Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy/Review/Wikimedia Ukraine
Proposed rubric for how checking may look like for an affiliate. Wikimedia Ukraine was chosen as a case study [to have a “real” affiliate] for a small-to-middle chapter.
Note: the rubric was filled as an example by a member of Wikimedia Ukraine. The information provided here might be not full or up-to date, and it is filled in only for illustrative purposes
| Criteria | Documentation | Wikimedia Ukraine (WMUA) |
|---|---|---|
| Active and welcoming new users | a list of members (if applicable) or volunteers actively collaborating with the organization/allies (who engage in the decision-making of the group) – either public or sent to AffCom if there are legal/safety concerns. For a legal entity with legal limitations (like GDPR in Europe), it can be a number of members published with notes (an affiliate might have 100 members in 2022, and 100 in 2023, but there was a turnover of 50 people) |
|
| Encouraging being conscious of gender balance (including on the board) | public information on who are people making decisions; sharing information on what is being done to encourage gender diversity |
|
| public-facing governance practices | a public document on how decision-making is happening (not only bylaws for the legal entities) – e.g., how a scholarship to attend a meeting is decided, where the resolutions are published if there is a board, etc |
|
| Diverse, skilled, and accountable leadership | a report of an affiliate should include training courses that its membership (especially leadership) underwent, if any. This includes training organized by the affiliate, other affiliates, hubs, Wikimedia Foundation, and external organizations (in line with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #33 Leadership development plan) |
|
| connected with the community it supports/serves | show people take part in the affiliate activities; how Wikimedians are reacting to the plans of the affiliates and to their reports (surveys if enough capacity); meetings with the communities, etc |
|
| offline (online or hybrid) collaboration | regular meetings with a measurable outcome(s), and not only annual meetings |
|
| delivering on goal(s) | the report should contain self-evaluation against the stated goals from their plans; strategic plans (if applicable) | |
| Financially well managed | through financial reporting (if applicable) | |
| Universal Code of Conduct | evidence of preventative steps, and addressing UCoC complaints in an effective and timely manner (or seeking external help) |
|
| effective partnerships, collaborating | should be mentioned in the reporting (partnerships with other Wikimedia communities; partnerships with non-Wikimedia entities) |
|
References
[edit]- ↑ according to the Bylaws one cannot leave the Board before the term ends without leaving the organisation – changing the Bylaws is very costly and difficult, so it is not advisable to change the Bylaws just for this one issue
- ↑ Board Chair is the head of the organisation, and changing the head of the organisation is complicated legally (as for practical reasons they need to be in Kyiv in person, so choice is limited)
- ↑ It has proven difficult to find another person with knowledge of finance among members available
- ↑ Currently a very short-term strategy, built on the 2020-2022 Strategy
- ↑ No GAs after the full-scale invasion of Russia, so no internal audit reports were published (they are supposed to be submitted and approved by the relevant GA)