let's find an alternative that plays to our strengths.

–SJ talk  13:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. This better presents some of the things that I was trying to get at above, particularly the absence of community in the charter. Some have said that is a good thing, as it prevents the community from being dominated by the new Council/affiliates. But it also leaves the people doing the core work of the movement out of the governance structures again. I think I am open to the idea of a Global Council and the bureaucracy involved with that (I don't see any other way than a legislature-like body to finally have meaningful community oversight of the Foundation and its activities, the board seats are not sufficient). But the proposal as-is seems to have many details that need to be ironed out. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. The movement strategy and movement charter processes have been very abnormal in that the processes occurred off-wiki, and it's not clear how these help the mission "to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.", which happens on-wiki. It also seems to ossify 2021-2023 thinking, binding the future. In practice, accountability at the foundation comes from the projects control over the foundation's fundraising, not through a pseudo-legislature. TomDotGov (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

+1, although I'll add some additional thoughts below. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Particularly in regard to your last point, I think we'd welcome alternative ideas about amendment and evolving the charter over time, as obviously you can't get everything right the first time. It would be most helpful to suggest some specific new language on this front, which people can chime in on here. Pharos (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. It's equal parts drivel, superlaw and redundant. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

if the Movement Strategy process was authentic, then they would have utilized the MS Forums more; however they don't utilize those forums at all. Sm8900 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

One of many alternatives

Here's an alternative that plays to our strengths:

• Begin with an accessible, inspiring charter that everyone can edit. Draft in public. Respond actively to comments.
• Describe how the current ecosystem works, and how decisions are made, both on-wiki and off, that guide our collective endeavor.
• Make the initial charter like a style guide: a living document, being continuously refined and contextualized until it feels complete, nuanced, and concise.
• Emphasize self-governance, mutual aid, openness to experimentation and figuring things out together.
• Distinguish descriptive sections (how things work now) from normative sections (here are goals we agree to move towards; here are options to explore; here's how you can help make it happen!)
• Connect each goal to existing needs and processes: illustrate how it improves on current efforts.
• Introduce the Council model on its own page. Start with the simplest form that could possibly work, have it bootstrap itself.
• Make revision easy, ratification lightweight. This makes it less risky to try new things and correct missteps. We can differentiate the latest approved charter from the working draft, while letting everyone get to work on shared goals.
• Only if it makes sense to at some point have a hard-to-change version of the charter, does it need a comparably elaborate ratification process.

–SJ talk  14:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sj, I support your approach on this. Sm8900 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Example goals
Example goals A prerequisite for an effective charter is determining its goals. Goals should be illustrated by recent examples that highlight the need for the goal, the scale of work involved in each, how they are currently handled, and how new proposals would interact with current efforts. "consistent ways to make certain global community decisions" – (improving on RfCs, complementing committees, replacing one-off working groups) "a more efficient option for discussions and decision-making that involves representatives from a cross-section of communities in decisions" – (improving on RfCs; a potential global assembly, embassy network, or Very Large Council) "simple, comprehensive community guidance of fundraising and funds dissemination" – (complementing regional community-led grants committees, improving on individual liaising b/t affiliates and WMF) "an overview of movement priorities, responsive to a changing environment, that unite the strategic work of wikiprojects, the WMF, and affiliates" – (improving on low-volume talk page feedback on scattered Annual Plans, Strategic Plans, and roadmaps or wishlists of different groups) "more streamlined, effective community input into technical changes and deployments" – (improving on scattered village pump discussions) "effective resolution of global conflicts without WMF action" – (improving on RfCs and extremely rare steward action) &c. [Feel free to add more. Parts of the current draft seem arbitrary, without a motivating goal. Some goals do not need a Council to realize them, and have had past attempts to solve them with stand-alone groups or processes that did not last. In those cases, we should specify how a Council or other umbrella could help. But even with Council facilitation or oversight, the bulk of the work could be done by a much broader and more flexible groups of participants than 'sporadically elected Council members'.] –SJ talk  15:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Let's start with the end: the brittle ratification process and proposal to make the result unchangeable make this risky to consider. Here is a proposed new section focusing on the heart of new global decision-making, which is where all of the new obligations + investment + complications come in. Then a much simpler and more wiki approach to amendment and iterative approval. –SJ talk  15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

4. Making global decisions

As a movement we regularly need to make global decisions, about prioritization, resource allocation, collective planning, dispute resolution, and more.

To this end we are standing up a movement council, whose initial goal will be identifying gaps in current global decision-making, areas that would benefit from more community input or oversight, and areas that would benefit from consolidation and streamlining of scattered processes. Secondary goals include

1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

5. Amendment

"This Charter is a living document, designed to summarize the consensus around these topics that develops as we harmonize decision-making across different parts of the movement. It will be open for public editing [on Meta] for at least the next year, while details of a potential Global Council and other approaches to address the goals highlighted in [section 4] are developed.

6. Ratification

"Drafts of the Charter will regularly [every 3 months?] be put up for a public RfC, section by section. Section-versions that have received support of at least [50%] will be considered provisionally supported by the community, and built upon in future work. Other significant documents, such as founding documents of a Council or Assembly, will go through the same process. A complete set of Charter + Council documents will have a more formal ratification process, once their components have been provisionally approved and the rate of changes has slowed, before more than [$] or [person-hours] are invested in implementing the results." –SJ talk  15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sj. I'm trying to wrap my head around how an ever-changing charter would have value in long-range planning of movement organizations/bodies. You've proposed creating opportunities for major change four times a year; how does this impact all the points you have identified for global decisions on "prioritization, resource allocation, collective planning" and other points? The impression I got from the movement strategy recommendation that motivates the creation of the charter is that one of the principal objectives is the creation of a document that is intended to be a reliable guide for those points for multiple years. Indeed, I thought we were being a bit "edgy" by creating such a large number of opportunities for amendment.

More importantly, thank you for proposing alternatives, as it does give people an opportunity to see what other things could be done. Risker (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Risker, there is value in a less fluid Charter, hence 'a future more formal ratification process, once the rate of changes has slowed'. The current charter draft is still changing significantly, and seems likely to continue to change for some time. It deserves more continuous iteration until then. Among other things, it is not starting from a commonly-accepted outline. (If it were, then decisions might be simpler: how to word our version of a known sort of document.) As it stands, the changes under discussion include changes at a very high level: what it is for, who it is for, what other options were considered for each part that was included. That's a lot of uncertainty -- good reasons not to lock down any particular version.

I see prioritization, resourcing, and planning as multi-party conversations with fast feedback loops: not as waterfall decision processes. Especially for our movement. In my experience those processes benefit from flexible and responsive frameworks, and become less efficient and more contentious when forced to align with a framework that feels arbitrary or incomplete to participants. Warmly, –SJ talk  17:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Movement charter and the future role of hubs in funds distribution

Hi! As a bit of a forward looking process to think about what the role of hubs might be in a funds distribution process (should they act as mini-WMF grant-making bodies or rather be on the other side of it, supporting the communities and affiliates?), the CEE Hub has written an initial document that talks about it's perspective on the matter: Wikimedia CEE Hub/Funds Distribution Vision. Hope that also helps a bit with the conversations at the Wikimedia Summit 2024 next week. Best, Philip Kopetzky (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Chris K

Hello! Firstly a big thank you to the MCDC - this draft is clear and crisp, and shows a huge amount of thought has gone into this - this has not been an easy task so thank you for getting this far! Also thanks to the MCDC supporting staff and volunteer advisors.

The Introduction and Volunteers sections seem quite straightforward to me. In particular I think the statement of values in the Introduction section is very good. (I would suggest that 'care responsibility' should link to the Supplementary Document not the definition).

I have a number of substantive comments on the Wikimedia Movement Bodies section:

1. Alongside the mention of the Care Responsibility, I would also mention that Wikimedia movements have a responsibility for the stewardship of the resources they hold on the Movement's behalf - e.g. protecting the reputation and image of the Wikimedia movement and effective management of financial resources
2. The Wikimedia Movement Organizations section is descriptive of the status quo. The Future Affiliate Landscape supplementary doc is more thoughtful and forward-looking. Would it be better to remove the section starting "There are four different types of Wikimedia Movement Organizations:" from the Charter text and instead say something like "The Global Council will define the types of Wikimedia Movement Organizations", with the current descriptive text moved to a footnote as that will obviously be the starting point.
3. Under Responsibilities of Wikimedia Movement Organizations could I suggest making it clear the list is non-exhaustive.
4. Responsibilities of Wikimedia Movement Organizations also lists 'revenue generation'. However the overall structure for / responsibilities for revenue generation is not fleshed out anywhere. Could the MCDC consider this? Perhaps as a supplementary document?
5. Regarding 'Global Council: Administration of Wikimedia Movement Organizations and Communities':
   1. is the GC expected only to administer these organizations/communities, or to actively promote their growth?
   2. "A committee... is responsible for ...recognition..." - is it definitely the case that this will be one committee, acting with a global remit? Or is there the opportunity to consider a different model in future, e.g. regional committees or hubs playing a role in recognition to a common framework of standards? If the latter then perhaps the text should be less specific.
6. GC: It reads at present that the GC simply takes an allocated budget for the WMF and then allocates it. I would prefer the Charter to say that the GC reccommends what the grantmaking budget should be. Or at least discusses this with the WMF. (I assume the Charter is mainly meant to be read non-exhaustively, and that bodies - including the GC - are not prevented from doing things that are not explicitly set out. If that is the case then arguably this comment is redundant. But I may be wrong in my interpretation, and the charter text should probably indicate where its text is and is not meant to be exhaustive)
7. GCA: It would be helpful to understand the rationale for the size of the GCA that is being proposed
8. GCA: Who is to develop the selection/election structure / method for the initial GCA?
9. On the whole regarding all kinds of movement bodies, I think it would be helpful to spell out who each kind of body is accountable to.

Also I feel it would be useful to have the Principles of Decision-Making supplementary document part of the Charter itself, as this also sets out the expectations on decision makers. If the MCDC would prefer not to do this, it would be helpful to know why not. I would also suggest renaming the point on 'Fairness' in this document to 'Integrity'.

Regards and thanks, Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

On question 8, about electing the initial GCA, see Implementation of the Movement Charter. Please comment there if you think it is a good idea that the current MCDC takes this job after ratification ot the charter Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@The Land, @Ad Huikeshoven: we spoke about the topic in #8 specifically at the Summit last weekend, a summary of the conversation and a link to the etherpad with the notes is in #Wikimedia_Summit_feedback_on_Implementation_of_the_Movement_Charter_supplementary_document. Ciell (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

日本語

私は下書きをGoogle 翻訳で読みました。そのため、きちんと理解できいるか自信がありません。私は日本人です。アメリカやヨーロッパの人たちとはおそらく考え方が違います。また、日本語とインドヨーロッパ語の言語の違いは非常に大きいです。（私たちの言語では、語順が英語と逆です）

「価値観」について

価値観という言葉が使われています。これは、下の見出しの内容に含まれる範囲を意味しているのでしょうか？　そうであれば、私は以下の文章をつけ加えるように提案します。「価値観の範囲は以下の記述です」 そうでなければ、価値観が「あらゆるものごとに対する価値観」のように読めます。私はこの文章で、「ファシズム」や「1984年」を連想しました。

Free Knowledge について

Wikimedia運動の大きな目標であり、私も基本的に賛成しています。しかしながら、著作権によって保護されるべきコンテンツは確かに存在するでしょう。研究者については、彼らにとっては引用されること自体が名誉であるのかもしれません。私は研究者がどう考えるかわかりません。 この運動は、存命中の芸術家や写真家が時間と労力を注ぎ込んで制作したものに対してもFreeであることを要求しているように読めてしまいます。一言、「私たちは同時に著作権を大切にします」といった文章を加えるべきではないか、と考えます。 Kizhiya (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

(loose translation into English. [sj]) I read the draft using Google Translate, so I'm not confident I fully understood it. I am Japanese, and our way of thinking might be different from that of people in America or Europe. Additionally, there are significant differences between the Japanese language and Indo-European languages (in our language, the word order is the reverse of English).

Regarding "Values": The term "values" is used here. Does this mean it encompasses the scope of the content under the following heading? If so, I would suggest adding the following sentence: "The scope of values is described below." Otherwise, the term values could be interpreted as "values concerning everything," which made me think of "fascism" or "1984."

Regarding "Free Knowledge": This is a major goal of the Wikimedia movement, which I generally support. However, there surely must be content that should be protected by copyright. For researchers, being cited might indeed be an honor, but I am not sure how researchers themselves think about this. This movement seems to demand that content created by living artists and photographers, who have put time and effort into their work, should also be free. Perhaps we should add a statement like, "We also respect copyright."

公式日本語訳（75％完成）Movement Charter/ja Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 17:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

また、deeplは通常、グーグル翻訳よりもはるかに優れています。https://www.deepl.com/translator Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 17:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Der-Wir-Ing

情報をありがとうございます。しかしながら、そのページは、Charter自体ではありません。

追記　日本語と英語の場合、DeepLはあまり良くありませんでした。DeepLは、英語を自然に聞こえるような日本語に訳してくれます。しかし、それは、訳せない文章を省略していました。

あなたの親切に感謝します。

Thank you for the info. However, that page is not the Charter itself.

PS: For Japanese and English, DeepL wasn't very good. DeepL translated English into natural-sounding Japanese. But it omitted sentences it couldn't translate.

I appreciate your kindness. Kizhiya (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Omotecho, maybe your support (and that of the Wikimedians of Japan User Group) can help here. Ciell (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Ciell, hello, @Kizhiya, good point! Naming things and idea better have many sets of eyes, esp when we are sharing this kind of universal rules.

Question: Will we apply a different term but not free? What word will be applicable across 300+ languages?

The term free is as Kizhiya pointed out, has double sides that tends to be lost in translation en-ja; or if we need to consult a copyright lawyer? The concept of copyright and pricing works is not quite universal nor educated fully across cultures I am afraid.

Or the concepts on Wikimedia Commons vs Wikipedias are slightly different as far as I comprehend, but governed by the same Charter?

• If I may continue and contrast freeness in two layers.
  • (a) no price tag, no copyright; it does not matter if the original copyright holder is still alive or has deceased over 91 yes plus war years;
  • (b) no price tag but copyrighted with limitation, up to CC00.

Then, how do we honor those copyright holders (a) + (b) who has / is going to say "I don’t charge on my works." Is mentioning / attributing to them enough, or a honorable deed to thank them? Or is pricing your work prohibited on Commons?

Do we treat them differently if they claim/not claim their copyright when we use their works?

Well, half joke half serious: My hunch tells me not too many generations are freed from an idea I put on the table here, who is a Japanese language native. (;

• That is, in Japanese culture, or street wisdom before year 2000, we definitely had one eye closed and utter:
  • there’s nothing more expensive than what is offered as free;
  • 只より高いものはない;
• That you will be watchful if somebody says something is offered and the seller does not charge you.

I am wondering maybe that old saying hints how we treat a copyrighted work/medium. Then, what are the options to be defined in the Charter? Kindly, -- Omotecho (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Ciell、@Omotecho,

Omotechoさん、ありがとうございます。

日本語には、外来語としてたくさんの英語が入ってきています。これは多くの英語以外の言語でも同様でしょう。

私にわかるのは、日本語と（外国語としての）英語だけなので、日本語の場合を説明します。

英語を始めとした外来語は、日本語のなかに流通すると別の意味を持ち出すことがあります。日本語では「フリー」は「無料の」と「自由な」の2つの意味があります。

「自由」はたいていポジティブな意味です。たまに「自由すぎる」「フリーすぎる」で、「野蛮さ」や「無作法さ」を表すこともあります。これは現在のところは、ジャーゴンに過ぎません。無視しても良い範囲だと思います。

しかし、「無料の」は、良い意味と悪い意味の2面があります。警戒を呼び起こす言葉です。

まず、

実際は、そんな事はなくても「無料配布しているものは品質が劣る劣悪なもの」と言うイメージがあります。

特に最近は、インターネットのアプリケーションやサービスが無料だと言い、その後サブスクリプション料金を取る場合が増えています。私たちは「無料」という言葉に若干の警戒を抱きます。

以下のような場合もあります。

1. たとえば私たちの国では、図書館の本は無料で借りられます。（希少な本など、少数の例外はあります）
2. しかし私たちは、それは税金によって買われた本であり、システム全体では無料では無いことを知っています。
3. それにもかかわらず、公立図書館が「あなたのための無料の知識の宝庫！」といって宣伝したとします。多くの日本人は、その言葉を聞くと、馬鹿げていると思うでしょう。

ある言葉が肯定的な意味を持つか否定的であるかは、文化によって異なるでしょう。フリーナレッジより、オープンナレッジや「公開知識」の方が、意図が良く伝わるのではないかと考えています。

Thank you, Ciell,Omotecho,

Many English words have entered Japanese as foreign words. We use these words every day. We use "Free" in everyday conversation as "フリー","Frii" or "Flii".

I think this is the same for many languages ​​other than English.

The only languages ​​I understand are Japanese，and a little English (as a completely foreign language).

Foreign words, including English, can take on different meanings when they are circulated in Japanese. In Japanese, "free" has two meanings: "free of charge" and "freedom."

"Free" /"Freedom"has a good meaning in Ja as well. Sometimes it is "too free" to mean "barbaric" or "rude." This is mainly just jargon for now. I think it can be ignored.

However, "free"/"free of charge-No price" has had two sides, good and bad, since ancient times. It is a word that raises an alert.

First of all,

There is an image that "things distributed for free are of poor quality" even if that is not actually the case.

Especially recently, there are more and more cases where Internet applications and services are said to be free and then a subscription fee is charged. We are a little wary of the word "free".

And I can simulate the following situation

1. For example, in our country, library books can be borrowed for free. (There are a few exceptions, such as rare books.)
2. But we know that it is a book bought by tax money, and it is not free in the whole system.
3. For example, a public library advertised "A treasure trove of free knowledge for you". Many Japanese people would think that it is ridiculous when they hear that word.

Whether a word has a positive or negative meaning will vary depending on the culture. In Japanese, I think "open knowledge" or "public knowledge" conveys the intention better than "free knowledge." Kizhiya (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI, Gratis_versus_libre on Wikipedias, gratis versus libre on wikidata.

Does it sound relevant ? Well, still not in ja, ko or zh, maybe it does not fit to confusianist culture.

• en Gratis versus libre
• nl Gratis versus libre
• simple Gratis versus libre

ToC in /en is as at : en:Gratis_versus_libre &oldid=1217050429.

• 1 Gratis
• 2 #Libre|Libre
• 3 "free beer" and "freedom of speech"
• 4 Uses in open-access academic publishing
  • 4.1 Comparison with use in software
• 5 See also
• 6 Footnotes
• 7 References
• 8 Sources
• 9 External links

-- Omotecho (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Omotecho

Omotechoさん、素晴らしい参照文をありがとう。

東アジアの国々ではこの項目が訳されていないのは、興味深いことです。日本では儒教の影響より、むしろ労働観の差があるのではないかと思います。言うまでもなく、東アジアの国々の中でも、さまざまな価値観や概念に、大きな差があります。

日本語では自由と無料は同じ単語ではありません。例えば日本の中世の村で、領主による統治をのがれ、村民、自らが統治をすることがありました。自検断これは「自由」の概念に近いと思います。これは税金の額を自ら決めることでもありました。「無料」では無いのです。

「無料の知識」と言った時、私たちはそのシステムの中で、"Unpaid work"の存在を想像します。これは私たちにとって、それほど良い意味ではありません。少なくとも私は、誰かが搾取されているのではないかと考えてしまいます。

「高い志を持って無料の知識を広める」のが、Wikimediaムーブメントの目標でしょう。

例えば、日本でこの意思をより良く表明するためには、著作物を作って稼いでいる会社や人、著作物を無料で公表したい人、どちらに対しても配慮していることを示した方が良いと考えます。また著作権という概念がない言語の人もたくさんいるでしょう。

そのため、私は、「著作権を大切にする」という1文を入れることを提案します。私は他の言語を母語とする人の意見も聞きたいと願っています。とりわけ、インドヨーロッパ語以外の人です。

Thank you Omotecho for the good reference.

It is interesting that these articles are not translated in East Asian countries. In Japan, I think it is more a difference in the view of labor than the influence of Confucianism. Needless to say, there are big differences in various values ​​and concepts even among East Asian countries.

In Japanese, "freedom"and "No price" are not the same word. For example, in medieval Japanese villages, villagers sometimes escaped from the rule of the lord and governed themselves. 自検断

I think this is closer to the concept of "freedom". This also meant deciding the amount of tax by themselves. It is not "No price".

When we say "free knowledge", we imagine the existence of "unpaid labor" in the system. This does not mean so good for us. I think at least someone is being exploited.

"Spreading free knowledge with high aspirations" is the purpose of the Wikimedia movement.

To express this intention in Japan, I think it is good to show that wikimedians are considerate of both the companies and people who create works and make money from them, and the people who want to make works available for free. Also, there are many people who speak languages ​​that do not have the concept of copyright. Therefore, I think it would be good to include a statement such as "We respect copyright, too." I would also like to hear the opinions of people who speak languages ​​other than Indo-European. Kizhiya (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kizhiya@Omotecho@Ciell@Der-Wir-Ing, though there are often panel discussions, conferences, and lectures in many languages on this issue, and I have sometimes posted about them on several places, including the UG's Slack, our language barrier always leaves us behind. This issue has been one of the arguments in the Japanese Wiki projects; I hope someone from the community will be able to join these opportunities among other languages in the near future.この点について様々な言語で対話や会議、講義などが行われてきましたが、言語の差のためにいつも参加できていませんでした。私はUGのSlackなどにそのような機会の案内を投稿することもありましたが。いつかどなたかが他言語での機会に参加する人が現れることを願います。YShibata (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Necessary?

Would we need a charter? WikiMedia appears to clearly states its goals without one. I can see how it'd be comprehensive, but Wiki isn't one thing; it's a world where we can all liberate ourselves of the monism of modern society, ideologies such as anarchism being buried if it weren't for WikiMedia providing them a platform to share the truth.

I'm just saying, we ought to consider being a "big tent" movement. ManOfDirt (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The UCoC, I fear, will overstep its authority. Each wiki should be left to itself, unless there are legal reasons for office/wmf action. JayCubby (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@ManOfDirt: Hello, you may read the FAQ to know what is the Movement Charter and why we need the Charter. Thanks. SCP-2000 02:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@ManOfDirt: The charter isn't intended to replace the autonomy and self-organization of diverse communities, but to reinforce this "big tent" approach for all of us. As such, individual wikis are mostly left to their own devices, and the specific governance parts of the charter apply more to off-wiki stuff like strategy, and standards for the raising and distribution of funds. Pharos (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but is such ensured? Deliberative democracy should be employed, since there is typically never one correct view of anything. ManOfDirt (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment about consensus

I agree with what has been said above that this charter should require at least 66% support. We can't have a document representing the entire community that is opposed by half of that community. Personally, I would prefer 75% support being required, but I would be fine with 66% as a minimum. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Small copy-edit

@SCP-2000: It was a pretty self-explanatory edit. Typically, you end a list with the entry that describes the other things that are not individually listed. I figured it would not be a controversial change, especially since it doesn't even change any of the words. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: Hello, thanks for your contribution and ping. I agree that it is a small copy-edit and it would not be a controversial change. However, IMO the draft should be kept as stable as possible for review and proposed changes should be raised on the talkpage first. Anyway, I am okey if MCDC members agree wiith your change. Thanks. SCP-2000 02:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757's thoughts

I agree with Ajraddatz at #In flux, incomplete, tries to do too many things at once on being open to a Global Council, and reiterate what SJ said there. Additionally, I am concerned with the following:

• 50% of votes to ratify seems very low, especially given the 66% percent threshold to amend. The amount of support needed to ratify and to amend should be identical. And, consistent with most wikis' own processes, it should be at least 66%, representing an extant consensus that is likely to endure. Indeed, the wikis I'm familiar with require levels of support equivalent to 65-80% for some of their most important internal processes, with the amount of required support increasing with the importance of the issue. If we are establishing a new, important body to do important things, the level of consensus required should reflect that.
• Why do affiliates have a separate vote? We should not be concerned with affiliates in and of themselves here. To be clear, affiliates do a lot of important work. But the way I view it, the affiliates "work for" the community (i.e. the Movement, or at least their portion of it). The constituents of the Movement should be considered to be only the individual members of the Wikimedia community. If the charter is good for the affiliate's members, the members will support it; if not, they will oppose it; but in either case, whether the charter is good for the affiliate, as an organization, ought to be irrelevant. And if the affiliate's active members are so small a portion of the community that they are considered to "need" disproportionate representation, that is a sign to me that they should not have it.
• How, exactly, is the Global Council Assembly elected? The charter does not say; that is at the Global Council Membership Policy, which is incomplete. I don't think an informed ratification vote on the Charter can be had until this question is answered: whether I support creating a Global Council depends, heavily, on how it will be elected/appointed/chosen. Some thoughts on possible details (and again, the details here are very important):
  • Project specific membership: how is a project selected to be represented here, and how is a person selected from a project? I support a proportional approach: the project representation should be proportional to the percentage of active editors on the project. If a project is too small to get their own seat, projects with similar interests (e.g. languages, regions, types) should be grouped together until the group is big enough to have 1-3 seats. Once the amount of representation for a single project is determined, that project should determine how each seat is filled (e.g. election, appointments by an elected project-wide body, etc.) by consensus, although there should be a set of default rules for an election. For groups of small projects, there should be default rules for a group-wide vote to fill the seat, modifiable by consensus of the involved projects. I would not support an approach that is not proportional (to within, say, ~10%).
  • Affiliate membership: I think that this should not exist, for basically the reasons stated above. Additionally, this would create issues regarding affiliates voting on their own funding, or even voting on funding for affiliates generally. Members elected by the on-wiki communities are in the best position to make hard decisions regarding, e.g., allocation of funding between affiliates and technical work.
  • General global membership: I agree that there should be a way to avoid domination by one region over others, and ensure all voices are heard. But I think that is found in a proportional approach to project specific membership. An at-large approach would just reduce the amount of representation for small projects. And a regional approach would be redundant to the approach described by me above. So I tend to think that this should not exist. However I'd be open to limited representation for cross-wiki projects (e.g. Meta, Commons, Wikidata, Mediawiki) if the project specific membership process would be based on home-wiki, and this would be a problem for those cross-wiki projects. But this is, conceptually, better handled as project specific membership with special rules than as a separate thing.

References

I think changes on these important matters are needed to ensure that the Charter will serve its purpose: to further the Wikimedia movement.

Per the instructions above: CC: @KVaidla (WMF), AAkhmedova (WMF), RamzyM (WMF), and NPhan (WMF):. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mdaniels5757 – your feedback is well noted, thank you. The MCDC will collect feedback from various channels until April 30 and after that work on their final iteration of the Charter text. --AAkhmedova (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Odd grammar?

