Wikimedia Deutschland/Governance and Movement Relations/Positions Governance
Wikimedia Deutschland’s Positions on Movement Governance
[edit]Introduction
[edit]In 2023/24 the Wikimedia Movement Charter is being drafted pursuant to Recommendation 4. The MCDC is consulting with stakeholders and there will be deliberations that are likely to shape the movement for decades to come.
Wikimedia Deutschland has a clear vision of a future governance system for the Wikimedia Movement that is rooted in the Strategic Direction and the Movement Strategy Recommendations, and informed by the field research our team did around governance and resourcing models in other INGO confederations.
This vision is the basis of our contributions to the discussions. It is most easily expressed through the following seven positions. Five are related to the content of the charter, and two positions concern the process of drafting and ratifying the charter.
While Wikimedia Deutschland leadership does not expect the fundamentals of this vision and these positions to change, we look forward to engaging in conversations with other stakeholders, and to jointly shaping our understanding of the issues at hand. Feel free to comment, and to get in touch with the Wikimedia Deutschland Governance & Movement Relations Team for more information.
Positions
[edit]Position 1 - Global Council
[edit]The Charter should follow good practice in international NGO federations and create a Global Council (GC) that serves as the highest governing body of our movement. It should represent affiliates incl. the WMF, contributors, projects and mission-aligned external stakeholders.
Position 2 - Decision Making
[edit]The Global Council is the highest decision-making body, making all strategic, policy and governance decisions affecting the movement as a whole.
There is a policy regulating a lean and transparent stakeholder consultation/participation process for any decisions that go before the GC. This includes decisions related to movement wide activities by WMF and others.
Non-global decisions are made based on the principle of subsidiarity and self-organization.
Position 3 - Revenue Generation
[edit]Global revenue can be significantly increased by decentralizing fundraising, through contextualizing campaigns and enabling affiliates to engage with their domestic donors. This includes online banner fundraising.
There should be strategic investments into building fundraising capacity by affiliates and hubs. Affiliates, hubs and WMF should co-own the donor data they generate.
All income from online banner fundraising (minus fundraising costs and overhead) shall be considered movement money and distributed by the Global Council (see position 4)
The fundraising policy (as outlined in recommendation 1) should detail the requirements, conditions and accountability measures for distributed fundraising.The policy should be written by a committee of the Global Council, and should be an immediate high priority upon establishment of the Global Council.
Position 4 - Resource Allocation
[edit]The charter should include language on an overall, long-term commitment to equitably allocate funds globally. In a model to be designed, affiliates from wealthy markets participate in a redistributive fund benefiting the movement and in particular affiliates in resource-poor regions. Fundraising capacity should be built strategically (i.e. where it makes sense) and collaboratively across the movement. A time-limited agreement should be drafted to be signed by affiliates opting in to this practice, including the WMF, informed by the movement strategy principles of equity, subsidiarity, accountability, and contextualization.
Position 5 - Hubs
[edit]There is no reason to regulate hubs in the charter, now or ever. In the charter they should be merely acknowledged as a new category of movement entities designed for affiliate cooperation.
All language around regulation of hubs should be drafted for a policy, after at least 5 years of prototyping.
Position 6 - Independent Legal Review
[edit]Sections of the Charter around decision-making will affect the WMF in ways that require it to conduct a legal review by its in-house counsel. Many other issues require expert legal assessment - ratification, reach, affiliation etc.
This legal review, while important for WMF, should not be the main or only source of information to develop the charter.
An independent legal assessment, as prescribed in Recommendation 4 should be resourced and conducted to design a governance structure that is low-risk and in the interest of all stakeholders.
Position 7 - Ratification
[edit]Ratification is the process by which signatories to a legal document assure the approval of their governance bodies. What the MCDC has designed is a voting process.
The stakeholder consultations prior to that process are what will make or break the outcome of the vote. Signing/ratification of the charter should be part of affiliate certification in the future.