In the sentence "The Wikimedia Movement uses open licensing to share all content it produces, all its software, and access to all its platforms." under Free knowledge, the grammar seems odd. Are we using open licensing to share access to all our platforms? That seems to me as an odd sentence construction, as a license doesn't really enable access, it enables reuse. I guess it means that we are using open licensing on all our platforms, but that is not how it reads. ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 18:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Please suggest one or two alternative ways of phrasing that sentence. Let's find a version that can flow and work for everyone. Pharos (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure! How about "The Wikimedia Movement uses open licensing to share all content it produces, to share all its software, and on all its platforms." That would be more clear and less ambiguous. However, it is also a bit redundant. What else than content or software could we share on our platforms (arguably, software is also a kind of content)? So really a simplified statement could be: "The Wikimedia Movement uses open licensing to share everything it produces wherever it is published." or a bit expanded: "The Wikimedia Movement uses open licensing to share everything it produces – be it text, media, data, or software – wherever it is published." ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sete propostas do Wiki Movimento Brasil à Carta do Movimento

Estimadas membras e membros do Comitê de Redação da Carta do Movimento,

Estimadas companheiras e companheiros do Movimento Wikimedia,

Esta é uma mensagem oficial do Wiki Movimento Brasil sobre a versão da Carta do Movimento proposta para engajamento comunitário entre 2 e 30 de abril de 2024. O Wiki Movimento Brasil (WMB) é uma associação brasileira sem fins lucrativos afiliada à Fundação Wikimedia. Fundado em 2013, o WMB busca, entre outros objetivos: ampliar, qualificar e diversificar o conteúdo e a comunidade nos projetos da Wikimedia, em especial a Wikipédia; e apoiar a atuação de organizações sociais no ecossistema do conhecimento livre. Nossa participação no processo de revisão da Carta do Movimento alinha-se ao planejamento estratégico do Wiki Movimento Brasil, em particular aos eixos 1 e 5, respectivamente "(Re)imaginar a infraestrutura sociotécnica do Movimento Wikimedia" e "Adensar e direcionar redes de governança no Movimento Wikimedia", formuladas na perspectiva da Wikimedia no Brasil na direção da Estratégia do Movimento 2030.

Inicialmente, saudamos a iniciativa de definir papéis e responsabilidades no Movimento da Wikimedia e afirmamos nosso compromisso com a mudança coletivamente construída no contexto da Estratégia do Movimento 2030. Saudamos as estimadas membras e membros do Comitê de Redação da Carta do Movimento pelo empenho na coordenação e produção da versão preliminar de um marco institucional para a colaboração multissetorial no Movimento Wikimedia.

Concordamos com a forma da Carta do Movimento. O documento apresentado é curto e denso, o que lhe confere um caráter didático e um foco em orientações gerais. A forma com a qual a Carta do Documento é apresentada garante-lhe, idealmente, maior propensão à apreensão por públicos diversos e mais longevidade. Também notamos e aplaudimos a tradução inclusiva de gênero realizada em português, apesar de a tradução de conteúdos complementares não ter sido apoiada e haver inconsistências em termos-chave na tradução do documento principal, o que dificultou a acessibilidade do material pelos membros do WMB e a comunidade das pessoas falantes do português e retardou nossa manifestação coletiva.

Acolhemos e nos identificamos com a seção de "Valores", que definem e orientam no nível mais abstrato o Movimento Wikimedia de acordo com conhecimento livre, autonomia, subsidiariedade e auto-organização, equidade, inclusividade, segurança, responsabilidade e resiliência. Indicamos abaixo duas solicitações de revisão:

(i) a adição do compromisso com o multilinguismo quando relevante e efetivo na seção "Inclusividade";
(ii) a inclusão de um compromisso com o compartilhamento ético e boas práticas em relação a cosmovisões e formas de saber não hegemônicos, como conhecimentos e acervos indígenas.

Acolhemos e nos identificamos com a seção de "Voluntariado". Concordamos com a ênfase atribuída à autonomia editorial da comunidade de pessoas voluntárias na Wikimedia. Nossos projetos são uma experiência bem sucedida de articulação de interesses heterogêneos baseada na boa-fé em prol da produção e difusão do conhecimento livre. O Código Universal de Conduta, planos comunitários e técnicos estratégicos e outras diretrizes transversais do Movimento Wikimedia, com impacto em todos os projetos e seus participantes, assim como a Carta do Movimento, devem assegurar e conviver com a autodeterminação comunitária na realização de nossa missão comum. Indicamos abaixo uma solicitação de revisão:

(iii) a remoção, na sub-seção de "Responsabilidades", da indicação de que uma pessoa voluntária deve comprometer-se com tempo e competências suficientes para participar no Movimento Wikimedia, na medida em que se trata de uma exigência ao mesmo tempo evidente e que pode estimular práticas de controle quando inseridas numa carta. Ademais, devemos atuar coletivamente para garantir que as comunidades mais vulneráveis e sub-representadas possam participar de modo significativo da Wikimedia.

Acolhemos a clareza e preocupação com o multissetorialismo e a subsidiariedade na proposta sobre os "Órgãos do Movimento Wikimedia". A Wikimedia e seu papel em prol do conhecimento livre e da integridade da informação se alteraram radicalmente no decorrer dos anos e a organização da rede interconectada de comunidades em que a Wikimedia se baseia deve de fato mudar, em prol da diversidade e da relevância de nossa ação coletiva. Nessa direção, apoiamos a formação do Conselho Global. Indicamos abaixo quatro solicitações de revisão:

(iv) a inserção da Wikimedia Foundation como um dos órgãos do Movimento Wikimedia, integrando esta que é nossa principal organização à direção geral do Conselho Global. A Carta do Movimento é uma oportunidade de adotar práticas fundamentalmente participativas, instauradas na confiança e mutualismo, na definição de prioridades estratégicas e decisões orçamentárias, que dizem respeito a todas as pessoas e órgãos no movimento, e a posição excepcional conferida à Wikimedia Foundation na atual Carta do Movimento enfraquece nosso compromisso real com a Estratégia do Movimento 2030 e inibe uma maior conexão da Wikimedia Foundation às práticas comunitárias, o que lhe garantirá finalmente mais legitimidade e robustez;
(v) a transformação do Comitê Tecnológico em uma entidade deliberativa e executiva, não meramente consultiva, com a responsabilidade de avaliação e aprovação do plano estratégico para a infraestrutura sociotécnica do Movimento Wikimedia. Chamamos a atenção à publicação das Prioridades Tecnológicas da Wikimedia para a Maioria Global, que enfatiza a necessidade de considerarmos entidades e públicos normalmente pouco presentes nos espaços de definição tecnológica na composição e atuação desse comitê;
(vi) a adoção de práticas democráticas mais profundas em nosso movimento para a tomada de decisões e para a seleção do Conselho Global. Consideramos que a prática eleitoral parcialmente proposta e a atuação do Conselho Global podem ser revistas, para torná-lo um ambiente mais condizente com nossos valores e ethos e também para garantir-lhe mais efetividade e legitimidade. Em primeiro lugar, acreditamos que uma prática mais regular de consulta ao movimento, na lógica da democracia digital e referendos eletrônicos, garantirão uma governança participativa empoderadora, construída sobre nossa rede de interconexão digital. Em segundo lugar, acreditamos que devemos estabelecer uma estrutura mais localizada e direcionada à elaboração de planos de baixo para cima, desenvolvidos pelas comunidades e depois transmitidos para consenso a instâncias temáticas ou regionais. Em terceiro lugar, acreditamos que a prática eleitoral na seleção atomizada de pessoas candidatas em nosso movimento gera desgaste e que mecanismos mais representativos, coletivos e equitativos, como a formação de chapas colegiadas ou finalmente a nomeação por métodos não eleitorais (a seleção aleatória dentro de conjuntos diversos de pleiteantes combinada à nomeação por competência), podem ser mais audazes e efetivos para a definição justa e inclusiva de nossa liderança;
(vii) a inclusão do orçamento da Wikimedia Foundation como objeto de validação e prestação de contas do Movimento Wikimedia, em especial no que diz respeito ao orçamento das áreas de recursos comunitários, pois consideramos que a permeabilidade da fundação à inteligência coletiva de nosso movimento garantirá maior confiança e alinhamento estratégico e que portanto servirá mais diretamente aos valores que expomos na própria Carta do Movimento. Também nos parece que a Carta do Movimento deve ser uma ponte para reduzir tensões entre a fundação e outros órgão do Movimento Wikimedia, e a comunidade editorial, e que imbuir a Wikimedia Foundation das práticas associativas servirá um propósito de construção e manutenção de confiança e legitimidade.

Novamente, saudamos e parabenizamos o trabalho das membras e membros do Comitê de Redação da Carta do Movimento, que teve o desafio de alinhar a direção estratégica que definimos colaborativamente para 2030 a tempos de mudança acelerada, com novos riscos e desafios para a Wikimedia. Consideramos que as sete propostas acima contribuem para superarmos com mais capacidade e maturidade o desafio proposto e realizarmos com mais entusiasmo, empoderamento e efetividade a missão de produzir e compartilhar conhecimento de todas as pessoas para todas as pessoas.

Por fim, saudamos as pessoas membras da comunidade que se dispuseram a comentar a versão atual da Carta do Movimento, humildemente solicitando que haja um compromisso de resposta por quem de direito. De nossa parte, submetemos nossas propostas acima de boa-fé e com o compromisso de colaborar pela consolidação e ampliação do movimento do conhecimento livre.

Em nome do Wiki Movimento Brasil, JPeschanski (WMB) (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In English, automated translation
Dear members of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, Dear companions of the Wikimedia Movement, This is an official message from Wiki Movimento Brasil regarding the proposed version of the Movement Charter for community engagement between April 2 and 30, 2024. Wiki Movimento Brasil (WMB) is a Brazilian non-profit association affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. Founded in 2013, WMB aims, among other goals, to expand, qualify, and diversify content and community in Wikimedia projects, especially Wikipedia, and to support the role of social organizations in the free knowledge ecosystem. Our participation in the Movement Charter review process aligns with the Wiki Movimento Brasil Strategic Planning for 2023-2025, particularly axes 1 and 5, respectively, "Reimagining the sociotechnical infrastructure of the Wikimedia Movement" and "Strengthening and directing governance networks in the Wikimedia Movement", formulated from the perspective of Wikimedia in Brazil towards the Movement Strategy 2030. Firstly, we welcome the initiative to define roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia Movement and affirm our commitment to collectively building change within the context of the Movement Strategy 2030. We commend the esteemed members of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee for their dedication in coordinating and producing the preliminary version of an institutional framework for multisectoral collaboration within the Wikimedia Movement. We agree with the format of the Movement Charter. The presented document is concise and dense, which gives it an educational character and a focus on general guidelines. The way the Charter is presented ideally ensures greater accessibility to diverse audiences and longevity. We also note and applaud the inclusive gender translation carried out in Portuguese. However, the translation of complementary content was not supported, and there were inconsistencies in key terms in the translation of the main document, which hindered the accessibility of the material for WMB members and the Portuguese-speaking community, delaying our collective response. We embrace and identify with the "Values" section, which defines and guides the Wikimedia Movement at the most abstract level according to free knowledge, autonomy, subsidiarity and self-organization, equity, inclusivity, security, responsibility, and resilience. Below are two revision requests: (i) The addition of a commitment to multilingualism when relevant and effective in the "Inclusivity" section. (ii) The inclusion of a commitment to ethical sharing and best practices regarding non-hegemonic worldviews and forms of knowledge, such as indigenous knowledge and collections. We embrace and identify with the "Volunteering" section. We agree with the emphasis placed on the editorial autonomy of the Wikimedia volunteer community. Our projects are a successful experience of articulating heterogeneous interests based on good faith for the production and dissemination of free knowledge. The Universal Code of Conduct, community and technical strategic plans, and other transversal guidelines of the Wikimedia Movement, impacting all projects and participants, as well as the Movement Charter, should ensure and coexist with community self-determination in fulfilling our common mission. Below is a revision request: (iii) The removal, in the "Responsibilities" subsection, of the indication that a volunteer should commit to sufficient time and skills to participate in the Wikimedia Movement, as it is both an obvious requirement and may encourage control practices when included in a charter. Furthermore, we must act collectively to ensure that the most vulnerable and underrepresented communities can participate meaningfully in Wikimedia. We welcome the clarity and concern for multisectoralism and subsidiarity in the proposal regarding the "Wikimedia Movement Bodies". Wikimedia and its role in promoting free knowledge and information integrity have radically changed over the years, and the organization of the interconnected network of communities on which Wikimedia is based must indeed change, in favor of diversity and the relevance of our collective action. In this direction, we support the formation of the Global Council. Below are four revision requests: (iv) The inclusion of the Wikimedia Foundation as one of the Wikimedia Movement bodies, integrating our main organization into the overall direction of the Global Council. The Movement Charter is an opportunity to adopt fundamentally participatory practices, based on trust and mutualism, in defining strategic priorities and budgetary decisions that concern all individuals and bodies in the movement. The exceptional position given to the Wikimedia Foundation in the current Movement Charter weakens our real commitment to the Movement Strategy 2030 and inhibits greater connection of the Wikimedia Foundation to community practices, which will ultimately give it more legitimacy and robustness. (v) The transformation of the Technology Committee into a deliberative and executive entity, not merely advisory, with the responsibility of assessing and approving the strategic plan for the sociotechnical infrastructure of the Wikimedia Movement. We draw attention to the publication of the Global South Technology Survey, which emphasizes the need to consider entities and audiences normally less present in technological decision-making spaces in the composition and operation of this committee. (vi) The adoption of deeper democratic practices in our movement for decision-making and for the selection of the Global Council. We believe that a more regular practice of consulting the movement, in the logic of digital democracy and electronic referendums, will ensure empowering participatory governance, built on our network of digital interconnectedness. Secondly, we believe that we should establish a more localized structure aimed at bottom-up planning, developed by communities and then transmitted for consensus to thematic or regional instances. Thirdly, we believe that the electoral practice in the atomized selection of candidates in our movement generates wear and tear, and that more representative, collective, and equitable mechanisms, such as the formation of collegiate slates or finally appointment by non-electoral methods (random selection within diverse sets of applicants combined with competence-based appointment), may be bolder and more effective for the fair and inclusive definition of our leadership. (vii) The inclusion of the Wikimedia Foundation budget as an object of validation and accountability for the Wikimedia Movement, especially regarding the budget for community resources areas, as we believe that the foundation's permeability to the collective intelligence of our movement will ensure greater trust and strategic alignment and therefore will serve more directly the values we express in the Movement Charter. We also believe that the Movement Charter should be a bridge to reduce tensions between the foundation and other bodies of the Wikimedia Movement, and the editorial community, and that imbuing the Wikimedia Foundation with associative practices will serve a purpose of building and maintaining trust and legitimacy. Once again, we salute and congratulate the work of the members of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, who faced the challenge of aligning the strategic direction we collaboratively defined for 2030 with times of accelerated change, with new risks and challenges for Wikimedia. We believe that the seven proposals above contribute to overcoming the proposed challenge with more capacity and maturity and to carrying out with more enthusiasm, empowerment, and effectiveness the mission of producing and sharing knowledge for all people. Finally, we salute the community members who have volunteered to comment on the current version of the Movement Charter, humbly requesting a commitment to response from those concerned. On our part, we submit our proposals above in good faith and with the commitment to collaborate for the consolidation and expansion of the free knowledge movement.

Olá @JPeschanski (WMB),

Obrigado por seu feedback detalhado em nome do Wiki Movimento Brasil. Esta mensagem é para informá-lo de que o MCDC recebeu seu feedback e considerará seus pontos na próxima iteração do texto da Carta, que começa após 30 de abril. --AAkhmedova (WMF) (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from User:Brahmavadini

Good day everyone! Thank you for sharing the final draft of the Movement Charter. A big thanks to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee members and advisors for your initiative and effort. I have prepared a semi-detailed feedback, mostly consisting of clarifying questions to initiate a discussion (shared below). Hope it helps to navigate the progress of the Movement Charter positively.

Introduction

A few clarifying questions:

1. “The Charter applies to … online and offline spaces officially associated with the Wikimedia Movement”.

   What constitutes “officially associated” or what are the determinants of being “officially associated”?

2. “It is a priority to ensure safety in both online and offline spaces”.

   What infrastructure will be established to ensure security, in a timely and efficient manner? The section states that "comprehensive codes of conduct” will be implemented and there will be “investment of resources necessary”, which is good. What is the exact nature of on-ground code of conduct implementation and resource allocation?

3. “...uses meaningful metric-based evidence...”

   What does this mean? How is it ensured in every wikimedia space?

4. “Safeguard donor rights, and financial interests of the movement’”

   What are they & how do they align with the community vision? I did not find a supplementary document; kindly share the resource link.

5. “The values include the ones already present at our origin . . . develop for our future”

   What were the original values?

6. Can “subsidiarity and self-organization” and “accountability” be conflicting? How can we ensure proper balance?

Volunteers

A clarifying question:

1. Who or what are “mission-aligned partners” and how will that be determined?

Comment:

• “Persons working in their volunteer capacity . . . but may receive expense reimbursements . . . recognition and/or support”.

  Yes, volunteers willingly donate their time and energy; but let’s not forget that gratitude and recognition forms the core of any human collaboration. Reading this line, it seems like that in this day and age, we are being dismissive about the immense value of volunteer contribution by saying that they “may receive reimbursements . . . support packages . . . and recognition”. These should be basic and logical ways to empower the volunteer communities, and should definitely be a fixed component of the financial budget. If these are already being given as a priority and mandatorily, kindly modify the statement because language matters.

Wikimedia Movement Bodies

A few clarifying questions:

1. “The Global Council and Wikimedia Foundation are the highest governing bodies, both with their own specific purpose and responsibilities.”

   1. The footnotes state that the Global Council will initially not be set up as a legal entity while the Wikimedia Foundation is already a legal entity. In what way/s will both become and function as “highest governing bodies”? One understands the need for a legal governance system for any kind of organisation, but in the context of the Wikimedia Movement, doesn’t this proclamation undermine the autonomous functioning of the current and future communities?
   2. Moreover, how will a legal entity (Wikimedia Foundation) and a currently non-legal entity (Global Council) work with each other because when the time comes, it is only logical and legally and policy-wise sensible that the decisions of a legal entity will take precedence over any other?! In that case, isn’t it logical that the Global Council should also be set up as a legal entity from the beginning?

2. “The Independent Dispute Resolution function will be created to resolve conflicts that are unable to be resolved by existing mechanisms, or where there is an inability to handle such decisions for reasons beyond the control of the parties involved. In the absence of this function, the Wikimedia Foundation, or their chosen delegate, will take this role.”

   1. How is this dispute resolution function different from the existing dispute resolution frameworks of various Wikipedia projects?
   2. Will this overturn the existing community-based dispute resolution processes of various Wikipedia projects?
   3. What, if any, will be the continued role and responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation’s Trust & Safety team?

3. “Professional involvement at all levels in the Wikimedia Movement is intended to support the free knowledge mission of each organization that employs professionals. Most often, this is done by amplifying and supporting the work of volunteers.”

   1. What is the scope of professional involvement in the reimagined Wikimedia Movement Bodies?
   2. I am assuming that given the magnanimity of what we are attempting here, the Wikimedia Movement Organisations need to regularly hire professional help. What is the provision for this?
   3. How will the work be split between “professionals” and “volunteers”, and how would a balance be maintained? Note: Personally, the distinction between professionals and volunteers is unbecoming. So, to reframe my question: how much are we expecting “volunteers” to give to the Movement and where do we draw the line? The Global Council Membership Policy states that a stipend will be given to support participation. Please expand on this.

4. “Wikimedia Movement Organizations may choose to develop their financial sustainability through additional revenue generation, coordinating such efforts with other Movement Organizations when necessary.”

   1. Fair enough. Since the Global Council is also a part of the Wikimedia Movement Organizations, how will the Global Council engage in additional revenue generation without it being a legal entity?
   2. Similarly, existing and new affiliates and hubs need to be legal entities for additional fundraising. How will they be supported by the Wikimedia Foundation in attaining their legal status?
   3. How does the Wikimedia Foundation's role as Steward and its independent fundraising activities intersect with the resource allocation responsibilities of the Global Council?

5. “A committee under the purview of the GC is responsible for managing and advising on the recognition or derecognition, compliance, and conflicts of affiliates and hubs.”

   1. Per my understanding, correct me if wrong, the affiliate recognition or derecognition and compliance is currently handled by the Affiliations Committee. Therefore, does the quoted line suggest the same responsibility will be transferred to the Global Council and that the Affiliations Committee will be dissolved?

6. “The GC will establish a committee to provide advice to the Wikimedia Foundation, offering insights into the Wikimedia Movement’s vision and priorities. The technical committee is established by the GC in collaboration with technical contributors.”

   1. Doesn’t this already exist? I have very little understanding of the technical aspects and I am basing my question on what I have heard or read about in general communication channels, like the Wishlist Survey and so on. It is my understanding that communities have always been stating what technological advancements they want - how much of that has been heard and implemented? Or, how is the specific technical committee under the Global Council expected to expedite the process?

7. “The GCA is composed of at least 100 and at most 150 members.”

   1. Since the Global Council membership document mentions that there can be no one-size-fits-all formula, how can we finalise the maximum count to be 150? Wouldn’t this compromise diversity and representation?

8. The responsibility of the Global Council Board includes “drafting the initial Wikimedia Movement strategic plan”, among others.

   1. We do have extensive literature on Movement Strategy & its various recommendations that are already in-progress. What kind of initial strategic plan the Global Council Board needs to draft?

9. “At least one Global Council meeting shall be held annually and within six months of the end of the fiscal year…”

   1. Are these in-person meetings? Since the Global Council will have a high number of members and keeping financial stability in mind, the Global Council meeting should happen only during Wikimania. What are your thoughts on this?

10. The Wikimedia Movement Organizations section specifically mentions four types of organisations: 3 types of wikimedia movement affiliates (chapters, thematic organisations, and user groups) and hubs.

    1. Does this suggest that affiliate recognition is the only criteria to get recognized as a Wikimedia Movement Organization?
    2. Since there is only one recognized affiliate in a geographical and thematic context to prevent an overlap, and only affiliates can form hubs, doesn’t recognizing affiliates and hubs as the only types of Wikimedia Movement Organizations go against the value of “Inclusivity”?

    There are organisations in the Wikimedia Movement that are created by active Wikimedians and solely dedicated to the Wikimedia Movement but they are not affiliates, and neither are they legally registered (yet). Some of these organisations were denied affiliate recognition but they continue to contribute to the Wikimedia Movement with as much dedication and involvement. Furthermore, there are organisations that are neither interested in affiliate recognition nor willing to enter into the affiliate agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation for reasons of their own. Eliminating them from being a part of the Wikimedia Movement Organizations can harm the inclusive and diverse nature of the Wikimedia Movement.

Comment:

The governing structure laid out in this chapter is complex for the community-wide Wikimedia Movement. We aim for putting the subsidiarity-principle in practice, how will a general editor be expected to interact with the Global Council, and its various facets, when required?! Aren’t we complicating resource allocation by turning this into a bureaucratic process?!

While the Movement Charter aims for collaboration and inclusivity, the challenges of power dynamics, scalability, and accountability need to be addressed. For example, the charter gives the Global Council significant power to decide on resource distribution and set standards for the communities they represent. It is possible that this could lead to tension in the future if communities feel that the funding decisions are unfair and/or that their autonomy is being restricted.

Amendment

A few clarifying questions:

1. What is the expected amendment timeline for Amendment Category 1 to 4? The supplementary document enumerates the process but not the timeline.
2. Similarly, what would the expected amendment timeline be for proposals received from outside the Global Council? The supplementary document mentions only 8 weeks where the proposal, if accepted, is open for discussion.
3. Why is there a need to separate the proposals, as in, proposals coming from within the Global Council and from outside the Global Council?

   1. Further, for proposals received from outside the Global Council, the cost of consideration is quite high - it needs support from 200 individual community members and they should have participated in a minimum of 10 Wikimedia projects + it should be supported by 5 affiliate representatives. Why?
   2. Why shouldn’t the same cost of consideration be accorded to proposals coming from within the Global Council?

Comment:

Even though the supplementary document is not a part of the Movement Charter, as in, it will not be included in the ratification vote, the estimated process timeline should be included in the main Amendment document.

Ratification

A few clarifying questions:

1. Who are “movement-based voters”?
2. How are “movement-based voters” different from “Wikimedia affiliates”?

   1. If the affiliates are a part of the movement-based voter cohort, then are affiliates voting twice?

3. There is no majority vote percentage ascribed to the Board of Trustees cohort. Does it imply that the entire Board of Trustees needs to vote in favour of the Movement Charter for a successful ratification?
4. What is the role of Wikimedia Foundation’s staff here - will they vote & in what capacity?

   1. If the staff is voting, what percentage of their vote will constitute the overall vote structure?

Comment:

On one hand, the document says that a majority of more than 50% votes (from “Wikimedia affiliates” and “movement-based voters”) are enough to ratify the Movement Charter. On the other hand, the Amendment section says that a two-third support is required for something as basic as a spelling and grammar change (amendment category 1).

Is it that we are placing more importance on grammar checks (which is important, no doubt) than the ratification of the all-encompassing Movement Charter that is going to realign the entire movement going forward?!

I want to understand the rationale behind opting for a 50% vote majority, and propose to change it to 75% voting majority for the Movement Charter to come into effect, irrespective of however the voters are segmented into cohorts. Ratification should aim for at least 75% majority voting in its favour.

On translations

The translation should not be an afterthought. Neither should the community-at-large be expected to donate volunteer hours to translate a legal and policy document.

The Movement Charter and its supplementary documents should be mandatorily translated in all the languages in which an active project exists. It would honour the tenets of inclusion and diversity practices. Future provisions should exist to translate new documents and update existing documents, as and when required.

Closing Question

The charter draft seems to assume that editors are familiar with the Wikimedia Movement. Since the charter will move towards sitewide ratification, implying that the ratification process is not limited to a close group of volunteers aware with the notion of the Wikimedia Movement / Movement Strategy / Movement Charter, what are the thoughts on educating the voters-at-large (editors / volunteers) about the various facets of the Wikimedia Movement / Movement Strategy / Movement Charter and ensure their informed decision?

Brahmavadini (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Brahmavadini (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Brahmavadini,

Thank you for taking the time to provide extensive feedback. The MCDC has received your comments and questions. --AAkhmedova (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the acknowledgement :) Brahmavadini (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Observaciones de Wikimedistas de Uruguay sobre la Carta del Movimiento

(English version with automated translation below)

Estimados/as integrantes del Comité Redactor de la Carta del Movimiento,

Compañeros/as del Movimiento Wikimedia,

Este es un mensaje oficial de Wikimedistas de Uruguay respecto de la Carta del Movimiento.

1. Agradecemos el trabajo del Comité Redactor de la Carta del Movimiento. Entendemos que pasaron muchos años y circunstancias globales complejas desde que el Comité Redactor de la Carta fuera elegido en el 2019, y acordar diferentes borradores y procesos no ha sido una tarea sencilla.
2. Sin embargo, desde Wikimedistas de Uruguay, entendemos que este proceso no ha producido un buen resultado. Encontramos serias deficiencias en la redacción, lógica y estructura de la Carta, así como en la redacción de los valores y las definiciones. A continuación, enumeramos algunos ejemplos, pero aclaramos que la lista no es taxativa.  
3. Hay una mezcla constante entre los niveles estratégicos y los niveles operativos. Es necesario separar lo que es el Estatuto, el Reglamento y Otras Normativas (como las políticas de espacios amigables, el Código Universal de Conducta, o códigos similares).
4. La Carta debería seguir una lógica clara, que contenga los siguientes elementos:
   1. Misión - Visión - Valores
   2. Organización y estructura de gobierno (comunidad, voluntarios/as, afiliados, Fundación Wikimedia y mecanismos para la toma de decisiones)
5. No se provee evidencia ni documentación que respalden las propuestas vinculadas a los niveles de gobierno. Creemos que el Comité Redactor debería hacer un esfuerzo por mirar los Estatutos de otras organizaciones. Por ejemplo, sugerimos revisar el Estatuto de Amnistía Internacional o ejemplos de organizaciones sindicales, como el Consejo Sindical de las Américas. El movimiento tiene que aprender de movimientos similares y/o alineados cuya experiencia acumulada pueden hacer aportes significativos a nuestro movimiento.
6. Sobre la composición del GCA y el GCB, en primer lugar, creemos que parte de un error conceptual respecto del rol que juegan las organizaciones y estructuras institucionales en el movimiento. Entendemos las tensiones que a menudo existen entre estructuras organizativas profesionales y personas que voluntariamente donan su tiempo para colaborar en las plataformas Wikimedia o liderar iniciativas por fuera de ellas, pero esa tensión no se resuelve con delegar la planificación estratégica y la asignación de recursos a personas voluntarias. Esta propuesta no reconoce los roles diferenciados pero suplementarios que cumplen las personas voluntarias, los liderazgos políticos y los profesionales ejecutivos; profundiza inequidades estructurales, y no resuelve el problema de la idoneidad y subsidiariedad en la toma de decisiones.
7. En relación con el punto anterior, hay una mezcla persistente en la carta entre las plataformas Wikimedia, el movimiento Wikimedia, y las organizaciones que implementan la estrategia del movimiento Wikimedia. Creemos que los proyectos Wikimedia continuarán funcionando bajo una modalidad de autogobierno (en arreglo a las normativas como el Código de Conducta), independientemente de la gobernanza del movimiento. El trabajo del movimiento y de sus organizaciones abarca mucho más que las plataformas, y la gobernanza del movimiento tiene que ser capaz de balancear estas dos prioridades. Los dos niveles no pueden ser tratados y combinados en una misma Carta.  
8. Consideramos que la composición de la GCA y el GCB no resuelve problemas estructurales de fondo ni garantiza equidad en la toma de decisiones. En particular, consideramos los siguientes puntos:
   1. No está claro por qué debe haber un número de 100 mínimo y 150 máximo de integrantes de la GCA. Tal como aparece en la documentación, este número es arbitrario.
   2. El mandato de tres años es injustificado, y demanda un compromiso excesivo de quienes quieran presentarse al cargo.
   3. No hay criterios claros ni acciones de afirmación positiva que garanticen la equidad y diversidad en la composición del GCB y el GCA.
   4. Creemos que, por el contrario de la propuesta actual, cada afiliado activo al Movimiento Wikimedia debe tener un representante en la GCA (la definición de “afiliado activo” debe ajustarse a los criterios de readecuación propuestos por AffCom). Estas representaciones tienen que atender además a que exista una participación balanceada por regiones, priorizando los afiliados que respondan a criterios geográficos y de representación de poblaciones poco representadas. De lo contrario, se reproducirán y profundizarán las inequidades ya existentes al interior del movimiento Wikimedia.
      1. El representante debe ser o bien la dirección ejecutiva (o el cargo máximo que corresponda si el afiliado no cuenta con dicho cargo), o bien la presidencia de la junta directiva (o el cargo máximo que corresponda en órganos similares de carácter voluntario, como consejos asesores), o bien ambos con alternancia de los roles en un período de tiempo anual.
      2. El representante del afiliado debe poder contar con una delegación en las reuniones, que incluya la dirección ejecutiva, la presidencia y algún otro miembro de la junta directiva o la dirección política de la organización, para garantizar la renovación de liderazgos.
   5. La proposición de que el GCB solo pueda estar compuesto por personas sin relación de ninguna clase con el afiliado (ya sea política o ejecutiva) es una limitación para la planificación y ejecución estratégica, que no garantiza la idoneidad en la toma de decisiones y solo resulta en una profundización de inequidades estructurales (solamente quienes cuentan con medios de vida resueltos pueden participar en la toma de decisiones). En varias regiones, incluyendo América Latina y el Caribe, esto resultaría en que no tengamos capacidad de participar en las instancias del GCB.
   6. La propuesta de que las decisiones deben ser aprobadas por mayoría absoluta dentro de la GCA no contempla buenas prácticas de gobernanza (ya que no todos los temas son igualmente importantes para requerir mayoría absoluta), y limitará seriamente la capacidad decisoria de la GCA, delegando finalmente todo al GCB para ejecutar decisiones.
   7. Por último, nos preocupa seriamente que se proponga que toda una estructura de gobernanza global descanse sobre personas voluntarias, en un contexto donde los afiliados y el movimiento en general tenemos cada vez más dificultades para suplir tareas críticas de mantenimiento con personas voluntarias (roles como stewards, admins, bibliotecarios, y otros dentro de las plataformas; y roles de gobernanza como comités regionales de fondos, entre otros, que permanecen vacantes por meses).
9. Consideramos que la Carta del Movimiento no resuelve ni contiene un plan de transición claro respecto de los comités actualmente existentes que resuelven las afiliaciones al Movimiento Wikimedia (AffCom) y deciden sobre la asignación de recursos (los Comité Regionales de distribución de fondos).
10. Por experiencias previas, creemos que tendría que estar definido el porcentaje de recursos sobre los que el GCA y el GCB deberán tomar decisiones. Es necesario además definir la estructura en cuanto a campañas, recaudación, tecnología y asignación de recursos, en particular, cómo será esta estructura en diálogo con la Fundación Wikimedia. Es un equilibrio difícil de lograr entre la flexibilidad que necesita un estatuto y la claridad que necesita una estructura de gobierno, pero es necesario resolver la ambigüedad actual de la carta en estos puntos.
11. Desde Wikimedistas de Uruguay, creemos que la definición de “Valores” necesita mejoras significativas en la redacción de las definiciones. Muchos de estos aspectos ameritan discusiones filosóficas más profundas que no deberían darse en el contexto de esta Carta, cuyo objetivo debería ser la definición operativa de cuestiones de gobernanza del movimiento global. Aunque es importante acordar en valores, creemos que alcanza simplemente con una enumeración dentro de la Carta (el Estatuto de Amnistía Internacional ofrece un buen ejemplo de cómo hacerlo). Sin embargo, a modo de ejemplo, proveemos a continuación una serie de muestras de los problemas de redacción (aclaramos que esta no es una lista taxativa):
    1. La definición de las “personas voluntarias” como unidad mínima del movimiento. Desde Wikimedistas de Uruguay, creemos que son las comunidades (lingüísticas, geográficas, de afinidad) las que definen la identidad del movimiento, pero el énfasis en las “personas voluntarias” profundiza nociones individualistas que llevan a comportamientos tóxicos y poco sanos dentro de las comunidades.
    2. En la definición de “conocimiento libre”, se menciona que “El Movimiento Wikimedia utiliza licencias abiertas”. La “utilización de licencias abiertas” no es un valor ni un principio, es la aplicación de una herramienta con fines a un objetivo. En este caso, la convicción del movimiento Wikimedia es alrededor de los principios filosóficos del conocimiento libre: creemos que cualquier persona tiene derecho a acceder, mejorar, colaborar, construir, compartir, redistribuir y reutilizar el conocimiento con cualquier propósito, para lo cual utilizamos licencias abiertas para el conocimiento que producimos en el marco de nuestro movimiento (entre muchas otras cosas que el movimiento hace para velar por este principio, como promover que otras instituciones usen licencias abiertas; aquí vemos nuevamente la confusión entre lo que se hace en las plataformas Wikimedia y lo que se hace por fuera de ellas, desde los afiliados y/o organizadores del Movimiento). En este sentido, creemos también que es hora de que el movimiento se haga eco de discusiones más recientes en el contexto del movimiento libre y abierto respecto de las limitaciones éticas a los principios del conocimiento libre, como por ejemplo, el respeto al derecho consuetudinario y a la autodeterminación de la soberanía sobre su conocimiento de comunidades y pueblos indígenas. Los deseos de estas comunidades de no publicar ciertos conocimientos y/o informaciones deben ser respetados.
    3. La sección de “resiliencia” no define valores, sino metodologías de trabajo.

Valoramos el trabajo del Comité Redactor, pero creemos que el producto resultante de ese trabajo no está todavía en línea con lo que el movimiento necesita. Sugerimos las siguientes medidas:

• Recientemente, en marzo de 2024, nos enteramos que las personas de América Latina renunciaron en distintas instancias del proceso. En vistas a que el Comité Redactor no contó con la presencia constante de personas de América Latina, esta ausencia debe ser subsanada de manera inmediata y se deben incorporar nuevas personas de América Latina para la redacción definitiva de la Carta del Movimiento.  
• Se debe clarificar el ámbito de aplicación de la Carta.
• El Comité Redactor debe contar con instancias de tallereo con especialistas en redacción que mejoren significativamente la forma y el fondo de este documento, además de la asistencia legal que corresponda.
• El Comité Redactor debe mirar documentos de otras organizaciones que sirvan de base e inspiración para la Carta del Movimiento, procurando aprender de las experiencias acumuladas de organizaciones con más de sesenta años en el movimiento de los derechos humanos y otros movimientos similares.
• Nos preocupa la diversidad actual del Comité Redactor, y encontramos que sería importante abordar los errores conceptuales, de estructura y de redacción que actualmente contiene la Carta. Sugerimos que se evalúe la posibilidad de ampliar y/o revisar la constitución del Comité Redactor actual, para reflejar mejor la diversidad global y las necesidades del movimiento.

Por otra parte, queremos expresar nuestro profundo desacuerdo con la proposición de que la Carta se apruebe por mayoría simple de afiliados y voluntarios. Este documento afecta la vida y gobernanza de los afiliados, y como tal, requiere de una mayoría especial (por lo menos de dos tercios).

Valoramos el esfuerzo que ha hecho el Comité Redactor. Nuestras críticas parten de una coincidencia en la importancia de este proceso para la comunidad. Creemos que debemos seguir trabajando conjuntamente para consolidar el movimiento. Scann (WDU) (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

In English, automated translation
Notes from Wikimedians of Uruguay around the movement's charter Esteemed colleagues, We appreciate the work of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. We understand that many years and complex global circumstances passed since the Charter Drafting Committee was elected in 2019, and agreeing on different drafts and processes has not been an easy task. However, from Wikimedistas de Uruguay, we understand that this process has not produced a good result. We found serious deficiencies in the wording, logic and structure of the Charter, as well as in the wording of values and definitions. Below we list some examples, but we clarify that the list is not exhaustive. There is a constant mix between strategic and operational levels. It is necessary to separate what is the Charter, the Regulations and Other Regulations (such as friendly spaces policies, the Universal Code of Conduct, or similar codes). The Charter should follow a clear logic, containing the following elements: Mission - Vision - Values Organization and governance structure (community, volunteers, affiliates, foundation and decision-making mechanisms). No evidence or documentation is provided to support the proposals related to governance levels. We believe that the Drafting Committee should make an effort to look at the Statutes of other organizations. For example, we suggest reviewing the Statute of Amnesty International or examples of trade union organizations, such as the Trade Union Council of the Americas. The movement needs to learn from similar and/or aligned movements whose accumulated experience can make significant contributions to our movement. Regarding the composition of the GCA and the GCB, first of all, we believe that it starts from a conceptual error regarding the role that organizations and institutional structures play in the movement. We understand the tensions that often exist between professional organizational structures and people who voluntarily donate their time to collaborate on Wikimedia platforms or lead initiatives outside of them, but that tension is not resolved by delegating strategic planning and resource allocation to volunteers. This proposal does not recognize the differentiated but supplementary roles of volunteers, political leadership and executive professionals; it deepens structural inequities, and does not solve the problem of appropriateness and subsidiarity in decision making. Related to the previous point, there is a persistent conflation in the charter between the Wikimedia platforms, the Wikimedia movement, and the organizations that implement the Wikimedia movement's strategy. We believe that the Wikimedia projects will continue to operate under a self-governance mode (under regulations such as the Code of Conduct), regardless of the movement's governance. The work of the movement and its organizations encompasses much more than platforms, and movement governance needs to be able to balance these two priorities. The two levels cannot be addressed and combined in the same Charter. We believe that the composition of the GCA and the GCB does not solve fundamental structural problems nor does it guarantee equity in decision-making. In particular, we consider the following points: It is unclear why there should be a minimum number of 100 and a maximum number of 150 GCA members. As it appears in the documentation, this number is arbitrary. The three-year term of office is unjustified, and demands an excessive commitment from those who want to run for office. There are no clear criteria or affirmative actions to ensure fairness and diversity in the composition of the GCB and the GCA. We believe that, contrary to the current proposal, every active affiliate of the Wikimedia Movement should have a representative on the GCA (the definition of "active affiliate" should be adjusted to the AffCom proposed readjustment criteria). These representations must also ensure that there is a balanced participation by region, prioritizing affiliates that respond to geographic criteria and representation of underrepresented populations. Otherwise, the inequities already existing within the Wikimedia movement will be reproduced and deepened. The representative should be either the executive officers (or the highest appropriate position if the member does not hold such a position), or the chair of the board of directors (or the highest appropriate position in similar voluntary bodies such as advisory councils), or both, with the roles alternating on an annual basis. The affiliate representative should be able to have a delegation at meetings, including the executive leadership, the chair and one other member of the board of directors or the political leadership of the organization, to ensure leadership renewal. The proposition that the BCG can only be composed of people with no relationship of any kind with the affiliate (whether political or executive) is a limitation for strategic planning and execution, which does not guarantee suitability in decision making and only results in a deepening of structural inequalities (only those with a secure livelihood can participate in decision making). In several regions, including Latin America, this would result in us not having the capacity to participate in GCB instances. The proposal that decisions must be approved by absolute majority within the GCA does not contemplate good governance practices (as not all issues are equally important to require an absolute majority), and will severely limit the decision-making capacity of the GCA, ultimately delegating everything to the GCB to execute decisions. Finally, we are seriously concerned that an entire global governance structure is proposed to rest on volunteers, in a context where affiliates and the movement in general are finding it increasingly difficult to fill critical maintenance tasks with volunteers (roles such as stewards, admins, librarians, and others within the platforms; and governance roles such as regional fund committees, among others, that remain vacant for months at a time). We believe that the Movement Charter does not resolve or contain a clear transition plan with respect to the currently existing committees that resolve Wikimedia Movement affiliations (AffCom) and decide on the allocation of resources (the Regional Fund Distribution Committees). From previous experiences, we believe that the percentage of resources on which the GCA and GCB should make decisions should be defined. It is also necessary to define the structure in terms of campaigns, fundraising, technology and resource allocation, in particular, how this structure will be in dialogue with the Wikimedia Foundation. It is a difficult balance to strike between the flexibility that a charter needs and the clarity that a governance structure needs, but the current ambiguity in the charter on these points needs to be resolved. From Wikimedistas de Uruguay, we believe that the definition of "Values" needs significant improvements in the wording of the definitions. Many of these aspects merit deeper philosophical discussions that should not take place in the context of this Charter, whose objective should be the operational definition of governance issues of the global movement. While it is important to agree on values, we believe that a simple enumeration within the Charter is sufficient. However, by way of example, we provide below a number of sample wording problems (we clarify that this is not an exhaustive list): The definition of "volunteer persons" as the minimum unit of the movement. From Wikimedistas de Uruguay, we believe that it is the communities (linguistic, geographic, affinity) that define the identity of the movement, but the emphasis on "volunteer people" deepens individualistic notions that lead to toxic and unhealthy behaviors within the communities.   In the definition of "free knowledge", it is mentioned that "The Wikimedia Movement uses open licenses". The "use of open licenses" is not a value or a principle, it is the application of a purposeful tool to a goal. In this case, the conviction of the Wikimedia movement is around the philosophical principles of free knowledge: we believe that anyone has the right to access, improve, collaborate, build, share, redistribute and reuse knowledge for any purpose, for which we use open licenses for the knowledge we produce in the framework of our movement (among many other things the movement does to ensure this principle, such as promoting other institutions to use open licenses; here we see again the confusion between what is done on Wikimedia platforms and what we affiliates do). In this sense, we also believe that it is time for the movement to echo more recent discussions in the context of the free and open movement regarding ethical limitations to the principles of free knowledge, such as, for example, respect for the customary law and self-determination of sovereignty over the knowledge of communities and indigenous peoples, whose wishes not to publish certain knowledge and/or information should be respected. The "resilience" section does not define values, but rather work methodologies. We value the work of the Drafting Committee, but we believe that the product resulting from that work is not yet in line with what the movement needs. We suggest the following measures: Recently, in March 2024, we learned that people from Latin America resigned at different instances of the process. In view of the fact that the Drafting Committee did not have the constant presence of people from Latin America, this absence should be remedied immediately and new people from Latin America should be incorporated for the final drafting of the Movement's Charter. The scope of application of the Charter must be clarified. The Drafting Committee should have instances of tallereo with specialists in drafting that significantly improve the form and substance of this document, in addition to legal assistance as appropriate. The Drafting Committee should look to documents from other organizations to serve as a basis and inspiration for the Movement's Charter, seeking to learn from the accumulated experiences of organizations with more than sixty years in the human rights movement and other similar movements. We are concerned about the current diversity of the Drafting Committee, and find that it would be important to address the conceptual, structural and drafting errors currently contained in the Charter. We suggest that the possibility of expanding and/or revising the constitution of the current Drafting Committee be evaluated to better reflect the overall diversity and needs of the movement. On the other hand, we wish to express our profound disagreement with the proposal that the Charter be approved by a simple majority of affiliates and volunteers. This document affects the life and governance of the membership, and as such, requires a special majority (at least two-thirds). We appreciate the effort made by the Drafting Committee. Our criticisms stem from a common understanding of the importance of this process for the community. We believe that we must continue to work together to consolidate the movement.

Wikimedia Colombia: Haciendo audible nuestra voz a través de la Carta

Está es una comunicación oficial de Wikimedia Colombia. Desde WMCO reconocemos y agradecemos el trabajo del comité de redacción de la carta del movimiento. Sabemos que es un trabajo de largo aliento en el que se han materializado sus esfuerzos. Sin embargo, desde Wikimedia Colombia traemos una reflexión que nos queda después de leerla, intentar apropiarla y pensarla en nuestro contexto y territorio.

Wikimedia Colombia compartió 3 temas insumos para la Carta del Movimiento Wikimedia:

1. Disparidad de condiciones para la participación, representación y contribución

Desde las actividades y proyectos orientados por el plan estratégico Wikimedia Colombia Crece 2023-2024, hemos documentado aspectos que no permiten que las personas en el contexto colombiano participen en las actividades y proyectos de Wikimedia, creemos que este no es un problema solo de Colombia sino de la región latinoamericana. La participación voluntaria en actividades, proyectos, escenarios de toma de decisiones y gobernanza se ve afectada por las brechas económicas, de tiempo libre, y de acceso a las tecnologías, a la conectividad y a la apropiación. Todo esto impacta en la capacidad organizativa dentro de nuestro movimiento. Desde nuestra experiencia en Colombia, podemos afirmar que los diferentes contextos deben ser tenidos en cuenta para facilitar la participación en los múltiples escenarios de la Carta del movimiento (Consejo Global, Asamblea, comités, entre otros). Las personas voluntarias en Colombia no siempre tienen la posibilidad de participar en las actividades y proyectos de Wikimedia, pues se encuentran en condiciones precarias. Por lo tanto, se debe garantizar un ingreso mínimo, reconocimiento adecuado por el tiempo de dedicación, apoyo para la conectividad y movilidad, además de construcción de capacidades en aspectos políticos y de toma de decisiones dentro del movimiento Wikimedia, para facilitar su participación. Estas actividades pueden realizarse en apoyo a los capítulos, afiliados y organizaciones. Por lo tanto, proponemos que se establezcan mecanismos de reconocimiento monetario diferencial por el tiempo dedicado y los recursos (materiales, cognitivos, sociales) utilizados para la participación en instancias propuestas dentro de la Carta del movimiento, tanto en aquellas de representación como de gobernanza. Esto implica generar estrategias de distribución de esta compensación de acuerdo a las desigualdades diferenciales de las personas que hagan parte. Además vemos la necesidad de desarrollar programas de capacitación para facilitar la participación e involucramiento dentro de las instancias de gobernanza del Movimiento Wikimedia. Estas capacitaciones deben promover la renovación de liderazgos tanto en los contextos locales o dentro de los grupos, como en los espacios amplios de gobernanza al interior del movimiento Wikimedia.

2. Garantizar los valores de diversidad, inclusión y equidad a través de los estatutos del movimiento Wikimedia.

En WMCO no vemos claridad sobre cómo la Carta del movimiento va a garantizar los valores de diversidad, inclusión y equidad, de manera significativa para los grupos y la comunidad del Sur Global. La diversidad está incluida en los valores del movimiento Wikimedia, sin embargo, creemos que debe considerarse más allá de los aspectos lingüísticos y culturales que de por sí implican barreras a la participación. El valor de la inclusión no sólo se centra en el respeto mutuo por la diversidad, sino también en la promoción de entornos y comunidades diversas. Todavía existen múltiples barreras de participación para grupos y personas con identidades étnicas y de género, así como con capacidades diversas. Proponemos que los valores de diversidad, inclusión y equidad sean garantizados a través de mecanismos regulatorios; lo proponemos desde el contexto latinoamericano y particularmente desde Colombia. Se requiere una perspectiva multicultural que reconozca la diversidad de pueblos, relaciones con el territorio, formas de vigencia y construcción de conocimiento, dado que la identidad se constituye de diversas formas de reconocer y expresar la relación con el mundo.

3. Representación significativa y transparencia en la toma de decisiones de manera que se mantenga la libertad y autonomía de cada integrante de los cuerpos del movimiento .

En WMCO identificamos que la Carta del movimiento no propone mecanismos que garanticen una representación significativa que facilite el voluntariado en el contexto latinoamericano. Tampoco queda claro cómo se garantizará la transparencia en la toma de decisiones para que se mantenga la libertad y autonomía de cada grupo y/o capítulo. En un movimiento como el que integramos, creemos que los mecanismos de transparencia contribuirían a la confianza, cooperación e inclusión en la toma de decisiones, aspectos que consideramos fundamentales para que exista legitimidad en cualquier esfuerzo, siempre que se garantice la equidad en la toma de decisiones. Desde el Sur Global, es imperativo abogar por una participación significativa en estos procesos, ya que las regulaciones pueden tener un impacto desproporcionado en las regiones con menor poder adquisitivo y menor infraestructura de acceso. La transparencia no sólo promueve la rendición de cuentas, sino que también permite que se escuchen las voces marginadas, garantizando que las políticas adoptadas aborden las necesidades y realidades de todas las comunidades afectadas. En este sentido, la inclusión de perspectivas del Sur Global, América Latina y Colombia, fortalece la legitimidad de las propuestas y de los procesos de toma de decisiones. Así es como contribuimos a un movimiento Wikimedia global más justo y equitativo. Desde Wikimedia Colombia proponemos que se establezcan formas claras para presentar los criterios sobre cómo se eligen los representantes, se aceptan o no las propuestas y se toman las decisiones. En cuanto a la transparencia, proponemos que se garantice un órgano de control externo en todas las instancias de toma de decisión y un mecanismo que pueda evaluar las decisiones tomadas a la luz de indicadores de impacto en las comunidades, no solo de las métricas del movimiento de ediciones o artículos. Estas a futuro pueden ser un insumo para la toma de nuevas decisiones. En conclusión, proponemos ajustes generales en varias secciones de la carta del movimiento para asegurar que contextos como Colombia, América Latina y el Sur Global sean tomados en cuenta y se asegure su participación. Finalmente, no creemos que estas alternativas que traemos como propuestas sean las únicas formas, podemos pensar colectivamente (como siempre ha ocurrido en el movimiento) en otras alternativas posibles de ser y participar. Esperamos contar con garantías para que desde la comunidad de WMCO podamos participar en escenarios, compartir nuestras perspectivas y que la Carta del Movimiento realmente promueva la equidad en la toma de decisiones. Libardomm (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

English translation by DeepL -- RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Wikimedia Colombia: Making our voice audible through the Charter This is an official communication from Wikimedia Colombia. From WMCO we acknowledge and thank the work of the movement's charter drafting committee. We know that it is a long work in which their efforts have materialized. However, from Wikimedia Colombia we bring a reflection that remains after reading it, trying to appropriate it and think about it in our context and territory. Wikimedia Colombia shared 3 input topics for the Wikimedia Movement Charter: 1. Disparity of conditions for participation, representation and contribution From the activities and projects guided by the strategic plan Wikimedia Colombia Grows 2023-2024, we have documented aspects that do not allow people in the Colombian context to participate in the activities and projects of Wikimedia, we believe that this is not only a problem of Colombia but of the Latin American region. Voluntary participation in activities, projects, decision-making and governance scenarios is affected by economic gaps, free time, and access to technologies, connectivity and appropriation. All of this impacts the organizational capacity within our movement. From our experience in Colombia, we can affirm that the different contexts must be taken into account to facilitate participation in the multiple scenarios of the movement's Charter (Global Council, Assembly, committees, among others). Volunteers in Colombia do not always have the possibility to participate in Wikimedia activities and projects, as they are in precarious conditions. Therefore, a minimum income, adequate recognition for the time of dedication, support for connectivity and mobility, as well as capacity building in political and decision-making aspects within the Wikimedia movement, should be guaranteed to facilitate their participation. These activities can be done in support of chapters, affiliates and organizations. Therefore, we propose the establishment of differential monetary recognition mechanisms for the time dedicated and resources (material, cognitive, social) used for participation in proposed instances within the movement's Charter, both in those of representation and governance. This implies generating strategies for the distribution of this compensation according to the differential inequalities of the people who are part of it. We also see the need to develop training programs to facilitate participation and involvement within the governance bodies of the Wikimedia Movement. These trainings should promote the renewal of leadership both in local contexts or within the groups, as well as in the broad governance spaces within the Wikimedia movement. 2. Guarantee the values of diversity, inclusion and equity through the Wikimedia movement bylaws At WMCO we do not see clarity on how the movement's charter will guarantee the values of diversity, inclusion and equity in a meaningful way for the Global South groups and community. Diversity is included in the values of the Wikimedia movement, however, we believe that it must be considered beyond the linguistic and cultural aspects that in themselves imply barriers to participation. The value of inclusion is not only about mutual respect for diversity, but also about promoting diverse environments and communities. Multiple barriers to participation still exist for groups and individuals with diverse ethnic and gender identities, as well as diverse abilities. We propose that the values of diversity, inclusion and equity be guaranteed through regulatory mechanisms; we propose this from the Latin American context and particularly from Colombia. A multicultural perspective is required that recognizes the diversity of peoples, relationships with the territory, forms of validity and construction of knowledge, given that identity is constituted by diverse ways of recognizing and expressing the relationship with the world. 3. Meaningful representation and transparency in decision making in a way that maintains the freedom and autonomy of each member of the movement's bodies At WMCO we identified that the movement's Charter does not propose mechanisms to guarantee meaningful representation that would facilitate volunteerism in the Latin American context. Nor is it clear how transparency in decision-making will be guaranteed in order to maintain the freedom and autonomy of each group and/or chapter. In a movement such as the one we are part of, we believe that transparency mechanisms would contribute to trust, cooperation and inclusion in decision making, aspects that we consider fundamental for there to be legitimacy in any effort, as long as equity in decision making is guaranteed. From the Global South, it is imperative to advocate for meaningful participation in these processes, as regulations can have a disproportionate impact on regions with less purchasing power and less access infrastructure. Transparency not only promotes accountability, but also allows marginalized voices to be heard, ensuring that policies adopted address the needs and realities of all affected communities. In this sense, the inclusion of perspectives from the Global South, Latin America and Colombia, strengthens the legitimacy of proposals and decision-making processes. This is how we contribute to a more just and equitable global Wikimedia movement. From Wikimedia Colombia we propose to establish clear ways to present the criteria on how representatives are elected, proposals are accepted or not, and decisions are made. Regarding transparency, we propose to guarantee an external control body in all decision-making bodies and a mechanism that can evaluate the decisions made in light of impact indicators in the communities, not only metrics of the movement of edits or articles. In the future, these could be an input for making new decisions. In conclusion, we propose general adjustments to several sections of the movement's charter to ensure that contexts such as Colombia, Latin America and the Global South are taken into account and their participation ensured. Finally, we do not believe that these alternatives that we bring as proposals are the only ways, we can think collectively (as has always happened in the movement) in other possible alternatives of being and participating. We hope to have guarantees that from the WMCO community we can participate in scenarios, share our perspectives and that the Movement's Charter really promotes equity in decision making. Libardomm (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

providing truthful and honest information for an open review process

The following passage can be found in the chapter on Volunteers:

To allow for an open review process of the individual Wikimedia project, Wikimedia communities are responsible for providing truthful and honest information about the project’s state of governance.

What is meant by a an open review process of the individual Wikimedia project? And what is meant by providing truthful and honest information about the project’s state of governance?

Does this mean that Wikimedia projects are regularly reviewed by the Global Council? Or are they reviewed if they are reported to the Global Council? Or in which situations should projects be reviewed? How is it dealt with when, as has happened in the past, criticism of projects in minority languages comes from the major language versions? Some minority languages are suppressed and persecuted in the real world, and it has happened in the past that such projects in such languages have been explicitly criticised from the language versions that form the dominant majority languages in those regions.

And what information must the communities provide during such a review? In which language must this information be provided? Especially in projects in small language communities, there may be hardly anyone with good English language skills.

Best regards. --Holder (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Pareceres de wikimedistas e comunidades presentes na WikiCon Portugal 2024

Comentários resumidos e anonimizados de wikimedistas e comunidades presentes na WikiCon Portugal 2024 (encontro promovido pela Wikimedia Portugal) realizados durante uma conversa coletiva no dia 06/04/2024, na biblioteca de Évora, Portugal. As pessoas presentes agradeceram a oportunidade de poder ler um texto conciso sobre a governança do Movimento Wikimedia (obrigada, MCDC!), e discuti-lo durante um evento comunitário presencial.

Organizações presentes: Wikimedia Portugal, WikiEditorasLx, Mais Teoria da História na Wiki (Brasil), Wikiesfera (Espanha), Ansol, Ubuntu Portugal, Bantumen, Drupal, Creative Commons, D3 Direitos Digitais, Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal.

---

A Carta do Movimento parece descrever o "o quê", porém não elucida o "como". Presentes expressaram dificuldade de acompanhar o desenvolvimento da Carta por não conseguirem conectar o conteúdo da mesma com o seu trabalho on-wiki diário, fazendo com que a visualização do impacto dessas decisões na prática não seja imediata.

Ao não abordar de maneira clara os papéis, responsabilidades e as relações entre as atuais estruturas do ecosistema Wikimedia, o documento deixa espaço para dúvidas sobre a centralização de poder. Sugere-se que essas transições entre o panorama atual de governança do movimento Wikimedia, e aquele futuro, previsto pela Carta, possam ser visualizados de maneira mais imediata, por exemplo através de diagramas visuais que evidenciem as relações entre as partes interessadas. Há consenso sobre como essa falta de claridade sobre os atuais papéis, responsabilidades e relações entre os diferentes organismos (capítulos, grupos de usuários, grupos temáticos, coletivos informais, grupos não afiliados financiados pela WMF, Hubs, etc.) geram sobreposições de atuação e ambientes inseguros (desconfianças). Além disso, com relação ao ecossistema atual, não aparecem representados organismos fundamentais como parceiros GLAM, entidades de software livre, direitos digitais, etc.

Com relação à transição da responsabilidade de distribuição de recursos da WMF para o Conselho Global, levantaram-se questões sobre a capacidade de um órgão totalmente voluntário de gerir um tema tão essencial. Valorizou-se a capacidade das pessoas voluntárias do movimento, mas também foi sinalizado que a carga e a exigência desse trabalho provavelmente requerem profissionalização. Algumas pessoas indicaram preferência pela  profissionalização da própria comunidade voluntária para tal, e outras destacaram que há profissionais de fora do movimento cujas competências e experiências poderiam ser muito úteis para uma realização eficiente deste trabalho (foram apontados como exemplo profissionais de Community Resources que fizeram e fazem esse trabalho junto aos afiliados). Em resumo, como assegurar profissionalismo e um alinhamento dessa gestão de fundos com o valor de equidade proposto pela Estratégia do Movimento? A carta também não elucida a relação entre o reconhecimento de organismos (e o atual sistema de afiliação) e a distribuição de recursos. Somente organismos reconhecidos pelo Conselho Global poderão solicitar fundos? Como seria o financiamento de iniciativas pequenas, ou outras parceiras do ecossistema (ex. GLAM) que não sejam entidades reconhecidas, etc.?

Com relação aos valores (Introdução), houve consenso e preocupação sobre como serão garantidos na prática. A Carta não parece abordar os valores da comunidade de maneira explícita. Nota-se que o documenta tenciona assegurar os valores da comunidade, mas depois os mesmos não estão explícitos. Uma carta constitucional precisaria documentar e reforçar esse valores ditos como compartilhados pela comunidade. Valores estes que frequente não são garantidos, e que ainda estão ausentes em muitos espaços atualmente. A recepção e acolhimento de novas pessoas contribuidoras, atividades essenciais à sustentabilidade do movimento Wikimedia, foram pontos destacados a serem melhor abordados pela carta.  

Com relação à resolução de conflitos, a Carta não esclarece os pontos de contato entre os âmbitos locais e globais de resolução de conflito (ArbComs, U4C) e a nova função do Conselho Global: "Função de resolução de conflitos independente".

Sugestões concretas para facilitar a leitura e compreensão da carta:

• Inserir os objetivos de forma mais evidente: esclarecer logo no ínicio o que a carta é, e o que a carta não é... porque se ela não se propõe a dizer o "como", isso precisa estar dito logo no início.

• Inserir um sumário na introdução dizendo como a carta está estruturada e qual o objetivo/conteúdos de cada seção

• Inserir banners de sumário ("in a nutshell") no topo de cada seção

• Inserir diagramas visuais para sumariar a transformação que a carta propõe: organismos novos criados, quais são modificados ou transformados, e quais responsabilidades passam de umas entidades para outras

• Tal como faz sentido a nota de rodapé 1 ("To be changed to “is created” once established"), uma equivalente é necessária para a parte onde é dito que "The GC will establish a committee to provide..." na secção de Global Council / Functions / Technology Advancement.

Nota: este resumo é um apanhado coletivo de opiniões realizado durante a WikiCon Portugal 2024, mas em nenhum caso representa opiniões definitivas sobre o assunto por parte das pessoas ou organizações presentes.

Em nome da coletividade presente na discussão sobre a Carta do Movimento Wikimedia durante a WikiCon Portugal 2024 -- Contaminadas (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

English translation by DeepL -- RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Opinions of wikimedians and communities present at WikiCon Portugal 2024 Summarized and anonymized comments from wikimedians and communities present at WikiCon Portugal 2024 (a meeting promoted by Wikimedia Portugal) during a collective conversation on 06/04/2024, at the library in Évora, Portugal. Those present were grateful for the opportunity to be able to read a concise text on the governance of the Wikimedia Movement (thank you, MCDC!), and discuss it during a face-to-face community event. Organizations present: Wikimedia Portugal, WikiEditorasLx, Mais Teoria da História na Wiki (Brasil), Wikiesfera (Espanha), Ansol, Ubuntu Portugal, Bantumen, Drupal, Creative Commons, D3 Direitos Digitais, Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal. --- The Movement's Charter seems to describe the "what", but does not elucidate the "how". Those present expressed difficulty in following the development of the Charter because they were unable to connect its content with their daily on-wiki work, making it difficult to see the impact of these decisions in practice. By not clearly addressing the roles, responsibilities and relationships between the current structures of the Wikimedia ecosystem, the document leaves room for doubt about the centralization of power. It is suggested that these transitions between the current governance landscape of the Wikimedia movement, and the future one envisioned by the Charter, can be visualized in a more immediate way, for example through visual diagrams that highlight the relationships between stakeholders. There is consensus on how this lack of clarity about the current roles, responsibilities and relationships between the different bodies (chapters, user groups, thematic groups, informal collectives, non-affiliated groups funded by the WMF, Hubs, etc.) generates overlaps in action and insecure environments (mistrust). In addition, with regard to the current ecosystem, key bodies such as GLAM partners, free software organizations, digital rights, etc. are not represented. With regard to the transition of responsibility for the distribution of resources from the WMF to the Global Council, questions were raised about the capacity of an entirely voluntary body to manage such an essential issue. The capacity of the movement's volunteers was valued, but it was also pointed out that the burden and demands of this work would probably require professionalization. Some people indicated a preference for professionalizing the volunteer community itself to do this, and others pointed out that there are professionals from outside the movement whose skills and experience could be very useful for carrying out this work efficiently (Community Resources professionals who have done and are doing this work with affiliates were mentioned as an example). In short, how can we ensure that this management of funds is professional and aligned with the value of equity proposed by the Movement's Strategy? The letter also fails to clarify the relationship between the recognition of organizations (and the current membership system) and the distribution of resources. Will only bodies recognized by the Global Council be able to apply for funds? What would funding look like for small initiatives, or other ecosystem partners (e.g. GLAM) that are not recognized bodies, etc.? Regarding the values (Introduction), there was consensus and concern about how they will be guaranteed in practice. The Charter does not seem to explicitly address the community's values. It can be seen that the document intends to guarantee the community's values, but then they are not explicitly stated. A constitutional charter would need to document and reinforce these values that are said to be shared by the community. These values are often not guaranteed and are still absent in many spaces today. The reception and welcoming of new contributors, activities that are essential to the sustainability of the Wikimedia movement, were highlighted points to be better addressed by the charter. With regard to conflict resolution, the Charter does not clarify the points of contact between the local and global conflict resolution spheres (ArbComs, U4C) and the new function of the Global Council: "Independent conflict resolution function". Concrete suggestions to make the charter easier to read and understand: Insert the objectives more clearly: make it clear right at the start what the letter is about, and what it isn't about... because if it doesn't set out to say the "how", that needs to be said right at the start. Insert a summary in the introduction saying how the letter is structured and what the aim/contents of each section are. Insert summary banners ("in a nutshell") at the top of each section Insert visual diagrams to summarize the transformation that the charter proposes: new bodies created, which are modified or transformed, and which responsibilities pass from one entity to another. Just as footnote 1 makes sense ("To be changed to "is created" once established"), an equivalent is needed for the part where it says that "The GC will establish a committee to provide..." in the Global Council / Functions / Technology Advancement section. Note: this summary is a collective collection of opinions held during WikiCon Portugal 2024, but in no way represents definitive opinions on the subject by the people or organizations present. On behalf of the collective present at the discussion on the Wikimedia Movement Charter during WikiCon Portugal 2024 -- Contaminadas (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Olá, vielen Dank für Eure Diskussion und Deinen Beitrag. Ich möchte Dir antworten und empfehle: Mission Statement. Free Knowlegde by Cooperation --Edward Steintain (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedbacks from Schiste

General Feedback on the process

The process was neither inclusive nor open. If I do support the need for small groups work to tackle complex topics, this should be balanced by openness and rooms for discussions. Here, most of the work, and the discussion happened behind closed doors.

After a quite open and inclusive Strategy Process this feels like a set back.

“The Wikimedia Movement is committed to provide a diverse common space, where everyone who shares in the mission and values can participate and co-create with others under a people-centered vision.” we failed to support that value in the very process defining that value.

And now, we are going to have to vote for the whole charter at once. Given the time the MCDC took to create that draft, opposing it would destroy any governance evolution for the coming times. This makes it feel like being strong armed in either supporting this text or opposing change. And having a charter that doesn’t change power dynamics

To make things worse, the Charter leaves so much room of interpretation that, given the current pace, deciding on how to implement the GC will take at least a couple of years.

For something that should have been serving a 2030 vision, it feels a bit late.

I feel very uneasy about the situation.

General Charter Feedback

This charter does not change the power dynamics in the movement. Since last year's draft, the main issue persists: all decision-making power still resides with the Foundation. This charter consolidates past and current 'consulting' roles under a shared roof; however, even as part of a Global Council, they remain consulting roles.

In terms of dynamics, little changes; the center of power remains the same. Whereas today any failures of these consulting bodies are the responsibility of the Foundation, in the new structure, they would fall to the Global Council.

The decision to avoid legal incorporation simplifies its creation but also signifies a lack of commitment and power transfer. It exists solely at the discretion of the Foundation. If needed for fiduciary reasons, the Foundation can easily reassume control.

This is creating a structure with responsibility but no authority.

Global Council Feedback

Functions

Strategic Planning

This part is missing an abiding part. “All Wikimedia Bodies are expected to support, foster and deliver against that Strategy as defined by the Global Council.

The Strategy works as a Statement of Work for all other matters, including Funds Allocations across the movement”.

To make it clearer what’s the purpose of that function

Administration of Wikimedia Movement Organizations and Communities

This section would require some clarification as it relies on a lot of un defined concepts: proper standards : what are proper standards ? equitable empowerment of communities : what is considered Equitable? Here I would mention the Strategy actually, cf supra The trademark licensing and contractual agreement components related to this process remains a responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation: Setting that in a Movement Charter is odd to me. The charter doesn’t detail all ownership of the Foundation but this one. I would remove that sentence, ownership of anything, including a brand, isn’t defined by a charter. If we are to mention Trademarks here it should be as a mention of the recognition/derecognition. “Ultimately the trademark owner can decided to remove rights of use to any organization.” organizational standards: What are they? harmonious relationships: what is harmonious? I would be mindful of that word, to me, as non english speaker, it reads as if any dissent would be banned. In a corporate world I would have ssaid “respectful working environment”.

Technology Advancement

This section is underdeveloped. As is there is no Role associated to the committee? Offering insights read as listening to the tech community will now be under the purview of the GC and not of the Foundation.

This feels as a road to failure, first because the most involved tech people in our movement are by design people paid by the movement mostly. Very few volunteers can spend more time on the projects than paid volunteers. Second, because it widens a disconnect between Product teams and Communities. Third, because any modern Product team will, whatever the structures in place, seek to interview end users (readers, editors, admins, etc…) to directly gather feedback.

There are many options where a Technology committee under the purview of the Global Council makes sense, but it really feels it requires more work than what is in the current section.

Resource Distribution=

As above, “equitable distribution” needs to be defined. I would recommend “equitable distribution against the Strategy acted by the Global Council”.

As with the trademarks, it feels odd to have something that specifically ties the GC to the Foundation. If the GC receives a 10M€ Grant from another organisation, why should that money be used only under the purview of the Foundation. I would remove “Additionally, the GC is responsible for grantmaking to the communities and Movement Organizations, based on the allocated budget. This responsibility comes from the delegation of authority from the Wikimedia Foundation to the Global Council to be in charge of the role of distributing resources within the Wikimedia Movement.”. And transform it as “All Wikimedia Foundation grantmaking activities to the communities and Movement Organizations can be delegated to the Global Council.” Shorter, simpler, and avoids any undue generalisation. I also switched to “can be” to leave room for the Foundation not to delegate. There could be situations were having that room for work would be beneficial.

Structure

greater good: as a non native english speaker I would avoid such terms. They are actually not inclusive as, at the moment, the greater good (editorship and readership wise) would be to support the English editing communities.

I would suggest changing: “The Global Council is a forum where various perspectives can come together for the greater good, and it functions as a complementary body to the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Movement Organizations.” to “The Global Council serves as a collaborative platform that brings together diverse viewpoints for the betterment of the Wikimedia community. It operates alongside the Wikimedia Foundation and other Wikimedia organizations, aiming to foster a more inclusive and effective environment for all stakeholders involved.”

Global Council Assembly

“All decisions shall be made by an absolute majority of the votes cast. If the votes are tied on matters, the proposal is rejected.” I would recommend changing that and give someone the ability to strike a decision. If this happens on a critical topic, like budgeting, it would freeze the organisation for months. In most organisations, the Chair would have the power to make the decision in a situation of a tie. I highly highly recommend to set up a similar system. In this case, I’d recommend the following :”All decisions shall be made by an absolute majority of the votes cast. If the votes are tied on matters, the proposal is to be voted by the Glocal Council Board.”

“A resolution may also be adopted outside of a meeting with the written approval of a majority of all GC members entitled to vote, and shall have the same force as a resolution of the General Assembly meeting, provided it has been passed with the prior knowledge of the board.” As other points, I would remove that altogether OR expand it drastically. This is a very operational thing that will be set up as part of the GC. There are a lot of potential mechanisms to set that up, and this is either too precise or not enough. I would recommend changing that part as follow: An Extraordinary Global Council Assembly can be called up at the request of one third of all GC members entitled to vote alongside with a clear a predefined agenda and resolutions proposals.”

Global Council Board

I would recommend removing the “and from” from this sentence “The GCB is selected, elected or appointed by and from the GCA members following the process laid out in the Global Council Membership policy. The GCB is composed of at least 5 and at most 15 members.”. The GCA could decide to appoint external members from the GCA.

I would recommend changing “Drafting the initial Wikimedia Movement strategic plan, subject to approval by the GCA, as part of its strategic planning function,” into “ensuring the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan is created, discussed, updated and maintained”. First to remove the “drafting” and opening up the drafting part outside the GCB and to make that duty go beyond the initial step.

Absence of Global Council Board structure

There is no definiton of the GCB internal structure. I would guess that is left to be done at a later stage, but I would recommend to define basic roles and responsibilities early on to be coherent with the level of details of other topics.

Support Structure

This section doesn’t include any commitment from the Foundation in terms of support. In order to create an environment that meets the need and has some stability I would recommend to evaluate a ration staff / Money. I’m not knowledgeable enough on that topic to make a clear recommandation, but x ETP per $xK at a minimum.

To ensure that the GC doesn’t ever ends up in a situation of not having the ressources required to manage the grants they have to manage.

Wikimedia Foundation

This section describes the current responsibilities of the Wikimedia Foundation, the level of responsibility remains the same, only operational management and informational roles are delegated to the Global Council. schiste (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikiesfera: Comentarios sobre la Carta y el Consejo

Español

Para expresar nuestro posicionamiento y preocupaciones sobre la Carta del Movimiento y el Consejo global, desde Wikiesfera destacamos los siguientes puntos:

1. Confusión entre estrategia y operación: La falta de distinción clara entre los niveles estratégicos y operativos puede llevar a ineficiencias y sobrecarga en las personas voluntarias, que no deberían gestionar la planificación estratégica ni la asignación de recursos.
2. Estructuras de gobernanza voluntaria: Es preocupante que se proponga una estructura de gobernanza global que dependa completamente del voluntariado, en un contexto donde ya es difícil cubrir tareas críticas cuando no se dispone de personal (staff).
3. Transición de comités: La Carta del Movimiento carece de un plan claro para la transición de los comités existentes que manejan afiliaciones y la asignación de recursos, lo que podría llevar a discontinuidades en la gestión.
4. Rol de las comunidades: Creemos que las comunidades deberían definir la identidad del movimiento. La dependencia en personas voluntarias y el utilizarlas como unidad de análisis en lugar de las existentes agrupaciones de personas voluntarias fomenta el individualismo y puede generar toxicidad en las comunidades.
5. Valor de las licencias abiertas: Deben ser vistas como herramientas para alcanzar los objetivos del conocimiento libre, no como un fin en sí mismas.
6. Apoyo al voluntariado: Debe garantizarse un soporte adecuado para las personas voluntarias, incluyendo compensaciones por tiempo dedicado y recursos utilizados, además de capacitación en habilidades políticas y de toma de decisiones. No podemos seguir promoviendo la precariedad y el extractivismo que únicamente consigue que sea la gente privilegiada la que pueda participar en el Movimiento de forma continuada.
7. Derechos y beneficios para los afiliados: Es crucial señalar que la documentación actual especifica los deberes y obligaciones de los afiliados pero no detalla claramente sus derechos ni los beneficios de formar parte del Movimiento Wikimedia. Es importante clarificar y comunicar las ventajas de unirse a una iniciativa internacional de esta magnitud, destacando cómo puede enriquecer las experiencias locales, proporcionar recursos valiosos y mejorar la visibilidad global de los proyectos de los afiliados.
8. Preguntas sobre el Consejo global: Necesitamos claridad sobre los objetivos del Consejo global, los problemas que resolverá y cómo sus decisiones serán responsables ante los demás grupos.
9. Requisitos de aprobación: Proponemos que cualquier documento representativo requiera al menos un 66% de apoyo para su aprobación, asegurando un mayor consenso dentro de la comunidad.
10. Disposición legal del Consejo global: Es crítico definir la naturaleza legal del Consejo global para garantizar que sus decisiones sean efectivas y coordinadas con la Wikimedia Foundation. Es difícil concebir que el Consejo global no tenga naturaleza jurídica.
11. Resolución de conflictos: Es esencial definir claramente quién y cómo se gestionarán los conflictos dentro del Movimiento Wikimedia. Debe establecerse un sistema de resolución de disputas que sea justo, transparente y accesible, y del que no puedan estar exentos grupos o proyectos privilegiados. Este sistema debería incluir mecanismos para manejar desencuentros tanto a nivel local como global, garantizando que todas las partes tengan la oportunidad de ser escuchadas y que las resoluciones se basen en principios de equidad y justicia, y que se aplique necesariamente la perspectiva de género.
12. Sobrecarga de responsabilidades del Consejo global: Es preocupante que el Consejo global esté diseñado para asumir múltiples responsabilidades complejas simultáneamente, como estrategia, gestión de subvenciones, y coordinación de más de 100 miembros, sin haber definido claramente las estructuras necesarias para su funcionamiento efectivo. Esta falta de definición puede llevar a ineficiencias y sobrecarga de trabajo, lo cual podría comprometer la efectividad del consejo en cumplir sus objetivos y responsabilidades clave. Es esencial establecer y clarificar estas estructuras antes de asignar tan amplio espectro de tareas.
13. Mujeres en el Consejo global: Es crucial destacar que la presencia de mujeres en el Consejo global no debe ser vista simplemente como un tema de diversidad, porque no lo es. Las mujeres no son diversidad. Las mujeres constituyen más de la mitad de la población mundial, y su representación adecuada es esencial para reflejar la realidad demográfica y asegurar la equidad en la toma de decisiones.

English

To articulate our position and concerns regarding the Movement Charter and the Global Council at Wikiesfera, we wish to highlight the following points:

1. Strategic and Operational Confusion: The lack of clear distinction between strategic and operational levels can lead to inefficiencies and overburden volunteers, who should not manage strategic planning or resource allocation.
2. Volunteer Governance Structures: It is concerning to propose a global governance structure entirely dependent on volunteers, especially when it's challenging to cover critical tasks without staff.
3. Committee Transition: The Movement Charter lacks a clear plan for transitioning existing committees that handle affiliations and resource allocation, potentially leading to management discontinuities.
4. Role of Communities: Communities should define the movement's identity. Relying on individual volunteers rather than existing volunteer groups fosters individualism and can generate toxicity within communities.
5. Value of Open Licenses: These should be viewed as tools to achieve the goals of free knowledge, not as ends in themselves.
6. Support for Volunteers: Adequate support must be guaranteed for volunteers, including compensation for time and resources used, and training in political skills and decision-making to avoid promoting precarious conditions and extractivism that only allows privileged individuals to participate continuously in the Movement.
7. Rights and Benefits for Affiliates: It is crucial to state that current documentation specifies the duties and obligations of affiliates but does not clearly detail their rights or the benefits of being part of the Wikimedia Movement. Clarifying and communicating the advantages of joining such an international initiative is important.
8. Global Council Concerns: We need clarity on the goals of the Global Council, the problems it will solve, and how its decisions will be accountable to other groups.
9. Approval Requirements: We propose that any representative document requires at least 66% support for approval to ensure greater community consensus.
10. Legal Status of the Global Council: Defining the legal nature of the Global Council is critical to ensure its decisions are effective and coordinated with the Wikimedia Foundation. It is difficult to conceive that the Global Council would not have legal status.
11. Conflict Resolution: Clearly defining who will manage conflicts within the Wikimedia Movement is essential. A fair, transparent, and accessible dispute resolution system must be established, and it must include mechanisms to manage disagreements at both local and global levels, ensuring all parties have the opportunity to be heard and that resolutions are based on principles of equity and justice, and gender perspective is also applied.
12. Overload of Responsibilities at the Global Council: It is concerning that the Global Council is designed to simultaneously handle multiple complex responsibilities, such as strategy, grant management, and coordination of over 100 members, without clearly defined structures. This lack of definition can lead to inefficiencies and work overload, potentially compromising the council's effectiveness in fulfilling its key objectives and responsibilities.
13. Women in the Global Council: It is crucial to emphasize that the presence of women in the Global Council should not be viewed merely as a diversity issue. Women are not diversity. Women make up more than half of the world's population, and their proper representation is essential to reflect demographic reality and ensure equity in decision-making.

En nombre de Wikiesfera/on behalf of Wikiesfera, PatriHorrillo (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

NDEC WERT: feedback on the current draft (April 2024)

Many of our concerns have been addressed in the feedback provided by other individuals and organizations above. We'd like to highlight a few additional points.

1. The new charter appears to depict a new highly glorified bureaucracy, which volunteer contributors typically do not favor. Introducing a more complex bureaucracy may serve to widen the gap between volunteer contributors and the bureaucratic structure, rather than addressing any real-life problems that exist. Rather than introducing new structures, we propose restructuring existing governance entities while considering the current systemic flaws. Implementing entirely new experiments could have adverse effects, potentially disrupting processes, and facing resistance from the community due to sudden changes.
2. The nature of providing volunteer service to on-wiki projects and any movement committee or group differs significantly. Local on-wiki contributions are not time-bound and typically require less commitment, and subject matter expertise, and offer a higher degree of freedom compared to any committee role. Our current movement committees and working group members are already burnt out, and unable to cover a significant portion of their intended work. Furthermore, a few committees like the Leadership Development Working Group have been dissolved, showing budget cut issues. The charter introduces a volunteer congregation involving several hundred participants and an unspecified number of other committees. Additionally, terms have been set at 3 years without proper justification. We are concerned about whether we can secure the unprecedented level of free volunteer hours needed to sustain such a bureaucracy. Volunteer hours should not be taken for granted, and efforts should be made to minimize distractions so that contributors can focus on the main goal: building the sum of all human knowledge.
3. It's entirely impossible for a large volunteer group like the global council and its committees to operate without any professional community support. The Wikimedia Foundation recently dissolved several teams, including the education team and the movement strategy and governance team, among others, as part of a mass layoff due to budget cuts. These two teams were the most supportive for ECWOs like ours. If the foundation is indeed facing a revenue decline, it's not a realistic idea to provide professional support to the global council and its functions at such a large scale.
4. When Initiative 24 was integrated into MS2030, the charter was expected to codify the existing movement governance. The current draft of the charter presents a completely different governance structure that disregards existing entities such as AffCom, regional grants committees, or WMF T&S. The transformation process is unclear, and the intended timeline is not specified. Significant, sudden, and ambiguous changes across various major Wikimedia areas could potentially disrupt the relevant processes.
5. The Global Council needs to consult an already existing Movement Organization when there are proposals for new Movement Organizations in the same area of operation (theme or region) as well as on issues regarding the movement’s structure and governance ... ... Composition and governance of a Wikimedia Movement Organization is open for the body itself to decide, depending on the context and needs within which it operates.

   These sentences formalize the current unwritten policy of permitting only one affiliate to operate in a specific geographic or thematic area to prevent conflict. The affiliate holds sole control over its governance decisions. Additionally, affiliates are the only recognized organizations in the "Wikimedia Movement Organizations" section, establishing them as the ultimate authority in their respective geographic and thematic contexts. This approach contradicts the movement's principles of decentralization, accountability, and inclusivity and limits the opportunities for other organizations and groups to thrive. It also makes the movement vulnerable to systemic faults within the affiliate structure.

   We strongly suggest including other diverse types of Wikimedia organizations instead of centering decision-making power in the affiliate structure. Types of Wikimedia Organizations are not as straightforward as depicted in the current "Wikimedia Movement Organizations" section.

6. We are requesting a very specific detail of how GC is going to handle the grant distribution process if it assumes responsibility. We arranged MC feedback meeting under MC ambassador program in 2022 without any grant support since WMF isn't able to distribute grants in Bangladesh. We raised this concern during the WMF annual planning meeting in 2022 and asked the CEO as well as the concerned officers for specific plans to resolve the issue. Unfortunately, the Foundation was unable to provide a satisfactory answer, leaving the grant distribution problem unresolved to date. We need a detailed roadmap outlining how GC will rectify the disparity in resource distribution if it takes charge.

We also wish to highlight our movement charter ambassador program 2022 report. Despite our efforts in organizing the conversation as high school students without financial support from the foundation, a significant portion of this report, particularly the feedback on "Roles and Responsibilities," has not been taken into consideration, we didn't receive any response either. We have included this concern regarding the concentration of power in the affiliate structure again in this feedback. We expect our volunteer contributions, along with the time and effort invested in them, to be valued.

Ifteebd10 (talk),

Director of Legal and Advocacy, NDEC WERT

Hello @Ifteebd10: thank you for this insightful and exceedingly clear list of points. I agree with all of your comments and analogies, and appreciate your recollecting the origins of initiative 24 and the importance of supporting a wider range of organizations. –SJ talk  14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

section break comments

@Ifteebd10, i totally agree with all of your points above. i would like to help in your efforts in any way possible. could you please communicate with me, on my talk page? or alternaelty on yours? here is my main talk page, on english wikipedia: en:user:sm8900

thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Will the Charter have legally binding power and if so, for whom - how does it relate to WMF, Terms of Use, Universal Code of Conduct and UCoC Enforcement guidelines?

Updated 25-04-2024 | The underlying juridical structure of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects has been set up by the Wikimedia Foundation in the "Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use" to which every single user has the obligation to agree upon. With the "Universal Code of Conduct" and accompanying "Enforcement guidelines" a minimum standard has been established for social interaction while working on all Wikimedia Foundation projects or spaces and that of affiliates. Every single new user has to agree to these rulings and guidelines before starting to interact or contribute. That is a civil contract and when one doesn't follow the agreements, a local team of volunteering 'policing officers' may act, based on rights handed out by the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation, a not for profit corporation, has the last say, this all is based on US civil law. That looks like a pretty clear legal lay-out to me.

As far as the Wikimedia Movement, the Movement Charter and the Global Council are concerned however, a row of questions jump into the mind of someone educated and experienced in continental civil, public and notarial law. As feedback of legal topics that could be worked out and cleared, or be explained more clearly to users in the overall communication and in the introduction ('Preamble') of the Charter, here a summary of problems, legal unclearities and bottle-necks identified:

• how will the Wikimedia Movement be related to the Wikimedia Foundation, which untill now is the principal legal entity and governing and operational body for all WM projects? The Wikimedia Foundation and Global Council will become the highest governing bodies is being stated in the Charter, does that mean the WMF did agree to transfer all its rights and obligations to a new legal entity with the name Wikimedia Movement?
• when the Wikimedia Movement will become a new independent legal entity, will it be integrated under the WMF umbrella or will it have legal independence?
• how will the Wikimedia Movement juridically be 'attached' to the Movement Charter and/or vice versa?
• one sentence says: "All volunteers must follow Wikimedia and project policies while contributing."
  • what is precisely being meant by Wikimedia policies - this should be defined more clearly, for instance: all rules, regulations and guidelines being approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (or the new lawmaking body), after consulting the community and having assured a clear majority of the community does agree;
  • what is exactly being meant by project policies? Are these separate policies being enacted for a separate project like Wikipedia, Wikidata, Commons etc.; what entities have the right to enact them and how do they come into force?
  • what entities are to be considered to have the competence of enacting and changing the different kind and levels of rules, regulations and guidelines? Will these entities be chosen, can they be hold accountable for their deeds and by whom?
• will there be formal rules or regulations for project policies and local policies to be considered a policy that has the 'force of law'?
• how do rules, regulations and guidelines of local communities relate to the project policies and Wikimedia policies? Will there be an instance that checks whether existing and new local rules are in line with rulings that hierarchically are on a higher level and do users have the right to ask for their nullification when they believe on substantial grounds they are not?
• will local communities have the authority to write rules for the enforcement of 'their own' policies and what will be the process of 'lawmaking'?
• will the 28 official policies and 35 semi-policies that did exist on the English language Wikipedia in 2005, being summarized under the name Five Pillars by user @Neutrality as New simple policy page, become offical part of global Wikimedia project rules for Wikipedia?
• how will the Terms of Use, the Universal Code of Conduct and the UCoC Enforcement guidelines relate to the Wikimedia Movement, the Movement Chapter, the Global Council and vice versa?
• how will people like me - an average contributor, relate to the Wikimedia Movement, its guidelines, regulations and rules and/or to the Global Council?
• how will the four bundles of guidelines, rfegulations and rules (ToU, UCoC, UCoCEg, MC) legally interact among each other, how will they be enforced and will users that have been 'accused' of something, have a minimum set of rights and obigations in the field of defending themselves, called 'rechtsbescherming' (judicial protection) in Dutch legal language?
• will contributors (users) legally be de-attached from the WMF and being newly attached to the Wikimedia Movement and/or the Movement Charter? For instance by having to log out, and log in again, this time being allowed to 'enter' after having agreed to all new rulings, being set up by their new contracting partner the Wikimedia Movement?
• who will be responsible for teaching users on the topics, for reporting behaviour that seems to show shortcomings in relation to the agreements made, for 'policing', 'prosecution', 'judging' and 'appeal' - what kind of persons will be functioning in that kind of roles and what guidelines and rules do they have to follow?
• should the Movement Charter be seen as a kind of 'constitutional charter' with legal validity for all users, contributors, communitymembers, the WMF, WMF employees, third parties etc.?
• will the Movement Charter bring a change in the underlaying legal structure of WMF and users in a way that there will be a transformation from one not for profit corporation that untill now is the only 'lawmaker' for all users, into an association with the users (volunteers) being members, with a form of co-determination and/or consultation?
• how do the many different interest groups, like the WMF, WMF employees, funding organisations, money spending privates, users, editors, admins, third parties et all relay to the Wikimedia Movement, the Global Council, the Movement Charter and enforcement of its rules, regulations, guidelines or agreements?
• will there be a global minimum standard for (local) schemes of enforcement and for judicial protection of the users who are subject to enforcement?
• last but not least: footnote 3 writes that decisions will be made by ""those who show up" to help make a decision, whether changing content or a policy." And under Responsibilities is being written that "Anyone who (...) has sufficient time (...) should be allowed, and encouraged, to participate." Is this the only 'formal' rule for making decisions with 'force of law' and for being allowed to bear responsibilties? The Global Council will be composed of volunteers, supported by staff. These provisions would among others mean, that fulltime volunteers and contributors will have a much bigger power to influence content and policies than not fulltime editors have. With the result that people who are actively working in jobs or other volunteer projects, or many of the women, will have less time to contribute or take part in governing and will be strongly underrepresented in decision making and governing. Women are handling children, taking care of family members, neighbours and household, while their husbands are sitting behind computers making decisions and policies? Sounds somewhat unbalanced and outdated to me and probably might not be considered a solid base for closing the gendergap.

In case the Movement Charter will not have legally binding powers, the friendly suggestion is not let it bear the name Charter. Suggestion for an alternative is: Declaration. In case it is being meant to do have legally binding powers, the name 'Charter' historically in general is being reserved for a set of rules that in one way or another does give basical rights to the group being ruled over (here mainly the volunteers), and do impose basical obligations on entities with ruling, governing, judging and executive powers (WMF or Global Council). Is that a direction the Charter will be moving to? Thanks for your attention, happy spring greetings, VanArtevelde (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Accountability (for what)

There is a danger to free knowledge if the various Wikimedia offline communities are to be held "accountable" for online content. One of the greatest strengths of the various online wikis is that the individual who makes the edits is responsible for his or her edits. Widening such a responsibility to offline communities can only damage the aims of wikimedia, since it gives an opening to governments hostile to any content to prosecute the (members of the) offline community, and must surely act as a disincentive for persons to be members of such a community and as a disincentive to editing in the area where such prosecutions may take place. MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The topic @MargaretRDonald brings to the table is also one of my concerns. Where she seems to exclude the main rule that all volunteers are accountable for their contributions to the Wikimedia projects and responsible for their individual actions, I see that (from a legal perspective) as something that should be included as part of the problem identified. One of the solutions might be that the WMF accepts a legally binding role in protecting good faith users, editors and contributors. But that can turn out to become a (way too) heavy burden for the WMF and for having to act up in politically loaded situations. When however the WMF is striving to transform from a not for profit corporation to being part of a global movement, maybe even a kind of NGO, this could be one of the consequences whished. But this will need a load of (legal, sociatal and political) thinking and a load of reorganising.

A less far-reaching solution could be that the WMF will offer editors a cheap insurance against legal claims, but that won't help contributors living in non-democratic, non rule-of-law environments. Or the WMF agrees that editors with a proven record of good-faith, can be allowed to work from TOR when editing. Maybe Wikimedia even can set up it's own TOR for them? In general the Wikimedia communication with regards to safe Wikimedia spaces online and offline should become more differentiated when it comes to communitymembers operating in non democratic environments, or environments where they are being oppressed with violence. Because the Wikimedia Foundation is not able to offer them a truely safe space - meaning for instance that WMF diplomats wil travel to a certain place to defend contributors who have been oppressed for their work on a Wikimedia project. In this respect maybe the people drafting these kind of rules and communication, could try more to also write for people living in different social environment than the US or the EU. Much more clearly should be explained, how vulnerable they will become by showing up at a Wikimedia event in their country. All best, VanArtevelde (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Global Majority Wikimedia Technology Priorities

I am writing to bring to the attention of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee and the group following discussions on the Movement Charter a recently released document called Global Majority Wikimedia Technology Priorities. Points this document makes are relevant for the Movement Charter.

This document lists ten priority points for the Wikimedia technological infrastructure and its associated challenges through the perspectives of the Global Majority communities. It was developed as a year-long collective investigation with Global Majority movement organizations with tech capacity. The Global Majority Wikimedia Technology Priorities document is opened for support signature.

A point is made about the Technology Council that I bring specifically to the attention of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee and others. In general, I kindly request that the perspective of this document is taken into consideration to the Movement Charter revision. -- JPeschanski (WMB) (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@JPeschanski (WMB) Thank you for sharing the link to this page. Are there any specific proposals for improvement for the current MC draft you propose with this document in hand, or would you simply like the MCDC to take these additional views into consideration with our next re-draft? Ciell (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Summary of findings in the Nigeria & Ghana Movement Charter Conversation

The online community conversation in the West African Region was implemented by 2 Wikimedia communities (Nigeria and Ghana) The community conversation was held in 3 different conversation sessions - the launch session with the support of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee member held on 3rd April 2024. The second call was held in the Nigeria community on 8th April 2024 and the final Feedback session was held on the 13th April 2024. During the launch, members of the 2 communities were educated more about Movement Strategy, Movement Charter: what and why, Historic Effort and Overview of the Movement Charter draft which later opened the floor for Q&A sessions. During the Q&A sessions, various questions and concerns were brought to the fore - questions were more focused on the Global Council, eligibility, number of seats, number of tenures and so many other questions. Ciell gave a clear and detailed response to these questions. Also, to bring it closer to the grassroots, a community conversation in the 2 Wikimedia communities was proposed. During the Nigeria Community conversation, participants were given a thorough and well-detailed explanation with regard to the Movement Charter document in its entirety. The various segments of the document were well explained to their level of understanding using various terms that helped give more insights into the document's content. Finally, the Feedback session saw to the throwing of questions at the participants from the 2 Wikimedia communities and inviting them to respond and share their feedback about their understanding and thoughts about the topic of the conversation. The questions were tailored according to the suggested templates. Responses were collated using the Jamboard, Google Form and Meeting Chat box. All these resources can be accessed on the Ghana and Nigeria Movement Charter conversation Meta page

In conclusion, it is observed that due to the ever-evolving and open membership of our different communities, quite a good number of the participants have little/no knowledge of the Movement Strategy and Movement Charter. Some thought that the governance and sharing of opinion in the Movement was mainly for the big heads. However, thanks to the various sessions held, many of our community members have been well-informed about the equitable distribution in the decision-making of the Wikimedia community. So many are already on the lookout for the call to join/apply for the Global Council membership. Iwuala Lucy (talk) 04:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Recommend clarifications to hub "revenue generation" section

I recommend to replace this block:

Hubs can engage in revenue generation. If the Hub decides to do so, it should be aware that it also carries legal responsibilities and must understand what these imply within its country.

by this sentence, for reasons started below.

Hubs may potentially bring in revenue from grants, memberships, donations, sales, investments, interest, or contracts (work for hire).

Why the change? (1) Sentence two of the original is not necessary; the requirement to follow laws is implicit in other requirements. A hub may also not be "within [a] country." (2) A simple list of what is meant by revenue generation clarifies the topic and moves it forward quickly. Over time the movement will hopefully have lists of examples of past revenue-generating activities and practices, and appropriate constraints on them. They are all subject to various dangers, e.g. conflicts-of-interest, unclear accounting, so we will perhaps develop common approaches to ethics and auditing. I think the core statement to be made here is simply that these classes of activity are potentially allowed. -- econterms (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

who in the world...

will volunteer to be a part of a 100-person quasi-governance body? Who will want to spend their free time drafting a candidate statement, answering questions, participating in complicated meetings, canvasing their communities, drafting and reading statements, etc etc? That's a silly question, Phoebe, you might say: we have so many talented and committed organizers and editors who do so much thankless work already, and this will be a way for them to get recognition, and make sure their voices are heard and better work gets done. Of course there will be many volunteers. We already have so many people who participate in these processes and have put so very much time into strategic planning, after all.

But my question is, what will be lost? What will all these participants in the GC process not be doing, because all of us only has so much time for Wikimedia work? What edits or bug fixes, what editathons or glam outreach, will not be happening? Our very most precious resource in this movement is the time of highly skilled editors, organizers, and developers. Let's not squander that time with bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, but aim to produce a process that is as lightweight and efficient as possible. I fear that this GC plan does not do that. -- phoebe | talk 17:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Phoebe, thank you for sharing this concern.

In the August 2023 draft the MCDC suggested two GC membership models with a lower number of members. However, the majority of people in that consultation expressed concerns (Q2 in this summary) about representation of the Wikimedia Movement in a small body GC, even with certain proposed safeguards in place like regional- and/or project limits. The small size was also considered a potential vulnerability for a body with such huge responsibilities.

If you have additional arguments pro- or against a certain model, beyond those already mentioned in the August 2023 consultation summary, or there are more alternative models that come to mind for you we are open to hearing them. Best, Ciell (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Global Council Assembly: Subsidiarity and Equity in representation

We're about to set up a top-level, strategic governance entity, and we're committed to make the Global Council Assembly (GCA) represent our multitude of voices and interests, as described in our Values and Movement Strategy Recommendations. Currently, the draft doesn’t determine how GCA seats are filled, nor who can fill those seats. If we are serious about subsidiarity and equity in representation, we should build those aspects firmly into the Movement Charter.

Wikimedia Norge wants GCA members to be elected, but not in international elections where you choose between a large number of candidates. Historically, international elections in this movement have had low voter turnout, as low as 9 percent in the WMF board elections in 2022.[1] We can bring the GCA elections closer to the voters and work towards equity in representation, if we make the following changes to the charter draft:

• “Its members are selected, elected, or appointed to bring forward a diverse range of perspectives and experiences from the Wikimedia Movement as described in the Global Council Membership policy.”

is replaced by

• The seats of the GCA are equally divided into batches, out of which one is thematic and the remaining regional. Each regional batch must have at least 40 percent female members. The seats of each batch are filled in separate elections, and eligible voters can choose which of these elections to cast their vote in.

The batches can follow the pattern of the MCDC candidate selection process.[2] Batch nomination committees could approach a diverse range of candidates and try to stimulate them to stand for elections. Voter eligibility can be as for the last WMF board election.[3] This can of course be changed by the Global Council at a later point.

The intention of the suggested change is to stimulate voter turnout as well as equity in geographical, thematic and gender representation. This is one way of making a shift from good intentions to actual effect on the composition and processes of the GCA. And let’s carve that in stone in the Movement Charter, rather than in supplementary documents.

On behalf of Wikimedia Norge, Elisabeth Carrera (WMNO) (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Elisabeth Carrera (WMNO): As a contributor to the English Wikipedia, (not an admin or WMF member), I think splitting the GCA into sections could be a good idea, for the same reasons the community seats for GCB should be split up. However, I'm not sure if adding a gender quota is a good idea. While I understand the reasoning behind it, and an all-man Global Council would certainly be a mistake, we would not want to turn away good potential board members because of their gender. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me for putting on a feminist hat, @QuicoleJR, and maybe it's because I am not a native English speaker, but the way I read this, it is not about "turning away people because of their gender", but about making room to make sure we hear different voices in the GC. (This is NOT a MCDC position, purely my own!)

@Elisabeth Carrera (WMNO): the MCDC asked questions about membership and safeguards and limitations in our August 2023 consultation. According to the answers we received (link to the summary), the most necessary limit people saw was a geographical one.

Now, realizing we put out many documents related to the Movement Charter this month and in case you had not seen this one yet, for the current consultation round we have published this supplementary document that includes a proposal for a Membership Policy for the GC.

Thanks for sharing the suggestions of WMNO. Ciell (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Ciell, for added context. And the Membership Policy does list considerations regarding representation, but it's also a bit fluid and non-committing. Meaning continuous discussions and scrutiny in the future. It would be better if the charter itself describes who gets to select, elect or appoint the GCA members, as well as the composition of the assembly. Quotas of seats is just a golden opportunity to ensure, rather than to recommend, geographic spread (which many seem to support) and gender balance. Of course realising that there are other important aspects of representation that are much harder to resolve. Good luch with the MCDC final lap! Elisabeth Carrera (WMNO) (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Important questions about the Global Council

These are some serious questions that should be considered when making the charter for the Global Council.

1. The language barrier. If this council will represent the entire community, many members might not speak each other's languages. Several English members may not understand the Russian members, who may not understand the Arabic-speaking members, etc. How do we solve this problem?
2. Membership requirements. Less of a question than a "here's how it will probably work", but I get the feeling that we are going to need members to be 18+ and identified to the WMF, for obvious reasons. We might also require them to sign an NDA, but that is still up for debate.
3. How to treat small wikis. Many sites and communities will be too small to get a seat on the Council. How will we represent them?
4. Affiliate to community ratio. A lot of community members don't want the affiliates to have too much control over the Council, but they are important and should not be unrepresented. How many seats would be a good compromise?

I feel like the draft will be improved considerably once these questions are answered. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @QuicoleJR, thank you for sharing these concerns.

1. About language: this will definitely be a challenge for some members, but not one that we have not been trying to address in different ways in our movement today. On the MCDC there are currently 2 native EN speakers out of the 11 remaining members, and we have a FR-EN (and EN-FR) translator in our calls when available. We as a committee have the shared responsibility of making sure all on the committee are included in our discussions and drafts, to ask when we don't understand what others mean, and to rephrase what we say when we use too difficult language. Imho, this is a question to be addressed through (staff/paid) support, and by the attitude we expect from the members that serve on the body.
2. Membership requirements: for now, the MCDC listed the requirements we see necessary for GC members in the proposed GC Membership Policy in the supplementary document about the Global Council. I agree that from the responsibilities assigned to the GC, there might surface a need for NDA for certain responsibilities; in that case I can imagine the signing thereof will be different for GCA and GCB members. I would expect WMF legal to flag this to the Council when the time comes.
3. Small wiki's: small wiki's and small communities should be represented in a voice on the Global Council, and how to best model this is a very relevant question for the Charter. The MCDC received some very good first suggestions on how to bring different voices to the GC (summary of the August 2023 consultation) and we are always open to hearing additional ways to improve.
4. Affiliate to Community ratio: I think almost all communities and affiliates will have experienced tensions at one point or another, and you are correct that we need to look at the seat distribution within the GC to make sure that one does not overpower the other. In the previous August 2023 consultation, the MCDC included an example of the seat distribution on the GC between affiliates, communities and WMF in the Scenario 1 structure: if you have specific ideas or proposals about this, feel free to share them here.

Looking forward to your suggestions on the matter, it's a complicated topic to tackle! Ciell (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Bodies section is a doorway to abuse

In the draft section Movement Charter/Wikimedia Movement Bodies,

Composition and governance of a Wikimedia Movement Organization is open for the body itself to decide, depending on the context and needs within which it operates.

This is a plain and simple doorway to abuse. It allows a governance form ranging from absolute monarchy to dictatorship in a Wikimedia chapter.

The section mandates Care Responsibility,

not limited to: providing an inclusive and diverse working environment for community members; supporting activities in online Wikimedia projects; conducting work to further free knowledge initiatives together with communities; and, serving as an intermediary between the communities and the general public.

and then

promoting the sustainability of communities that the membership body supports, facilitating inclusion, equity, and diversity within their community, upholding the Universal Code of Conduct, and developing partnerships and collaborations within their areas of interest. Wikimedia Movement Organizations are accountable for making their work and activities visible by providing publicly accessible reporting.

This is absurd.

It does not mandate a community involvement/consultation in a chapter operation and decision-making process. As long as a chapter publishes reports, invite the community to attend events, ensure inclusion and UCoC in their community and behaving normally in front of the public they'll be fine. They will also be fine without handling community's input on their reports, not taking community's input on events, not ensuring inclusion and UCoC inside their own movement body, and behaving against Wikimedia conventions behind community's eyes.

Another clause in the section,

The decision-maker is an organization’s board or a similar body, accountable to the group that they represent—for example, its membership body.

This allows chapter to only be hold accountable by the group they represent which can be a limited invite-only group or paid membership. This possibility runs contrary to the nature of Wikimedia projects rooted in voluntary and free contributions.

It does not help that Movement Charter/Supplementary Document/Principles of Decision-Making can be interpreted by abusive parties as contradicting itself:

• Subsidiarity: Decisions should be made at the most affected level, where actual stakeholders contribute their expertise.
• Self-governance: Each decision-making body can have its own methodology to evaluate the subject for which it has to make a decision.

They will be able to cite Self-governance, while the stakeholders in Subsidiarity are taken only by representatives of that membership body or worse, hiring outside "experts" who do not even know where the Preferences menu is.

A form of governance delegated fully like it is written now allows for an abusive clique oligarchy to exist without check and balances. AffCom, WMF, and other global bodies will cite this section first and say, "A chapter is given full power how to operate." when a community member found abuses. Some community members reported such encounters to me already without this charter present. This is absurd.

It should not be like this.

The community should have a mandate and guaranteed access to check and hold chapters accountable against Wikimedia conventions and principles, particularly local to local. The section should ensure this process is mandated, present, promoted, and genuinely taken in the operation and decision-making of a chapter. It should not be obstructed solely by administrative reasons. The section should mandate and guarantee community sovereignty. And preferably not written through different clauses located somewhere else in a supplementary document. RXerself (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this boldly.

Some leading affiliates are doing amazing jobs undeniably, but a lot of them appear inactive. And, a few of them face serious allegations of abuse, monopoly, harassment, and even embezzlement.

The existing governance process lacks the capacity to effectively address such issues. Such activities are being normalized under the guise of "sovereignty," creating a clash with the principle of "accountability." This discussion suggests that there's no shared understanding or a solid direction of how to handle these matters, even among volunteer committee members tasked with affiliate governance.

This section will legalize the abuse of power and potential harassment by affiliates in order to maintain their "sovereignty." --Wasiul Bahar (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the links to its revision version for easy comparison with future texts. RXerself (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Life, Liberty and the persuit of free knowledge by cooperation

Wenn Kooperation nicht gelingt, setzt Meidung (engl. shunning) ein, erklärt die Moralpsychologie. In der Menschheit sind derzeit Mechanismen oder das Wissen der Kooperation nur unterentwickelt. Mangelhafte Kooperation führt zur Verletzung von Interessen und stört das Verhältnis von Nutzen und Kosten. Geschädigte reagieren dann mit Meidung als kostengünstige Bestrafung: Wikipedia verliert Mitarbeitende.

„Freiwillige betätigen sich im Movement individuell oder in Gruppen, immer basierend auf den eigenen Vorlieben, und sollten die Möglichkeit haben, jederzeit beitragen zu können.“ – Ich habe nicht nur Vorlieben. Ich habe auch Interessen mit dem Wunsch der Erfüllung. b/c >1 (benefit geteilt durch costs ist größer als 1, dann entsteht Kooperation.)

Ich empfehle deshalb, Kooperation grundlegend in die Movement Charter aufzunehmen. Die Menschheit hat Bedarf daran und Wikipedia soll danach streben: Life, Liberty and the persuit of free knowledge by cooperation. Die Phylogenes strebt ständig auf eine höhere Stufe der Organisation durch Kooperation. Diesen Weg wird Wikipedia auch gehen – je früher desto besser. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Mission Statement. Free Knowlegde by Cooperation

Freies Wissen entsteht besonders durch Kooperation. Die WMF, seine Teilnehmer und Beiträger streben nach einer umfassenden Kenntnis der Kooperation und seine konsequente Anwendung.

WMF & Partner werden internationale Organisationen beim Erwerb von Kooperationswissen und seiner Anwendung um Unterstützung bitten.

WMF & Partner sind eine INGO (internationale Nicht-Regierungsorganisation) und werden sich für eine Anerkennung als INGO und stimmberechtigtes Mitglied im Europarat (member of the Council of Europe – entitled/eligible to vote) bewerben, um dort gemeinsam Kenntnisse der Kooperation und seiner konsequenten Anwendung weiterzuentwickeln (z. B. durch Dynamic Facilitation). --Edward Steintain (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

English translation by DeepL --Edward Steintain (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Mission Statement. Free Knowlegde by Cooperation

Free knowledge is created especially through cooperation. The WMF, its participants and contributors strive for a comprehensive knowledge of cooperation and its consistent application.

WMF & Partners will seek support from international organizations in the acquisition of cooperation knowledge and its application.

WMF & Partners are an INGO (international non-governmental organization) and will apply for recognition as an INGO and member of the Council of Europe - entitled/eligible to vote, in order to jointly develop knowledge of cooperation and its consistent application (e.g. through Dynamic Facilitation). Edward Steintain (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

English translation by DeepL -- RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Moral psychology explains that if cooperation does not succeed, shunning sets in. The mechanisms or knowledge of cooperation are currently underdeveloped in humanity. A lack of cooperation leads to a violation of interests and disturbs the relationship between benefits and costs. Injured parties then react with avoidance (Meidung ≙ shunning → J. Haidt, Science 2007) as a cost-effective punishment: Wikipedia loses contributors. "Volunteers work in the Movement individually or in groups, always based on their own preferences, and should have the opportunity to contribute at any time." - I don't just have preferences. I also have interests with a desire for fulfillment. b/c >1 (benefit divided by costs is greater than 1, then cooperation occurs). I therefore recommend that cooperation be fundamentally included in the Movement Charter. Humanity needs it and Wikipedia should strive for it: Life, Liberty and the persuit of free knowledge by cooperation. The Phylogenes is constantly striving for a higher level of organization through cooperation. Wikipedia will also follow this path - the sooner the better. --Edward Steintain (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Link Issue

The link to 'Global Council membership policy' in the GCB section of 'Wikimedia Movement Bodies'>'Global Council' goes to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Global_Council#Global_Council_Membership_Policy but that section does not exist.

It seems that the link should be to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Global_Council#Membership_Policy

Readingpro256 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Good catch -- fixed, thanks for the ping. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Final Outputs of the Wikimedia Summit 2024

This seems like a pretty important page for folks here to know about if they are monitoring the Movement Charter talk page:

• Wikimedia_Summit_2024#Final_Outputs_of_the_Wikimedia_Summit_2024

Fuzheado (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Alternate ratification and amendment process proposals

During the Wikimedia Summit, a small group met during the open sessions and developed an alternate proposal covering the ratification and amendment processes. These alternatives were not included in the final outputs and, as such, did not progress through broader consensus-building processes. I note as well that there has been some concern about the ratification process in particular within the comments. I am sharing these alternate proposals at this time so that the broader community can provide further feedback on the proposals.

It should be noted that this open session was prompted in part by the fact that, during the Gallery walks on the first and second days of the Summit, there was significant concern expressed about the 50% support threshold being too low, and that the amendment process seemed too complex.

In addition, there was widespread agreement that good quality translation of the charter and of the ballot text was required in order for our global community to participate appropriately in the charter ratification process. This note appeared in several areas throughout the Gallery walk, and is noted separately.

Ratification

The alternate proposal would modify the percentage of support required for ratification, and would add a minimum participation component to the requirements, as follows:

• For affiliates, 2/3 support with a minimum of 50% of eligible affiliates participating in the vote
• For individual voters, 2/3 support with a minimum of 4% of eligible voters participating in the vote.
  • Based on recent voting processes, there would be approximately 68,000 to 70,000 eligible voters, so minimum participation would be approximately 2800 eligible voters.

Amendment

There are two alternate proposals here. The first modifies the percentage of support required for amendments that require community approval, and would add a minimum participation component, as follows:

• For affiliates, 2/3 support with a minimum of 50% of eligible affiliates participating in the vote
• For individual voters, 2/3 support with a minimum of 2% of eligible voters participating in the vote (i.e., half of the participation level required for ratification)

In addition, the small consultation group proposed that there be only 3 categories of amendment:

• Category 1 should remain the same
• Category 2 should be eliminated
• Category 3 and 4 should be consolidated and require community vote approval
• Category 5 should remain, but requires some additional guardrails to ensure that only amendments with significant support are considered.
  • Suggestion: Amendments can be proposed from outside of the Global Council. Proposals would be made in a central location, and would not proceed without meeting minimal levels of endorsement.
    • Proposed a minimum of 10% of eligible affiliates AND a minimum of 100 individual contributors endorse a proposed amendment before consideration is given to bringing the amendment to a community vote.
    • There was no specific discussion of timeline for such a proposal (e.g., the endorsements must take place within a specified period)

Ratification vote procedure for affiliates

The discussion group felt that a SecurePoll option for the affiliate vote would make the most sense. This format for affiliate voting has been used in the recent past. There was some discussion about information-gathering on the process used by an affiliate to decide their collective vote; recommendation was simply to provide some tick-boxes (e.g., "Executive board voted", "members polled by email", etc.) if it was felt that this information was necessary. Also agreed that affiliates should be provided with a free-text comment box if they wish to provide information about the reason they voted the way they did, similar to individual contributor voters.

Etherpad notes are available here. Risker (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Risker, can you be so kind to explain for what stakeholdergroup you're discussing here? Now that I had time to read a bit about the "Wikimedia Summit" I got the impression this is a row of congresses organised by and for the 'affiliates', to discuss common interests as affiliate. It is not persé a summit for the volunteers and their needs and whishes, right?. My question: why do the affiliates not discuss directly with the WMF, their 'mother organisation', but instead with a group of volunteers who already have so much to do, unpaid? Background of the questions is that this all is not well understandable for people that are not yet working for at least ten years in the upper regions of Wikipedia and Wikimedia and do hope this discussion is meant to include, not exclude them. Best regards and thanks for your work and engagement, --VanArtevelde (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello VanArtevelde and thank you for question. The Wikimedia Summit participants are largely representatives selected by an affiliate of which they are a member; however, at least half of affiliate representatives are active volunteers who participate on various Wikimedia projects. The questions about the proposed ratification process were first raised on this talk page by a number of people, and a significant number of Summit participants also expressed the same concern that either (a) the ratification threshold should be 2/3 or higher or (b) the ratification threshold should be exactly the same as the amendment threshold (with no specific percentage mentioned). This feedback was pretty consistent across multiple feedback methods. We were also seeking some thoughts about the practicalities of managing the ratification vote, and while we were at it, we talked a bit more about amendment, which had also received similar feedback across multiple feedback methods. The proposal above was the one suggested by the small group of Summit participants who took part in the discussion, and it is posted here for further feedback from the broader community. We are also considering any feedback that was received prior to the close of the feedback period when revising this section. I hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Thanks for responding directly to this line of feedback and proposals, I greatly appreciate it. As I commented on both points above -- The change in ratification % seems reasonable to me, for a stable charter (not one that's being actively revised and debated). The change to amendments seems to make the fragility of the document worse; if anything but typo correction would require a community vote, then all operational details should be removed to more flexible documents. –SJ talk  18:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Concerns over comments from Affiliates EDs and Affiliates summit

Working as a editor on the projects and done so 5-8 hours a day for 15 years, I feel concerned over some of the comments being expressed here. For me affiliates are part of the overhead bureaucracy (like WMF) and not positioned well to express the will of the communities. For example re grants. I have been involved in grant bodies for some 10 years and familiar with some 30-50 affiliates, and while some 2/3 of them and doing a straight forward and good job, there are around 1/3 that are stumbling and being a bit out of the movement goals. And to leave grant distribution purely to the affiliates themselves would be really bad. And the result from the Summit I interpret as a wish to make the affiliates more powerful in the saying in things in the responsibility area of GC. I object strongly to this, let us the core volunteers be the key part of the global council. I support the basic structure och ideas in the charter and hope these comment from affiliates do not succeed to water it down or make the GC a body mainly responsible to the affiliates network. Yger (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

+1, thank you for noting this. This was a topic of a few conversations at the WM Summit as well (which I attended for the first time in many years). –SJ talk  17:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Summit feedback on Implementation of the Movement Charter supplementary document

Hi,

In the Summit Open Space on Sunday we had a gathering about the Charter Implementation document: when the Charter is ratified, what will be the (practical!) next steps? The overview in the document is intended to prepare ahead of the start of the GC, and have names to who is responsible for which task. Bridging the discussion from the Summit to this talkpage since you may have responses as well. :)

Suggested improvements from the meeting where the following:

• For the ratification vote itself, it would be good to have additional comment box for feedback, both for "yes" and "no" vote;
• Suggestion for Ratification: if full Charter ratification will not succeed, maybe vote on the separate chapters and restart from there. (so not the whole projects fails, lost of energy, time and input - very demotivating for all those involved);
• For temporary group leading in the selection/election process of the GC, build on the remaining MCDC members, and expand the group again to have 1) expertise, 2) representation, 3) independence;
• Try to make the process as simple as possible, as not to stall;
• Prioritize the steps to be taken: 1) set up election | selection | appointment process, 2) convene first general assembly and appoint committees, 3) probably have a first staff soon to coordinate the process;
• Prioritize the list of products that are expected from the GC in their first term;
• Staffing can be done by different affiliates and not only Wikimedia Foundation;
• Include WMF Finance and Administration in the preparations leading up to the GC set-up;
• Get a head-start with both the communication plan as the GC facilitation plan, to start designing them in time on a higher level (after discussion, the group thought this to be a task for WMF)
• For the personal/internal needs of the GC, counting on Movement Capacities as affiliates have a lot of experience in this kind of capacity building.

Complete notes are in this etherpad.

Best, Ciell (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Link Issue not able to translate to Tulu Language(Tcy)

I am writing to bring to your attention an issue regarding the translation of the one-page draft of the Movement Charter available at the following link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Content/One-page_draft/tcy

Despite the page displaying as "100% translated," it has come to our attention that most of the content has not been translated, and it is not possible for community members to contribute to the translation process. We kindly request your assistance in resolving this matter. BHARATHESHA ALASANDEMAJALU (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BHARATHESHA ALASANDEMAJALU, thank you for the question! The page we call 'one page draft' is one page where 5 subpages are collected ('transcluded'), and you'll have to translate these 5 pages individually. You can find the 5 chapters of the Charter here: Movement_Charter#Current_drafts. Thanks for your support with the translation! Ciell (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Female artists deleted on the German wikipedia

It's come to my attention that my wiki page (started by someone I don't know in 2006) was recently deleted in the German version. It remains however in the English version. I mentioned this to my label boss and he said he'd read an article about this kind of thing happening in the German wikipedia realm, with many specifically female artists and contributors to science, being deleted by authority wielding wiki-acolytes. Is there anyway or any will to combat this? with much sincerity, Justine Beatty (aka Justine Electra). 2A02:8108:8780:286C:CD32:2136:B314:9385 05:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Justine (2A02:8108:8780:286C:CD32:2136:B314:9385) and the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. What I detect as a problem here at a strategic level, is the fact that the formal structure of Wikipedia, and the knowledge about it, often differs from the practice. At least, so tell my experiences over the last two years in the Dutch, German and English language Wikipedia communities. When a (non-veteran) editor is trying to discuss deletion of an article, or deletion of a small bit of information, in most cases there will turn up a 'majority' of veteran editors with the firm conviction the subject of the article, or the information provided, is not important enough to be included in the encyclopedia, or not in line with another guideline. 'Majority' between quotation marks because this often are 2 - 5 accounts. When related to for instance minority groups or women this seems due to a vicious circle.

In the Dutch Wikipedia for instance, over 90% of articles on historic topics are telling the story of the males in a very small elite and not that of women and/or of the people, they're telling stories of warmaking, not of clothmaking. A main reason is, that in the writing of history for ages women and the people have not be mentioned much, so Wikipedia editors have to dive deeper, and must pay money, to find information about their role. Women and the people have not being mentioned much in history partly because they were on legal grounds not entitled to participate officially in societies. So women in general will often not get an article in Wikipedia because historicians did not write about them, and when they get an article, the mostly male, elder editors, often judiging from their own perspective and own knowledge, will not see a reason to have the article up and running.

On a strategic level the Movement Charter Drafting Committee could consider how to handle this gap between theory and practice. How can women be given a more prominent role in Wikipedia, even when there are not much sources to be find that write about them. In doing so, the Drafting Comittee could offer a more solid ground for closing existing gaps in gender, etnicity, minority, religion and much more. When nothing is done, in practice editors, who often still are aged, male, white and not interested in indy topics, will go on making women, diplomacy, workers and many other topics invisable. Not out of bad faith but because they're sure doing it right this way. Keep up, VanArtevelde (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The complete article de:Justine Electra was:

"Justine Electra Geboren in Melbourne, Australien in 1978.

Veröffentlichte die Album Soft Rock in 2006

Green Disco in 2013

Christmas in Berlin 2018"

The article was created in 2024, the same day it was deleted. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 09:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Small clarification about tiers ?

On this page Movement Charter/Supplementary Document/Future Affiliate Landscape, 4 tiers are being mentioned. On the description of Tiers 3, we can read this line : "Tier 3 Groups are independent organizations representing the Wikimedia movement and have received Affiliate status. « 

• My first question is... would groups of tiers 1 and 2 also be considered Affiliates ? It looks like it could be for tier 2, but there is no mention in tier 1
• If they are not affiliates, how would they be referred to ?
• and... in Movement Charter/Content/One-page draft, would all tiers be considered to be "Wikimedia Movement Organizations »

Anthere (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion, especially of marginalised groups needs more attention.

I’ve come late to this consultation. I am on the fringes of contributing to Wikipedia etc.

I am delighted to see this initiative. I have one major concern that is poorly addressed.

There is talk about inclusion. However, there seems little attempt to make simple summaries of information accessible and simple editing guidance accessible to non specialists.

See: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Introduction Under inclusion.

Similarly there is no reference to communities that reach out to marginalised communities, see: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Volunteers

Similarly, four different types of Wikimedia Movement Organizations are recognised. Sadly there are no references to movement bodies that reach out to marginalised communities, see: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Wikimedia_Movement_Bodies

There is mention of: facilitating inclusion, equity, and diversity within their community. Sadly, I suspect a stronger focus is needed than this.

Addressing this concern later might be cumbersome, see: https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Amendment

especially since it could be described as Changes that modify the values of the movement; or the responsibilities and rights of volunteers, projects, affiliates, hubs, the Wikimedia Foundation, future Wikimedia Movement Organizations, and the wider Wikimedia Movement.

The only significant exception is the encouragement of different language versions of Wikipedia that mitigate the serious english language bias of Wikipedia. This bias can also be seen in how many articles focus on the dominant English language communities.

To clarify my concern, I would like Wikipedia to encourage simple language summaries for non specialists reading the article.

Similarly, I have found it hard to find useful lay summaries of how to approach different editing tasks, what motivates that work and pitfalls to look out for.

In both cases it is easy to quickly get into specialised jargon with little to support you.

I suspect the lack of attention in these areas is a symptom of limited awareness of how many people are excluded from knowledge by technical barriers and overwhelmed when they try to be active by lack of information in easy to understand language.

There are many acronyms and similar things that require some substantial involvement to really grasp.

I hope some projects are looking at this, but I fear little is actively being done.

I am fairly technically literate, but even I get put off by the jargon and the details needed to be an active contributor.

I appreciate much of the technical material is valuable, but ways of being more inclusive are important. It is also quite a discipline and many volunteers may not be interested.

I suspect addressing this could reduce some of the biases Wikipedia and similar tools are perceived and experienced as having.

A couple of simple examples. Many articles could start with an explicit lay summary which keeps the jargon low and explains it in simple language.

I see this as simpler than the usual language and would help non specialists orientate themselves and decide if they really want to plunge deeper. Such sections could be the basis for versions in Simple Wikipedia with little of the detail except for links to the more detailed info. This could also help with translations.

This is often done, but formalising it with a heading such as a Lay summary or a Lay introduction would be vey helpful. This section could be a standard recommendation for many articles.

Similarly, for editing options and tools, more attention to summaries with few assumptions about the relevant background will help. In particular explaining the key acronyms and terms.

I would hope these changes would increase those actively involved in Wikipedia, with a wider set of perspectives.

It’s most immediate value may be in supporting articles in different languages on similar or even identical subjects. The summaries would hopefully make translation work easier for non specialists to help with.

It would definitely be of great value to the simple Wikipedia initiative which helps non native language speakers and people who appreciate a simpler, more straightforward article to get a sense of a subject.

The downside is it could significantly increase the amount of maintenance required to align different versions of related material. This must be hard already, especially when controversial material is involved.

I am also acutely aware that this contribution may well not follow my own suggestions! In a sense, this is reason for the focus I am suggesting. It can be hard to address ones own weaknesses. A community effort can help.

I hope this is helpful and not much too late to contribute to this consultation. CuriousMarkE (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Olá, vielen Dank für Eure Diskussion und Deinen Beitrag. Ich möchte Dir antworten und empfehle: Mission Statement. Free Knowlegde by Cooperation --Edward Steintain (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The most important thinking in the reaction right above has my full support. For new people willing to contribute, and others that do not belong to the main group of longtime editors, it's made really difficult to find the "right way" and to become part of the community. So many things are excluding. On my local Wikipedia edition was a banner: come over and talk, prepare for the vote on the Movement Charter. Visiting this discussion page, nothing is clear, besides that the Wikimedia Foundation tells clearly it will become very difficult to carry out the whishes of the writers of the document. Everything else seems a large mix-up. How many Wikipedia editors will understand what is going on here? Five percent? One small example: above is a chapter with the name "Final Outputs of the Wikimedia Summit 2024", written by Fuzheado. Reading about that summit the impression is being given that normal editors have not been involved. A bit later comes a chapter: "Wikimedia Summit feedback on Implementation of the Movement Charter supplementary document", written by another user. No one gives a reaction, it's one way communication. My pledge: work with the rules for inclusive behaviour that have been approved by the Wikimedia Foundation and make them work in practice first. Train long-time editors (and moderators) to transform their ingrained Top-Down behaviour into a general all inclusive bottom-up attitude. Best regards, NickVerhoeve (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @NickVerhoeve,

Thanks for your feedback, and for sharing your concerns. To address the most prominent one, I have now moved the explanatory video's by MCDC members to be directly displayed at the top of this talkpage. For your other comments: there are several Drafting Committee members active on this talk page, and we receive our feedback through various channels also beyond this page, and are involved in the feedback on different levels, also for instance with our presence at the Wikimedia Summit. Both Risker and I (author of the "feedback on implementation.." etc you mention) held sessions outside the regular program of the Summit so these are not in the page Fuzheado linked, and we as MCDC members shared the summaries of these additional sessions here with the intention to give everyone as much background insights as possible, as well as opportunities to respond if they'd like.

Even though we (drafting committee members and/or the WMF supporting staff) don't respond to all topics here, please assume good faith that everything will be read and weighed in our upcoming final iteration of drafting. Ciell (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Nederland comments on Movement Charter Draft of April 2nd

Wikimedia Nederland has several concerns with regards to the specific content of the draft movement charter as published on April 2nd 2024. We feel that the Charter does not go far enough to bring about the decentralisation of power and the equity in decision making in movement governance, as prioritised during the Movement Strategy process. The position of WMF as the single decision making body within the movement, remains by and large the same.

Several people have referred to the charter as a good “first step” in the direction that we want to go. However, we feel that it is hard to see what the next steps could be, if we do not have a shared understanding of the end goal to which the Global Charter should contribute.

We think that end goal should be along these lines:

“We want to be a movement where we, as movement affiliates and individual volunteers, jointly decide where to invest movement resources to best achieve our mission,  independent of where and how  these resources are raised. We will do this in a way that empowers all of the members of our movement (taking care to elevate the lesser heard voices) and allows every part of our movement to help advance the mission by leveraging their unique capabilities.”

After talking with many stakeholders during the Wikimedia summit we are happy to conclude that there is a large group of people that share this understanding of the end goal. We propose to codify this in the charter.

Furthermore, we support the 46 proposals for change drawn up during the Summit and hope that the MCDC is able to incorporate these changes. For us the most important aspects of the changes concern:

• specifying that the Global Council is the highest ranking decision making body in the movement with regards to, amongst other things, resource distribution
• codifying the independence of the Global Council,  
• introducing complete transparency about criteria and decisions in all phases of grant making, including giving affiliates more access to donor data from their region (to improve donor retention) within the limits posed by data protection legislation.

We want to thank the Drafting Committee and everyone involved for making this draft charter for our movement. Jan-Bart (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Brief overview of the movement charter in podcast

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that a podcast with User:Ciell was just published, featuring the movement charter. It is available here: https://wikipediapodden.se/userciell-mcdc-wikimedia-summit-2024-261/ (or on Commons). ♥Ainali ^talk_{contributions} 13:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Remarks from Wikimedia Deutschland

After engaging with the movement charter alongside various other affiliates at the Wikimedia Summit, Wikimedia Deutschland wishes to express our thoughts on the current draft in writing.

Firstly, we are grateful that the MCDC has released a charter draft with clearer wording, at a reasonable length, and in a timely manner for the Wikimedia Summit. This represents significant progress compared to previous versions and serves as a solid foundation for further refinements. We acknowledge the considerable effort, time, and dedication that went into its development, and extend our heartfelt thanks to the committee for the energy they invested.

We are also impressed by the contributions of the attending affiliates, which have resulted in valuable suggestions for improvement, identified dealbreakers, and produced outcomes that extend beyond the scope of the charter. The overwhelming majority of support for these results is equally noteworthy.

Based on our discussions at the Summit and previous comments on earlier drafts, we would like to to highlight what we think could be improved in the current charter draft:

The Global Council as the highest decision making body

Wikimedia Deutschland is concerned about the current draft's approach to global decision-making within the movement. As it stands, the Global Council (GC) is positioned as an advisory body with various tasks and responsibilities but lacks decision-making authority. While we agree with the idea of the GC serving as the representative strategic body of the Wikimedia Movement, there's ambiguity regarding how both the GC and the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) can function as the highest governing bodies. This ambiguity needs clarification within the charter.

We believe that for the movement to make more effective, inclusive, and representative decisions, the GC should evolve into the highest decision-making body in the future.

Independence of the GC from the WMF – esp. budget and staffing

For the Global Council (GC) to effectively serve the interests of the movement and promote free knowledge, it's crucial to reduce its dependence on a single organisation, namely the Wikimedia Foundation. To achieve this, we propose that during its establishment and transition, the GC should ideally be allocated a multi-year budget (4-5 years) instead of needing to seek funding from the WMF annually.

Similarly, to mitigate the risk of undue influence, it's important to consider the staffing arrangements for the GC. Rather than relying solely on WMF staff, we suggest employing staff by other entities within the movement. This would help ensure the independence of the support provided to the Global Council.

Access to donor data for local affiliates

The current charter lacks specific provisions regarding fundraising, deferring these decisions to a future fundraising policy. At Wikimedia Deutschland, we believe that greater involvement of local affiliates in fundraising activities and coordinated banner creation could significantly increase the fundraising pool. To enable this, we propose implementing a future mechanism granting affiliates decentralised access to country-specific donor data, adhering to the relevant privacy policies.

Sharing donor contact data with local organisations, with prior donor consent (opt-in), could help them grow their membership and improve outreach. This would ultimately benefit the success and longevity of the Wikimedia movement.

Global Council membership policy (from supplementary documents)

Wikimedia Deutschland endorses the structure of the Global Council, consisting of the Global Council Assembly (GCA) and the Global Council Board (GCB). However, we recommend that the Wikimedia Foundation also becomes a member of the GCA. We believe it's essential to include the voices of all movement bodies in the Global Council.

Implementation of the charter

Prior to the election of a Global Council Board by the Global Council Assembly, it's essential to determine the driving actor responsible for implementing the charter. To garner support for the charter, we propose that both the MCDC and the Wikimedia Foundation confirm their commitment to the implementation process as outlined in the supplementary documents.

This commitment would entail the MCDC being responsible for setting up and executing the implementation process, with the WMF providing funding and support as needed. Clarifying these roles and commitments would provide clarity and assurance to stakeholders regarding the implementation of the charter.

Wikimedia Deutschland looks forward to continued conversations and wishes the MCDC a lot of strength and courage as they navigate the final stages of their crucial task. –Alice Wiegand (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WMF responsibilities question

I've given a lot of feedback on big picture things at the Summit, in Zoom calls, etc., but I did want to draw attention to one smaller thing I haven't seen discussed. In the Movement Bodies section, under WMF's responsibilities, it says: "Supporting programmatic activities for the movement". I recommend deleting this, or moving it to the Wikimedia Movement Organizations' responsibility section: That is the role of Wikimedia Movement Organizations, not WMF; and Movement Organizations do this programmatic work thanks to grants, which are now being allocated by the GC (so that "support" won't be coming from WMF anymore). Liannadavis (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Observaciones de Wikimedia Chile al actual borrador de la Carta del Movimiento

Introducción:

El movimiento Wikimedia enfrenta una época desafiante para sus miembros y clave para su futuro. Frente a cambios que amenazan el ecosistema de la información global y la sustentabilidad ecológica, económica y emocional del movimiento, es nuestro rol como un afiliado, donde voluntarios y profesionales de Chile nos reunimos para potenciar la misión de Wilkimedia en nuestro país, el imaginar nuestra contribución y compartir nuestras discusiones con la gran diversidad de quienes formamos el wikiuniverso. Necesitamos más que nunca del esfuerzo conjunto de todos los miembros voluntarios, comunidades y profesionales que forman parte de este movimiento para seguir asegurando su continuidad y la integridad de nuestros valores comunes, y potenciar un modelo de funcionamiento que le dé continuidad al trabajo que hacemos en todos los rincones del planeta.

El proceso de Estrategia 2030 es un momento clave en nuestra historia, y de cuyas recomendaciones surge la redacción de la Carta del Movimiento. La recomendación número 4 se valoraban como una oportunidad para discutir nuestras formas de tomar decisiones y robustecer el movimiento y sus partes integrantes, en diferentes escalas y estructuras; aún incluso cuando muchas de las amenazas externas que hoy nos ocupan se veían aún más etereas y lejanas.

Desde nuestra comunidad valoramos el enorme trabajo realizado, pero creemos que es aún insuficiente para ponerlo a votación de la comunidad. Requiere algunas revisiones que permitan comprender de manera más completa y robusta que tipo de movimiento es al que alude esta carta. La carta cumple una función de constitución al jerarquizar nuestras estructuras de organización wiki, pero también de manifiesto al definir y orientar el sentido de cada. En este último punto es donde creemos la carta está sin espiritú, lo que aún puede ser corregido.

Desde Wikimedia Chile observamos que el presente borrador está fallando en varios de los principios que se acordaron durante el proceso de discusión y redacción de la Estrategia 2030. El proceso de la carta del moviemiento también está fallando en poner a la comunidad Wikimedia organizada al centro del documento, así como en varios de los puntos que se plantearon durante el proceso de discusión y redacción de la Estrategia 2030.

Por lo mismo, Wikimedia Chile, propone una serie de modificaciones puntuales al texto, que van de la siguiente manera:

1. Sobre qué es el movimiento Wikimedia, cuáles son sus valores y qué son los voluntarios.

• El documento debe estar escrito en términos sencillos y fáciles de entender. Se recomienda simplicar la prosa.
• Se deberá expandir el glosario de los términos utilizados, especialmente aquellos que se traduzcan desde el inglés al español, incorporando a la comunidad en esa traducción.
• Celebramos que se incluya una definición de cada una de las partes del movimiento pero recomendamos dar más espacio para definir el rol y la importancia de los afiliados como la comunidad organizada dentro del movimiento.

2. Sobre qué son las comunidades Wikimedia y los cuerpos/estructuras que componen el movimiento Wikimedia.

• Celebramos la intención de promover la colaboración entre afiliados y el sentido de descentralizar ciertas tomas de decisiones dentro del movimiento.
• Por lo mismo, creemos que es positivo que los Hubs se institucionalicen como estructuras propias dentro del ecosistema Wikimedia.
• Sin embargo, creemos que los Hubs deben tener una definición clara como espacios intermedios de colaboración entre afiliados, que permitan y promuevan el desarrollo de nuevas comunidades regionales o temáticas.
• Por lo mismo, los Hubs no deberán votar o tener presentación especial en el futuro CG.

• Los 8 regiones que hoy sirven como criterio de análisis y toma de decisiones para el movimiento no deben desaparecer. Pero podrán ampliarse o modificarse en el futuro, para potenciar aún más la mirada local.
• Celebramos que los UG deban formalizarse como entidades (organizaciones temáticas o capítulos) para integrar un Hub y sugerimos que estos reciban apoyo de la comunidad o la WMF para ese proceso.

3. Sobre qué es y cómo funciona el Consejo Global.

• El CG deberá tener una cantidad de integrantes que permita la representación de las diferentes comunidades pero que facilite la toma decisiones.
• Sin embargo, para que esa participación sea efectiva, este número no puede superar las 100 personas.

4. Sobre qué es y cómo funciona la WMF.

• Creemos que se deben establecer claras prerrogativas del GC sobre la WMF, para que haya una efectiva distribución de la toma de decisiones.
• El GC podrá decidir sobre la estrategia, recursos y presupuesto de la WMF.
• Creemos que es fundamental fomentar la independencia del GC sobre la WMF.

5. Sobre los recursos complementarios pensados para la etapa de la implementación.

• Si el MCDC se hará cargo del proceso de elección del primer GC, es necesario revisar y mejorar su composición y diversidad antes de empezar es etapa.
• Sugerimos que, antes de empezar a sesionar, se revisen los mandatos del GC y que con ello se establezcan prioridades para sus 3 años de funcionamiento.
• Creemos que es fundamental que los afiliados pero también las estructuras que existen dentro del movimiento, como los Comités Regionales de distribución de recursos, puedan asesorar al GC en sus necesidades vinculadas a los procesos de aprendizaje entorno a liderazgo, la distribución de recursos, la toma de decisiones, la creación y evaluación de estrategias, etc.

En nombre de Wikimedia Chile, firma PDiazR (WMCL) (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Comentarios a la Carta del Movimiento por Wikimedia Argentina

Este documento representa los comentarios, posiciones y sugerencias sobre la Carta del Movimiento, publicada el 2 de abril de 2024, por parte de la Comisión Directiva de Wikimedia Argentina. Con ello, queremos contribuir al debate actual con el objetivo de fortalecer la dirección estratégica del Movimiento Wikimedia e impulsar el trabajo e implementación de las recomendaciones estratégicas:

Sección I: Personas voluntarias

• Celebramos que el concepto de “persona voluntaria” trasciende la definición clásica asociada a personas contribuidoras en los proyectos Wikimedia para dar cabida a nuevas formas de contribuir que son igual de importantes.
• Muchas de las responsabilidades están escritas en condicional, por lo tanto no son responsabilidades.
• Comprendemos la autogestión de los proyectos, también a la hora de resolver los conflictos, pero entonces ¿el código de conducta no va a tener aplicación en los proyectos Wikimedia?

Sección II:Organismos del Movimiento Wikimedia

Celebramos el esfuerzo para descentralizar e impulsar principios como el de subsidiariedad, tan presentes en las recomendaciones 2030.

Global Council

• El Consejo global debe contar con recursos propios para mantener su independencia.
• El modelo de afiliados se mantiene de manera similar, sin resolver las múltiples discusiones y debates que han habido durante años al respecto.
• El Consejo Global va a tener múltiples responsabilidades, entre ellas la de definir la dirección estratégica y determinar los recursos, pero ¿cómo va a llevarlo a cabo si parece no ser independiente de WMF?
• Las decisiones del Global Council deben ser vinculantes para WMF
• Una asamblea de 100 -150 miembros no es realista al menos para comunidades en Argentina. El número no debería superar los 50 representantes.

WMF

• No hay ningún cambio significativo en las funciones de WMF y su rol en el Movimiento. Tampoco se aborda el debate sobre el fundraising. Este proceso de estrategia fue dado justamente para cambiar el status quo.
• No está definido ni explicado cómo va a rendir cuentas WMF al GC.
• Al seguir teniendo la mayor parte de funciones intactas, parece más una transferencia de trabajo administrativo que poder real.

--En nombre de Wikimedia Argentina,Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

End of the Community Engagement

Hi everyone,

Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback!

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) is grateful for your comments, and will be considering it alongside the feedback received from all stakeholders during this community review period.

What’s next? The MCDC will consider the feedback and update the final version of the Movement Charter accordingly between April 30 and mid-May. After which, the text goes through several preparatory phases before it can be published, including copy-editing review, legal review, and translations. The final Movement Charter text is expected to be shared in the third week of June. The Movement-wide ratification vote on the Movement Charter will take place between June 25 to July 9, 2024. The Charter will be voted on by individual contributors, affiliates, and the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thank you,

On behalf of the MCDC, Manavpreet Kaur (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks @Manavpreet Kaur: for the update. I don't see how this process [private redrafting, lots of private overhead, then public release and vote] could result in a draft that the community at large would support. I asked above a month ago whether there would be more continuous, real-time responsiveness to feedback and real-time revision of the draft. That's the only way I am aware of that drafts like this can reach iterative consensus.

Regards, –SJ talk  16:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Um eine wirksame und erfolgreiche Movement Charter zu erhalten, ist es von essentiellem Interesse, die Regeln der Kooperation zu verstehen. Das Wissen von Wikipedia ist bisher nicht ausreichend und folgt lediglich besonders bei de.wp den Lehrbüchern der Soziologie. --Edward Steintain (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation feedback on Movement Charter Final Draft

Dear all,

Please find below the letter shared with the Movement Charter Drafting Committee on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on 30 April 2024. Join the upcoming cross-regional annual planning call on 15 May for discussion about this.

As a note, the letter addresses both high-level things, like values, and practical matters, like budget. Some of the text reiterates the feedback provided to the MCDC earlier.

Dear Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC),

Once again, thank you for your dedicated volunteer work over the past two years on the challenging task of developing a document designed to foster a sense of belonging and a definition of roles and responsibilities for current and future members of our Movement. Below, please find the feedback from the Wikimedia Foundation. Some parts would be new for you, as a reaction to the draft you published on April 2, 2024; and some parts are reiterations of the feedback shared with you directly earlier, like the letter we sent with perspectives on the Global Council in February 2024, which remain relevant.

The Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment is first and foremost to Wikimedia's public interest mission to make free knowledge available to the world. In the Wikimedia 2030 movement strategy process, participants developed principles and recommendations that guide how we pursue this goal—among them ensuring Equity in Decision-making. The Foundation’s Board has endorsed these recommendations in principle in 2020.

Having a Movement Charter is a planned and significant change, and the Board must consider how this particular Movement Charter proposal would enable the movement to effectively handle present and future challenges (for example, more external regulation, generative AI, and graver risk of external interference in sharing free knowledge). In deciding whether to ratify/adopt this proposal, the Board has a duty to consider the value, cost, and risk to the mission. The Movement Charter has to be weighed against the resource demands of every other potential Wikimedia movement priority, so there must be a strong and convincing argument for its benefit to the mission compared to making improvements through the current structure.

The three concerns that we raised about the February 2024 draft of the Movement Charter remain in this latest draft: the purpose of the Global Council is not clearly connected to our public interest mission, the size and cost of the Global Council is unwieldy and impractical, and the values proposed in the Movement Charter have not been validated by the Wikimedia communities.

In the present form, and following discussion with our fellow trustees, we, as the liaisons from the Board of Trustees, would not be able to recommend that the Board vote to ratify the Charter; substantive changes are still needed. We do hope there is opportunity to address some of these issues prior to the final text.

Purpose and evaluation of the Global Council

The proposed Movement Charter needs to take a strong and clear position on how it will advance Wikimedia's public interest mission. The Board is aware that there are different perspectives on the problems the Movement faces when it comes to Movement Governance. The MCDC has thought about these questions, as they have been discussed throughout the Movement Strategy process. Even if there is disagreement, however, the purpose of the Global Council can and must be clear in the Charter. Only if it is clearly articulated how establishing it effectively addresses the shortcomings of the current structures that the Global Council is designed to address and why this formulation is expected to be impactful, then Wikimedians can truly understand what they are voting on when they are asked to ratify the Charter.

Currently, there is no clear and compelling explanation of how the current Global Council proposal will ensure equity in decision-making. The document should explain how the Global Council design will make decision-making more equitable, how forming the Global Council helps the movement better achieve its public interest mission of collecting and sharing free knowledge with the world, and the rationale for the proposed size and make-up of the Council. Having such clarity will also provide guidance on how to evaluate the effectiveness of the Global Council once it is operational and define its success.

If we imagine a negative scenario, where the Global Council fails to be effective at improving our work, and where the Charter does not specify what particular challenges it would be expected to address, it would be difficult to justify disbanding it, simply because it is in the Charter. As another example, if the argument for size is diversity, a size ten times larger would surely be even more diverse; but that comes at a cost for effectiveness. This is what we expect to see a rationale for.

Size and expense of the Global Council

The mission and the goals of the proposed complex structure of the Global Council—Global Council Assembly (GCA) and Global Council Board (GCB)—are unclear. The GCA would be significantly larger than any other globally elected body across the Movement. This poses new and unique challenges, including how to adequately support it and ensure it will be effective in improving equity in decision-making, accessible for people to participate, and not overly bureaucratic to be responsive.

Moreover, the Global Council cost, both in financial terms and in terms of volunteers' time, is still unclear, and could require significant trade-offs with other Mission priorities. With all these complexities and uncertainties, we believe that the Global Council needs to be approached as a pilot initiative, in line with the Movement Strategy Recommendation to evaluate, iterate, and adapt. The financial and volunteer resources to support the Global Council's success must be considered alongside the support for other critical work in the Movement. This includes other initiatives aimed at improving equity–the concern is not whether equity should be funded but how best to use such funds for the greatest impact.

A one-off meeting of such a body is unlikely to lead to decisions that couldn't otherwise be made with a simpler community vote or consultation and would be considerably less inclusive; and year-round staff support and expenses would consume a significant sum from the operating budget. The MCDC itself struggled to start working even with active facilitation and staff support, and a much larger group would struggle even more. This money—as well as volunteer time and effort—would be diverted from other work that is directly pursuing our mission of collecting and disseminating human knowledge. And we are unconvinced it will benefit the Movement in more effective and equitable decision-making. For instance, whether equity would be better served by a large assembly where it is difficult to have qualitative conversations or with a small group that would also be able to travel and meet people where they are to accommodate diverse perspectives? Again, if the Charter were to describe how the Council would be delivering objectives it is being set up to deliver, it would be easier to assess the necessity of this size.

Assuming the Charter articulates the mission and goals of the GCA and GCB, then practically speaking, it is reasonable to move forward in the short term with the level of support that was provided to the MCDC, a body of approximately 15 volunteers, over the past two years (selection, onboarding, translation support, facilitation, note-taking, project management, stipends, and travel to name a few). Such support can be reassigned to the selection and work of a new body of roughly the same size without cutting into the programmatic work that is done by the Foundation and other Wikimedia organizations. For the piloting stage, a body of this size is a reasonable commitment to start preparing for and accepting responsibilities while reviewing and improving needed structures to do so, and sorting out the next steps for us as the Movement. The best use of the resources should be determined in more detail at the implementation stage itself.

We therefore encourage you to amend the draft to explicitly allow for the Global Council to be bootstrapped gradually, starting small, and verify if the approach works, before we commit to supporting a larger body. As with any pilot, we should have clear goals to understand if the new approach is an effective and useful approach and, if not, be prepared to modify the approach by expanding or taking a new direction.

Values require wider validation

Our concern with the Values section mentioned [earlier] remains. These values have not received wider validation by the Movement to affirm that they are shared and also that they are properly prioritized. We have heard this concern voiced by other Movement participants.

Next steps and ratification

The Charter ratification vote at the end of June will be a critical time for community members and affiliates to share their perspectives, as the voters would be able to leave comments and arguments for why they voted the way they did, even though the vote itself is just yes or no. If the Charter is ratified, the data would provide some reasons why it was supported. If it is not ratified, the data would provide some indications of how to plan the next steps. This was extremely valuable in the second iteration of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines, which technically passed its first vote but also raised significant enough concerns that we paused to address them.

Regardless of the outcome of the ratification vote in June, the Board and Foundation staff are discussing immediate steps that the Foundation can take to ensure that certain significant functions for the Wikimedia movement are overseen jointly with the appropriate Movement-led bodies. As we have mentioned on Meta before, these functions for now include: decision-making on Fund dissemination, decision-making on Affiliate recognition and strategy, and advice on Product & Technology. We shall also soon be sharing considerable trust and safety work with the upcoming Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee. More details are outlined in the draft 2024-2025 Foundation annual plan, which is currently undergoing a community consultation.

We want to thank you again, MCDC members, for the extraordinary amount of time, creativity, and commitment you have all brought to this process. The Board is encouraged by many of the conversations, ideas, and proposals that have come out of the MCDC’s two years of work, and the Board supports the creation of structures for more participatory Movement-led bodies in resource allocation, affiliation strategy, better collaboration between the Foundation and volunteers on setting product and technology priorities, and more.

--NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the proposed Movement Charter needs to take a strong and clear position on how it will advance Wikimedia's public interest mission. "to make free knowledge available to the world" however, doesn't say it all. Because first it doesn't tell what kind of knowledge we're striving for to offer the public. Knowledge we read in Nature, on Truth Social, in the New York Times, at the Brittanica, or at voiceofeurope.com? As a core value the Movement Chapter should deliver a description on minimum standards for content publishing we strive for. Possibly those summarized in the 'Five Pillars'?

At the Dutch language Wikipedia, making content verifiable by adding citations is NOT an official policy and thousands of articles on politics have been literally copy-n-pasted from only one website. That is not what I strive for, and many other volunteers neither, I hope.

Second we should think about making it possible to ask money from AI machines like ChatGTP crawling Wikimedia websites for content. Or even put a ban and develop our own ChatWikiP. Keep up, --VanArtevelde (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Section break for comments

Suggestion; i think the movement charter drafting process should be directly supervised by the board, and if necessary carried out by the board itself.. there's not much point to a movement charter that the board itself is going to reject in this formalistic way.

i would suggest that more could be accomplished if the board itelf writes the movement charter that it wants to see. I would suggest that the movement charter drafting committee should very gently and very politely tell the board to write a draft of their own, perhaps using the existing draft as the starting point. i am simply trying to be helpful here, to all concerned. Sm8900 (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of a charter and council is to ground a family of decision making in the needs, initiatives, and independent agency of the broader movement. For that reason, I'd say the last thing we need is a charter drafted by the WMF.

I agree with the comment posted by Nat, that the current draft is simply missing some of the grounding that any charter should have - and the drafting process has not been responsive to these issues when they have been raised by community members over thep ast 9 months. Most of those concerns don't seem specific to the WMF, nor do they seem more 'formal' than much of the feedback on this page from other people and affiliates (which has all gone similarly without response).

We must be explicit about needing to iterate on this idea in a more continuous way. I drafted an example of a more streamlined charter that highlights why we're doing this, doesn't include unnecessary implementation details, and is intentionally easy and quick to revise. And we should make progress this year on many issues that can be resolved this year without a new elaborate layer of bureaucracy, to illustrate the sorts of global decisions that need a more effective mechanism. –SJ talk  17:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Whatever replaces the current draft of the Charter should be developed on-wiki, on a page similar to User:Sj's draft. At the end of the day, spending months and months with the Charter being developed in secret is only harming the acceptability of the result, and it doesn't make sense to continue with the current closed process.

If the movement charter is necessary then it should be developed like other policy. If it's not necessary (and we have the current projects to show that it's not), then maybe it's time to stop. TomDotGov (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not the process being used that is the problem, on the contrary. The conflicts are fundamental and now seems to be impossible to reconcile Yger (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

« Our concern with the Values section mentioned in the letter titled Wikimedia Foundation feedback on Movement Charter 1.0 Draft remains. » − where is this letter? Is that supposed to be Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council? That does not seem to mention "values" at all. Please provide a hyperlink! (or if it’s not public for whatever reason, then please clearly say so) Jean-Fred (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Jean-Fred thanks for the comment. apologies, i clarified that it was a reference to previous communication: diff. i published letter as it was, sorry for being confusing! -- NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Per Manage Internal Knowledge and Ensure Equity in Decision-making could that communication be published for all contributors to see? TomDotGov (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

TomDotGov thanks for the comment. i thought about your suggestion for a bit -- i do not think it actually fits here, as it was a working document in reaction to a working document at some point in time -- so publishing that letter without a document it was a reaction to does not seem like an example of good "management of internal knowledge", as the context will be missing (and in any case a reaction to a phase of the non-public draft is just correspondence, not useful knowledge to the Movement in the long run). so i shall quote below the whole small section dedicated to "Values" from that letter, to have it in the context of this conversation re values, and as an illustration of how additionally confusing a text without its context can be (as, for example, the text below mentions "values and principles", but the final public draft does not present principles in the same way, so for a casual reader more explanations would be needed):

=== Values ===

The values need to be validated before they are adopted, and bundling them with the Charter ratification, which is a “yes or no” vote, is not enough. To streamline this process, we recommend delegating the detailed definition of the values of the movement to the Global Council, allowing for focused consultation after the Charter's ratification. This would also eliminate the problem that the draft currently seems to blend values and principles.

i hope that helps --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I kind of disagree that correspondence is not valuable - there's a reason why Talk pages are public and archived. In general, that should be true of the rest of this process. Can you at least confirm this is all there is - that the Board doesn't believe the values in the draft have support? TomDotGov (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

TomDotGov thanks, we would have to kind of agree to disagree on this. While it might be valuable to be able to see a separate piece of working correspondence, I think it is not useful without being able to put it in some context. As I said, our public response here reiterates our previous communication on the points not addressed.

The Values section I quoted above is the only section dedicated to the topic of values in the [non-public] letter titled Wikimedia Foundation feedback on Movement Charter 1.0 Draft. To your point regarding talk pages -- by default, communication on the talk pages is intended to be public, whereas that correspondence was not. And though indeed, preserving conversations around the subject is a distinguishing feature of how we do things on the projects, we do delete orphaned talk pages if there is “no corresponding subject page” (including on the English Wikipedia); so I would treat that letter as a section on such a talk page, as the “subject page” was not published -- it was a document intended for a preliminary round of feedback, shared with advisors, who volunteered to review.

The values listed in the relevant chapter of the draft were not sufficiently validated (MCDC did publish Values & Principles content back in 2022 for the community consultation) -- publishing a list of positive qualities is not the same as validating if they are shared -- by community members, and by organisations in the movement. I have read on the subject in literature, that it is better if there are only a few values as then there is a way to know what exactly is at the core, and what you will try at all costs to protect and not compromise on (for example, one of the popular authors in the sphere phrased this as “(...) considering a values initiative must first come to terms with the fact that, when properly practiced, values inflict pain”).

The values listed in the draft now are a mixture of:

• potentially core values (Free knowledge from the list, perhaps? But if it is core, how do we square it with our allowance to use non-free materials in some wikis’ exemption doctrines? Would Educational content be more core actually? (something along the lines of the Wikimedia Commons Project scope?) So in the value statement, we can state that we want all the knowledge to be as free as possible, including licensing, so that the knowledge can stay free potentially in perpetuity (via CC BY-SA it is quite doable, but if it cannot be shared under a free license, we would host some non-free materials, too -like we do now?- etc);
• aspirational values (we may be striving to Equity, but we are not there. It is better to be realistic than base our plans on what is not yet there. We may want to be known for Inclusivity, but we are just not yet there -- I assert this as a female editor from a “developing” country);
• and maybe even accidental values (for me Autonomy sounds like an interesting case as a value -- are we striving “to operate independently” or rather, are we recognising “sharing of knowledge as a deeply collaborative endeavor”? There is tension between those principles. Should Collaboration be among our values? As of now, it is mentioned only in passing in the introduction to the Values section, but if both are there, which one do we follow? An issue with such contradictions is mentioned also in this article, for example).

How would applying these values work in real life? Having too many declared and not verified values, potentially contradicting each other, does not sound like “a common framework for decision-making”, but rather like a place where you can shop around for an excuse to make the decisions in the way you want them. There was a session dedicated to Values at the Wikimedia Summit (I believe the report should be coming out soon), and the main arguments there were about the list of these values being sometimes not really core (thus negotiable), while also not very distinctive to the Wikimedia Movement, and not helping to figure out our red lines.

There was no proper discussion on this topic in the process of Movement Charter Drafting, presented in a way that helps understand that we are not talking about “all or some nice things to have”, but rather “where we are prepared to feel pain, rather than compromise”, where we draw lines and what we are willing to pay prices for.

This part of the feedback might sound like a suggestion “to kick the can down the road”, but a proper conversation on the topic supervised by a group of volunteers with the mandate, selected by all of us, seems like a very wiki-way of approaching global policies -- also technically an easier one emotionally to organise for a newly established body, needing to earn its reputation (or make its own mistakes!), when one does not yet need to cut some funding or increase some other funding, and people do not yet gather with proverbial “pitchforks” --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Good Evening @NTymkiv (WMF), and thank you for your elaboration. Taking off my MCDC hat, and putting one of a former junior social researcher, I can mention that a en:Value Theory is a complex thing and sometimes uneasy to agree on, including what values are, and what for. However, usually we do agree that 1) people have many values 2) however they are not equally important, and rather compose some hierarchy and a system 3) the same applies to groups of people.

When reading your (and some other ppl feedback), I think we use different value theories. The Charter draft is more specific and prescriptive, and uses values as guidelines in contextual decision-making (e.g. you should strive to be transparent and equitable etc.), whereas many respondents look for an inspiring, defining, central short list.

Do I read correctly that you are calling for 1) core values (non-negotiable and defining) and 2) derivative values / principles (more aspirational, specific and contextual)? In fact, a similar feedback was shared by a group in Berlin, and the core values we could work out to define us were following three:

1. Free and open (viral?) licensing
2. Self organization / collaboration
3. Factfulness / reality-based (not fiction, propaganda etc.)

In other words, we are a heavily distributed organization (2) for knowledge (1) sharing (3).

Would be this approach more satysfying for you? And to not lose the prescriptiveness and specifics, we could build further values / guidelines on that. You can actually see how subsidiarity, equity, transparency and accountability stem from there (maybe with a discussion if free licensing isn't a derivative of responsible sharing :-) ). aegis maelstrom δ 21:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Time for a NEW process using a highly useful existing resource that we ought to RENEW

guys, now that the WMF Board has actually politely rejected the charter that we thought the board itself was driving, I submit that it is time for community discussions that can be more permanent and more centralized in nature. for that reason, i would suggest we revisit the MS forums, at the link below. open to any input or feedback on this.

LINK:

https://forum.movement-strategy.org/

thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation of feedback

An elected body of 15 could be accepted, noting bigger at this moment. It could be assigned to act

• as a decision-making body on Fund dissemination. As myself being a member i NWE grant body I know this is a critical need, and should be supported and realized whatever the outcome of the discussion around Global council
• as a body for decision-making on Affiliate recognition and strategy. I am myself have not full insight in this but believe this is a valid need
• as a body for coordinating advice on Product & Technology. As above I myself have not full insight in this but believe this is a valid need

In parallel the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee would exist

I think a body like this would make sense and be of benefit for the movement, increasing the quality in issues related to these three areas. It could also, as being recognized, as en embryo for something bigger, as the thought being the global council.

This outcome would though be a big disappointment for all the individuals being engaged in the development of the movement strategy. And why wass not this issued by teh Board at the very beginning?Yger (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yger thanks for the interest in the topic. First of all I just want to recognise that setting up a group to work on a complex topic is not a conventional thing to do, and the Movement Charter drafting process was not an easy one, if I look back at it. I think a lot was learnt, and I hope the process has been properly documented, so the things that worked -- would be passed along to other such global multi year projects, and the mistakes made would not be repeated in the future (or repeated under some changed conditions)

On your question about why not issue something at the beginning --

• Re size and complexity: the Board had concerns about effectiveness of a potentially big Global Council (GC) already back in 2020, and these concerns were reflected in the minutes. This concern has always been present, but as no specific number was mentioned in the recommendations themselves -- the MCDC itself deliberated on the form and size of it over these years (for example, the first released draft for the Global Council chapter envisioned a small body) and the first full text draft of the Charter was shared only in February 2024 (for a first round of feedback from advisors, and the Foundation). We repeated this feedback then.
• Re the areas of responsibility to assign from the Wikimedia Foundation to the GC -- which is a more complex issue -- this was shared with the Movement Charter Drafting Committee at the end of January, prior to the Committee’s in-person meeting in Atlanta, USA. That is when the Board itself finalised its own deliberations about the topic, which required a lot of conversations with staff leadership. I understand that it might feel like a long process, but let’s put it into some context:

• 2020 -- when the recommendations were finalised, and went live in May 2020, was a year of COVID -- in-person meetings were disrupted, and a lot of projects delayed or postponed (for example, the Foundation's annual planning was lightweight, still around the Medium-term plan of 2019, and basically a repeat of the previous year (and this would have been an opportunity to start deliberating on areas of responsibilities to reassign) -- the Board approved provisional budget for 2020-2021, but the plan itself was approved only at the end of September; Board governance reform was not progressing (committee evaluation plan adopted, based on the 2019 Governance review recommendations, was adopted only on June 1, 2021), the community Board selection process was postponed, etc.
• 2021 -- Katherine Maher, the CEO of the Foundation, stepped down in April. With María Sefidari stepping down as the Chair of the Board a bit later that year, the Board had acting Board officers for a few months. With an ongoing CEO search and a Board selection process for ⅓ of the Board (4 seats), and without a permanent leadership the annual planning process was still around the Medium-term plan. Maryana Iskander was announced as the CEO only in September with starting only in January 2022. She and 3 newly appointed trustees needed onboarding. And the MCDC itself was formed only at the very end of 2021.
• 2022 -- Maryana just stepped into the role of the CEO. The annual planning process of the Foundation underwent many changes, to align more closely with the Strategy Recommendations. March 2022 saw the first Board and staff retreat in 2 years, the first meeting in-person with Maryana (the CEO search was done almost entirely online). Basically, it was the first thinking about what multi-year priorities for the Foundation might look like, so that there would be a possibility to engage in serious conversations regarding which responsibilities can be transferred. In parallel, the MCDC was just starting to figure out how to work together, and how to engage with the Board, and they themselves only had their first in-person meeting in June 2022. In-person meetings helped to speed up some conversations, and to prepare for a shift starting in 2023-2024. Two more new trustees joined the Board, which involved further onboarding. The CEO continued building the C-team -- Selena Deckelmann, the Chief Product and Technology Officer joined only in August 2022, and the department she oversees is more than half of the Foundation staff. Starting June 2022, representatives from MCDC have been invited to every Board meeting.
• 2023 -- the annual plan for 2023-2024 was already attempting “to provide more clarity on multi-year strategic issues”, not only presenting a one-year horizon for planning. In parallel, the MCDC was more actively drafting, attending meetings with different stakeholders, and experts, including the Foundation staff (on Technology & Product, on Fundraising, on Legal, on Affiliations, etc). This year was also used to see if the assumptions about the multi-year issues were the right ones to continue and build around. The MCDC was invited to the Foundation strategic retreat in March 2023, and continued to be invited to the Board meetings. First draft chapters were released in time for Wikimania 2023. First serious generative AI models also enter the scene.
• And that brings us to 2024. The Board finalised the conversations and issued its position on areas of responsibility for the Global Council in January 2024 (as internal correspondence with the MCDC, later published on Meta). The MCDC prepared the first full draft for feedback in February; advisors and Board reacted for the first time to a full document (internal correspondence, ). The MCDC tweaked the text based on the parts of the feedback received that they decided to accept, and they shared the updated February draft with the Board 2 days before the strategic retreat in New York that they were also invited to attend. After the strategic retreat, the MCDC worked on the final draft to have it ready and translated for the first public consultation in April -- the Board had 28 days to discuss and issue feedback to the final draft, and the letter published above.

Being a part of this whole process I can share that a deliberative body can make a decision quickly, during a few hours meeting, only if there was a lot of input processed before that meeting, and all the conversations with the right people happened -- it can take time, and probably will take a lot of time outside of the meeting room -- on wiki included -- for anything like a Global Council (it did take the MCDC 2.5 years to work), thus we need to start small, and learn whether, how and where we need to grow

P.S. I am not really dwelling here on what is called “geopolitical issues”, even though some of them had a lot of influence on where energy and resources were also spent (Wikipedians put in jails for editing Wikipedia, community and staff members displaced, lost, due to all these “complications” etc) --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer clarifying the timeline. As stated above, I am positive to the change in responsibilities the Board propose, and see it as a natural second step to the change introduced in 2012 by Sue (slimmer WMF) when the first FDC had its first meeting (in which I was a member) But while that change in 2012 was also done in response to irritation and alienation among volunteers, but before it got out of hand, this time the proposal in done after alienation has generated tons of manhours of discussions (for myself as an "ambassador" only a few). I think you are creating, with your mode of communicating your message, a lot of unnecessary conflict and frustration with a lot of volunteers and especially the dedicated and good people in the MCDC group. I also find it unfortunate that you do not seem to recognize the strong alienation that exist among volunteers to he Board and WMF. I see it as a big risk we all come out of this process weaker with less volunteers energy, and would like the Board to be more focused on maintaining and enhancing our volunteer driven movement Yger (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

my own personal suggestion is that I think the board should simply be the entity to draft the charter. I didn't realize they are not already the main group that is actively managing this process Sm8900 (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

ESEAP

• Some ESEAP feedback
• Further solicitation

Buszmail (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Buszmail Thank you for sharing the links to the ESEAP feedback also on this talk oage! Well appreciated. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Does (drafting) the Movement Charter has it's (legal) base in the "Movement Strategy Recommendations"?

The Dutch Wikimedia Chapter did communicate that the initiative to draft a "Movement Charter" has been based on one of the Movement Strategy Recommendations, to "Ensure equity in decision making". When that is correct, can someone please explain who is the creator of the Movement Strategy and the Movement Strategy Recommendations, and to whom the recommendations have been given? A derived question: is there a (legal) entity that did adopt this Movement Strategy and / or it's recommendations and has, in doing so, this entity a kind of responsibility or 'moral duty' to strive for the execution of the strategy and it's recommendations? Did the WMF adopt the strategy and / or it's recommendations? Thanks very much when someone could and would take time to explain the context, so people can understand what this is all about and where it could possibly lead to (or not). --VanArtevelde (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

well said indeed! I support the questions above. 👍 Sm8900 (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@VanArtevelde: The movement strategy was an open collaboration, documented as it happened here on Meta, by many hundreds of people including participants from all sibling projects and most affiliates at the time. Its final recommendations were to the movement as a whole, and adopted by a range of organizations from the WMF* and WMDE to WMNL, often noted in the next strategic plan of each organization or in minutes of their own governing bodies.

Every organization so adopting it has committed further resources to helping realize it, beyond the time invested in developing it. As the largest organizations in the movement, WMF and WMDE have done the most visible work on this front, including having a team dedicated to implementing it (on the WMF side) and extensive support for ongoing strategy work and convenings (on the WMDE side), including the most recent Wikimedia Summit.

Sm8900 I know you have been following closely, I'd have thought you would be one of the people answering such questions on this page ;) –SJ talk  02:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

* GVarnum, could someone update the WMF resolution, or create an inbound link to it, referencing the final revised strategy that was 'brought back to the Board'?

@Sj: thanks for your note. but sorry, i really can't answer any questions about this process. sorry! by the way, could you please sign your comment above? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing and fact-checking the feedback

I think there's a reason reactions to this feedback are limited (at least publicly) and all over the place - I've thought for a while about even engaging in this text, considering the extremely poor timing of it and the implications for the current strategy process, and I am struggling to find the motivation to engage with the Wikimedia Foundation if these are the kind of games being played around the strategy process. I think there are already meetings being planned between the WMF and different groups to address the anger, frustration and disappointment at the way this feedback was published, but I'll try to focus on setting some things straight that were not or not fully contextualized in the BoT statement

(Thanks for sharing @Philip Kopetzky: I'm not a fan of the current draft, but understand your frustration. Some replies inline –SJ talk  11:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC))

• The Foundation’s Board has endorsed these recommendations in principle in 2020. - while factually correct, the implementation of these recommendations has been limited to cherry-picking by teams at the WMF (like the Leadership Development Working Group) without taking the bigger context into account. The recommendations were not intended to be implemented in sequence, but in parallel. Maybe the "in principle" gives the BoT a wikilawyering way out of the recommendations. How we're now going to get to ensuring Equity in Decision-making is something the BoT will now have to find a solution for, as the rest of this BoT statement will show.
• the Board must consider how this particular Movement Charter proposal would enable the movement to effectively handle present and future challenges - this was what the 2030 strategy process was for - it's the reason that switching from a monolithic, American-run organisation to an organisation spread across the globe would make us aware of these challenges/threats/opportunities earlier and also give us a wider set of tools and views on overcoming/handling/taking advantage of events in the future.

  There's a lot going on in this comment! In the strategy process, as far as I saw, heard, and read at the time, the Council wasn't meant to be a new 'global organization' with similar structure to the WMF. The charter wasn't meant to be a mechanism to 'switch global organizations'. It was meant to define a reliable mechanism for global community-led decision-making, in a movement that already has at least one active global org. Maybe this is just a bit of semantics and that's what you mean? But I also get the sense that perhaps some people would like this process to lead to a new corporation, run mainly by the current network of affiliates, that decides a) who can become new affiliates and b) how all movement resources are allocated. That would replace one set of governance problems with a new, more exciting set of problems. –SJ talk 

• the Movement Charter has to be weighed against the resource demands of every other potential Wikimedia movement priority, - even at its most extreme version, it pales in comparison to the resources available to the WMF. Just as a reminder, the number of staff at the WMF has risen from more than 350 at the beginning of 2020 to more than 700 at the end of 2023. It's also difficult to understand what "other potential priorities" could be more important than a 7-year process that was designed to restructure the way the Wikiverse works.

  Fair point. The WMF has grown too fast recently and is in no position to wring hands about overhead costs. –SJ talk 

• the size and cost of the Global Council is unwieldy and impractical - there's a reason the Movement charter isn't an operational manual, because that in itself would be an unwieldy and impractical constitution. Asking for operational solutions at this stage of the process seems a bit premature.
• how it will advance Wikimedia's public interest mission - I think you actually mean the "WMF's public interest mission", which arguably has always diverged from what other groups in the Wikiverse saw as the "public interest mission".

  This is an unfair characterization, and does not seem to me to be what was meant. The WMF has always distinguished its own strategy and mission -- intended to advance that of the movement, but also constrained by its structure and role in the movement -- from the broader mission shared with individual contributors, communities, Projects, &c. –SJ talk 

• the purpose of the Global Council can and must be clear in the Charter - the implications are clear, it just seems that the WMF BoT does not like them or it doesn't reflect their view of what should happen (there's still no vision or strategy document that outlines what the WMF BoT actually wants to see happen in 2030, five years from now)
• If we imagine a negative scenario, where the Global Council fails ... it would be difficult to justify disbanding it - which gets to the heart of the current issue and this feedback by the BoT. The WMF BoT does not see a world where it is not the supreme decision-making body of the movement. It would be more honest to right this directly, instead of only hinting at it.

  I'm not sure I would want any group that fixated on language such as "supreme decision-making body" to be an effective final decision-maker for our far-ranging grassroots movement. You will notice that the WMF does not talk about itself this way (nor does it seem to think about itself this way -- often unable or unwilling to act or decide on a wide range of topics that fall outside what it sees as its scope) –SJ talk 

• As another example, if the argument for size is diversity, a size ten times larger would surely be even more diverse; but that comes at a cost for effectiveness - there is a distinct lack of imagination here. No one is arguing for a Global Assembly with a 15 person Global Council that operates like the current WMF BoT. Decentralising decision-making comes with the benefit of building from a broader base, so that only the most important, globally impactful decisions are made at the top. We already see this happening with the CEE Hub.
• we believe that the Global Council needs to be approached as a pilot initiative - the Global Council is supposed to be the new core of how we operate and make decisions in this movement. There is no point in creating a second global body besides the WMF BoT, the same processes and structures will not yield different results.
• The financial and volunteer resources to support the Global Council's success must be considered alongside the support for other critical work in the Movement - the WMF has a budget of 190 Million USD. How much other critical work than the new core of decision-making is there? No one outside the WMF and most people within the WMF do not know what the WMF specifically spend all the money on. The last community review of the WMF budget was 8 years ago. It's up to the BoT to come up with a list of "other critical work in the Movement" that requires all of the 170 Million USD that the WMF spends internally.
• A one-off meeting of such a body is unlikely to lead to decisions that couldn't otherwise be made with a simpler community vote or consultation - this would require the current situation of community vote or consultation to be acceptable. The last few WMF BoT elections have shown that this is not the case, considering that despite a diverse range of candidates and a small group of people to choose from, not a single candidate from the Global South got elected (2021, 2022).
• The MCDC itself struggled to start working even with active facilitation and staff support - probably the least complete statement in this feedback. The MCDC was set up by the WMF to start the implementation of the recommendations on a strategic level. The WMF decided on holding elections that would be political in nature and resulted in MCDC members believing they were elected for their barely voiced political beliefs. Staff support was subsequently shut out of guiding the process because the MCDC isolated itself from any "outside influence". Because of this isolationism, there was no active facilitation between about June 2022 and November 2022, and staff support was limited to providing a digital space for the MCDC to meet. None of this seemed concerning to the BoT, who only started intervening directly at Wikimania 2023 in Singapore. The MCDC was invited to WMF BoT meeting in person, both had regular meetings with each other, so there was a constant exchange and the direction of travel was evident. To suddenly turn around and issue this feedback in May 2024 does not make sense in this context. This feedback would have worked better a year ago, so that there would have been time to negotiate a solution that was acceptable to everyone and ratification wouldn't be in doubt.

  There was definitely plenty of community feedback at Wikimania 2022 that things should not be isolated and work should happen in public. From my perspective only seeing the public exchanges here on the wiki, the committee has gotten plenty of public [and perhaps also private] feedback on all of the things that need changing, but has not been able to respond appropriately. Mainly because design by committee is hard, and design by private waterfall method is very, very slow. –SJ talk 

• And we are unconvinced it will benefit the Movement in more effective and equitable decision-making - the BoT has so far offered no vision or plan as to how this could be achieved in a different way.
• it is reasonable to move forward in the short term with the level of support that was provided to the MCDC - the tasks and processes assigned to the Global Council Board (that for some reason don't make it into the feedback so it appears the BoT is fine with) would effectively make ~50 people at the WMF redundant (looking at the teams affected), but the BoT wants to carry on with the support of 3-4 staff members for that kind of work.
• without cutting into the programmatic work that is done by the Foundation and other Wikimedia organizations - two hidden statements in this still need to be proven: That the WMF budget is as lean and efficient as it can get, and that building the new core of Wikimedia governance built by hundreds of people in the last seven years has less of a priority than whatever a WMF team comes up with, that it then thinks it can sell to the management of the WMF. The BoT was elected to make difficult decisions, and sometimes spending your way out of a problem isn't possible.

  As someone who participated in the strategy process and is keen to see a charter and council form, this draft does not feel like a suitable "core for future Wikimedia governance". We need something simpler, closer to the initial recommendations in 2019 [which came out of a strategy built by thousands], as a healthy scaffold. –SJ talk 

• preparing for and accepting responsibilities - the current draft, which apparently is too extreme for the BoT to consider ratifying, already puts the Global Council in no direct role of decision-making, and therefore also doesn't have the final responsibility on any of the processes it is supposed to run. This responsibility still lies with the BoT.
• The best use of the resources should be determined in more detail at the implementation stage itself. - I think at this point in time it would be helpful to detail how the BoT thinks those resources will look like, given the limitations it has put on these "resources" in the previous paragraphs.
• be prepared to modify the approach by expanding or taking a new direction. - since it is not explained who would make those changes and decide "a new direction", the default option is the BoT. Which means, again, that the BoT will still make all the decisions in this regard.

  How is that the default? The charter defines how it can be updated. This draft overspecifies details of operation and makes all changes difficult, its most glaring flaw in my view. A less brittle charter would recognize the need for rapid change and evolution of implementation, and not lock in the current framework for some period of years while starting a council. –SJ talk 

• These values have not received wider validation by the Movement to affirm that they are shared and also that they are properly prioritized. We have heard this concern voiced by other Movement participants. - which falls clearly within the responsibility and capacity of the BoT or one of its many committees. Did the BoT really expect that the MCDC should've run a whole values consultation as a fun little side project?
• This was extremely valuable in the second iteration of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines - as a stark reminder of what IS possible when the Wikimedia Foundation sees value in a process, the UCoC process illustrates how such a process can be run efficiently and with a clear outcome.
• Regardless of the outcome of the ratification vote in June, the Board and Foundation staff are discussing immediate steps that the Foundation can take to ensure that certain significant functions for the Wikimedia movement are overseen jointly with the appropriate Movement-led bodies. - it is really difficult to understand why these parallel processes, which have been happening for a while now, are being run. The drafting process of the movement charter has been visibly struggling so much for more than a year and contains many of the solutions (at least in the supplements) that the WMF is trying to find solutions for internally. It would also be interesting to know which "movement-led bodies" exist, because the charter was supposed to establish these structures in the first place.
• which is currently undergoing a community consultation. - judging by the presentations so far, including one at the ESEAP conference, that consultation doesn't even contain any region-specific information or reasoning as to why certain budgets are the way the are.

I think that's most of what is not being said in this statement, but I'd just like to reiterate how poor the timing of this statement is and I personally would expect more leadership from the BoT, instead of only reacting to events like the Wikimedia Summit, when it didn't yield the results the BoT was hoping for (which most people familiar with the current mindset of affiliates could have told the BoT long before the Wikimedia Summit). Maybe this can be discussed in more detail during the next BoT election process which is going to start in June. Philip Kopetzky (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The Summit did not yield results that many people were hoping for. It started with a session where people wrote down some of the blockers they saw. None of the ones that came to mind for me at the time -- the difficulty of making changes, combined with the overinclusion of operational detail that will have to change; the lack of specific positive goals for a council (compare this); the drafting in private & lack of timely responses to any feedback on the wiki (on this page); giving undue emphasis to an affiliate system which was not designed to define global governance -- have been addressed.

The Board's input seems to me to have been fairly consistent over time, in private while drafting was private between last August and this April (an unfortunate decision by the committee) and then in public since then. So has input from the great many thoughtful commenters on this page whose concerns have gone unanswered. –SJ talk  11:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

frankly i think the board of trustees just frankly doesn't particularly like us, this community, or its process, or this set of ideas.

if they don't dislike us, then why aren't they here? i.e. participating in the actual discussions? Sm8900 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that the Board of Trustees basically each think they are "nice" people. that is often the main deficiency which can derail a process like this. in their own heads, they think they are nice, collegial, helpful people. so therefore, any of their draconian-sounding statements, distilled in their own minds, become "hey, we are just trying to create a dialogue here! we are just trying to tell you what we think! we are just trying to welcome you with an honest exchange of views!! see?!!!" that is often the failing when nice, personable people, who are not used to wielding authority, are given a primary central role such as the Board

just look at this statement from BoT, as quoted above, as well as the insightful accompanying comment by Philip Kopetzky (talk · contribs), as part of their insightful post above: "And we are unconvinced it will benefit the Movement in more effective and equitable decision-making" [- the BoT has so far offered no vision or plan as to how this could be achieved in a different way. --comment by poster] this formalistic, rigid-sounding statement could only have been issued by people who deep down think their "niceness" is visible for all in the community to see, and who therefore think they don't have to do any of the actual footwork to actually create a process which would foster an atmospere of collaboration.

the BoT thinks it is nice, thinks its own statements will intrinsically lead to mutual dialogue and cooperation, and therefore does not feel ANY need whatsoever to create any actual process that would cause any of that to occur, in real terms. Sm8900 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Being on the BoT is not an easy job - you have pressure from all sides to act in their interests. Going against what the staff of the WMF put forward to you, or pushing back against it, requires time and energy, and that's even before you decide which topics to invest your time and energy in. So I don't personally blame the BoT members for not taking care of every single issue put forward to them. But one can definitely ask the BoT members standing for re-election this July/August why this process wasn't taken as seriously as it maybe should've been. Philip Kopetzky (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

no need for this

there's no need for this whole convoluted process. simply allow the board of trustees to assume the central role in this process. that seems to be what they want. to quote en:Kent Brockman: "I for one would like to welcome our new overlords." etc. Sm8900 (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

A committee isn’t going to solve the technology problem

The entire extent of the technological vision in the proposed Movement Charter is that a committee will be formed to deliberate over technology. This is shockingly little vision seeing as Wikimedia is a technological solution to an educational and information-sharing problem. I consider technology to be one of the most important elements to our project, second only to the humans using the technology. This proposal treats the evolution of the software platform like an after-thought, to be handled by someone else later.

More importantly though, it doesn’t solve the actual problem that keeps Wikimedia’s technical platform stagnant. We have ~1,000 Wikimedia wikis in existence and supplementary platforms like the Education Dashboard and Toolforge. And there are so many diverse needs here. Off the top of my head:

• Many of English Wikipedia’s workflows were developed in the mid-to-late-2000s and have yet to be updated. I know this because I developed some of these workflows. There are also tons of design patterns that reflect the era of desktop computing that translate poorly to a mobile experience. Actually upgrading all this would take several years.
• Basque Wikipedia and similarly situated small Wikipedias want to experiment with more innovative forms of content like interactive charts; larger language editions seem ambivalent or indifferent.
• Wikidata’s interface and workflows are okay, but they are running into graph database scalability issues, which is a hard computer science problem. These scalability issues are inhibiting the growth of an otherwise rapidly growing project.
• Wikimedia Commons also has data storage issues – not of graph databases, but of files. 5 GB (formerly 4 GB) is fine for most images and some videos but far from adequate for 4K video or more complex 3D models.
• Smaller language editions of Wikipedia struggle with updating pages once they have gone out of date. Or really, with attracting contributors at all. (Is this a software problem, or something requiring a comprehensive interdisciplinary solution?)
• Several Wikimedia projects are using software intended for building an online encyclopedia, rather than tailored to the mission of that project. Wikisource’s full potential as a transcription platform is inhibited because the transcription stuff is imposed on top of encyclopedia software rather than a platform intended for transcription. Wikinews uses an esoteric extension called DynamicPageLists to render filtered lists of news articles in chronological order; I am not aware of other Wikimedia projects with this need. Wikifunctions is a bespoke platform with no direct analogue outside of Wikimedia. Overall, the MediaWiki platform is generic by design, which makes it highly adaptable, but also creates a lot of friction for volunteers trying to be productive.

Wikimedia’s competitive advantage, for decades, has been its speed – not just in updating content, but for the ability of the community to develop technical workarounds to the limits of the platform. Lua modules are awesome, and JavaScript gadgets are even more awesome (maybe a little too awesome). However, as Wikimedia has matured as a platform, and as the world around us has gotten scarier, the Wikimedia Foundation is starting to think through the risk calculus of this arrangement. And I do not disagree with them for doing this; the risk needs to be taken seriously.

So then why is this proposal not an adequate replacement for the community doing its own skunkworks? Because it does not address the underlying problems that forces communities to do this to begin with.

The Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for operating Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Individual employees get holidays off and vacations, but the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole doesn’t get to stop. They have to service billions of server requests per month, and they need to do so with a fraction of the servers and people that Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms do. This means Wikimedia is forced to prioritize, and it prioritizes code that is stable, performant, secure, and requires the least human intervention to run. Because if something breaks, someone needs to stop what they were working on to address it.

A site reliability engineering team that is barely keeping its head above water is not in a position to support an evolving platform. Let’s say a tech committee forms, and somehow distills the various issues and requirements I described above into a program plan for the Product and Technology department to address.

I have worked on software intended for Wikimedia’s production environment, as a grantee of the Wikimedia Foundation as well as a contractor and then employee. The software production cycle works something like this:

1. You develop the first version of your new extension or service.
2. Once the people are available, the code is reviewed for security. This can take a while seeing as there are only so many security people available for reviews. Unless you have significant experience designing robust, secure systems, they will probably find issue with the code. This blocks deployment.
3. The code is deployed to the Beta Cluster, where it has the first opportunity to conflict with the dozens of extensions Wikimedia uses. You can’t really know what conflicts arise until you try. This creates further delay as you mitigate these issues. You may also run into performance issues, and that could be another source of delay.
4. At some point, you push to send the code into production. Site Reliability Engineering is the gatekeeper here. I don’t resent them for this – they need to be cautious about what sort of code they expose to the entire world – but it is a legitimate blocker. But, if you have made it this far, you have a chance at making it.
5. That said, once code is in production, you may discover more bugs yet, as production is similar but not identical to the beta cluster.

Most projects don’t get past step 1. CollaborationKit made it to step 3, but as I learned, extension development for Wikimedia production is not easy, for a lot of reasons.

None of these issues have to do with deciding software development priorities. We already have mechanisms for coming up with priorities, including the Community Wishlist, whatever Product does these days, and community members doing the work themselves (what better way to show something is important to you than to do it yourself?). If we create a technology committee to make these decisions, it will take months/years of deliberation, followed by years of figuring out how to actually get it happening within the Wikimedia Foundation’s constraints.

And this speaks to a bigger problem I have with this proposed charter: it doesn’t seem to oblige the Wikimedia Foundation to do anything. It creates obligations of movement participants and movement affiliates, but treats movement governance structures as entirely subordinate to the Wikimedia Foundation. If the Wikimedia Foundation decided to ignore the Council, the Council would have no recourse in court or anywhere else. I am not saying these matters should be litigated in court – I am saying the threat of litigation is what makes contracts meaningful. Why should we waste our time with something so elaborate yet so powerless, that won’t do anything to fix the fundamental problems with our platform, and potentially make them worse by stacking new mandates on top of the existing ones?

And again, this assumes a committee even has the capacity to capture the extensive variety of requirements that different projects and communities have. Harej (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Harej,

I just wanted to let you know I have read your comment and hear your concern, and I agree - this topic is bigger than the Charter will be able to cover. I think in the last rewrite we have made some improvements that should open pathways to address at least some of the items you mention, and this last draft is in the preparation cycle for final publication now. We will be collecting feedback in the ratification vote as well; the voting opens on the 25th of June. Ciell (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. Technology is a major challenge that the current system and its rate of progress cannot keep up with. Adding another layer of bureaucracy from a Council of non-experts will only slow things down, at a time when we really need to speed things up. Toadspike (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Can volunteers please confirm that everything is okay

I am anxious that volunteers are somehow pressured into doing things they do not consent or wish to do, but I do not know what exactly is happening or why this would be happening. The schedule for community voting on the Movement Charter is so rushed that the Wikimedia community will not have time to review and discuss it. Supposedly the schedule comes from volunteer committees. The volunteer committees are our trusted colleagues, and to me it seems out of character for them to consent and choose to have this rushed vote. I want confirmation that the volunteers organizing all this are okay, and that they are making their own choices collectively without pressure, and that they believe that everything about this is good and what they think is best.

Correct me if any of this is wrong:

1. Right now the Movement Charter is a draft at Movement_Charter/Content/One-page_draft
2. On 3 May the Wikimedia Foundation board rejected this draft
3. The Wikimedia Summit also rejected the draft, but did publish on 29 May a list of demands for changes in the draft, which would enable them to accept it
4. The Movement Charter Timeline says that the vote to ratify this will be 25 June―9 July 2024, so in 3 weeks
5. In private email to all-affiliates mailing list the WMF says that the volunteer drafting committee will have a new version by 18 June
6. The general plan is that several thousand voters and about 200 organizations representing them will be able to get the new version 18 June, understand it in a week, then vote in that 2-week period between 25 June and 9 July

This seems strange to me because it is not enough time for individuals and groups to deliberate a long complicated text which will guide our Movement and the spending of many hundreds of millions of dollars. Most Wikimedia affiliate groups meet less than every three months. The Wikimedia Summit brought together about 200 very engaged volunteers from many language communities around the world, and many aspects of the Charter were still new to them. There is no one here who is discussing what changes will come to the charter following the summit (perhaps 100% of the demanded changes, to make things easy?) and I personally lack understanding of what changes the WMF board is demanding either of the old draft or in response to the summit proposals.

This rushed vote cannot possibly reflect the wishes of an informed voter base or electorate. It simply is not feasible to have global deliberation in 50 languages with a new document in one week. Most Wikimedia affiliates meet less than quarterly. There will not be time for journalism in outlets like the Kurier or Signpost, much less in non-English or German languages. The precedent of Wikimedia community discussions is that they routinely take weeks to deliberate, and this could be the most consequential discussion ever in terms of setting a budget for the next billion dollars that the Wikimedia Movement collects.

Questions:

1. Can some volunteer involved in any part of this speak to the urgency of doing this vote on this rushed schedule, with previous draft versions being unacceptable and the new version unpublished?
2. Will any volunteer involved in setting this schedule speak up to confirm that your committee is okay? Did the drafting committee enthusiastically consent to making these quick revisions on this schedule? Is it the Charter Electoral Commission who decided that one week is enough time for everyone to become an informed voter? This rushed schedule has the appearance of volunteers under pressure and I request confirmation that the members of these committees are acting freely of their own will.

Am I mistaken about any of this? Am I accurately describing the state of things and schedule? Can someone please correct me? Does any of this seem strange to anyone else?

I am a big fan of community goverance, the Movement Charter, the ratification vote, and everything about this. This schedule makes me anxious though because I do not understand it. It does not seem aligned with our values committment to diversity and inclusion for community governance. I am unaware of a reason that the Movement Charter should be developed so quickly, right now. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm similarly concerned. The current draft was rejected by the Board and the affiliate representatives at the Wikimedia Summit, and many substantive concerns have been raised by members of the community and affiliates here. What's the rush? Why not spend the time to get the next draft "right", have another discussion period, and then once there is widespread buy-in go for a ratification vote? I understand that some feel like this whole process has taken too long, but I do not think the solution to that is rushing out the end product. That really goes against all wiki decision making up to this point. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• To answer the initial question, everything is going according to plan. We are now doing final work on the Charter that will be the subject of the ratification vote. One should always keep in mind that, given there are around 70,000 potential voters, the number of individuals who have commented and provided feedback is actually very, very small. Without a much more major push for participation, we really don't know what the broad level of the community thinks about the charter. We've tried a range of activities to get the broader community involved, but I think it's been known for years that many (most?) Wikimedians only comment on proposed significant changes when there's likely to be a direct impact on them; to this point, I'm sure many folks have believed this was largely a theoretical discussion with little or no effect on them. We will have a much better sense of where the broad community, the affiliate community, and the Board of Trustees stands after the ratification vote. If the vote succeeds, then we have a charter. If it does not....well, we will also have a metric tonne more comments, including a lot from individual Wikimedians. We will all have a result by Wikimania, at which point next steps can be discussed. Risker (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Risker: Great answer. I was not intending to interview anyone when I asked the question but you explained it well and I have you quoted in journalism at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/News_and_notes. If you (or anyone else) have comments on my draft story in The Signpost then please share; I am eager to adopt proposed changes. Excuse me for elevating your comments to journalism but we are on a short timeline and this is the last chance to publish before the election. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:, it's fine. I was trying to get my act together to write something for Signpost, but have been too busy with MCDC work, so this works out well. There is a bit of personal opinion in there (the bit about Wikimedians commenting only when they feel it will affect them directly), but the quote is attributed directly to me, so that is okay. Risker (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Informationsfreiheit bei Wikimedia

Falls ich eine Frage an die WMF oder WMDE richte, welche Regeln der Movement Charter gelten, dass ich tatsächlich eine Antwort innerhalb von zwei Wochen erhalte? Welches Editor-Relation-Management (ERM) hat WMF und wo wurde es aufgeschrieben? Vertrauen entsteht bei der Interaktion WMF↔Editor: Ø Interaktion → Ø Vertrauen → Ø Kooperation (→ shunning). --Edward Steintain (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Um eine wirksame und erfolgreiche Movement Charter zu erhalten, ist es von essentiellem Interesse, die Regeln der Kooperation zu verstehen. Das Wissen von Wikipedia ist bisher nicht ausreichend und folgt lediglich wie bei de.wp besonders den (veralteten) Handbüchern der Soziologie. --Edward Steintain (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)