ウィキメディア財団 提携団体戦略/評価

ウィキメディア財団提携団体戦略

• メイン
• まとめと報告書
• 評価
  • 理事会連絡係発信の当初のお知らせ
  • 提携団体の認証要件案
  • 試行期間の提案
  • 次の段階、その他の未解決の質問
  • コメントと評価の投稿ページ

ウィキメディ財団理事会連絡係ではこのおよそ1年超、提携団体委員会、提携団体、財団職員の皆さんと協働し、ウィキメディア財団提携団体戦略を推敲しました。この過程から疑問とともに鍵となる学び（key learnings）がいくつか表面化しました。ここまでの作業にお付き合いいただいた皆さん、ご尽力に感謝します。

The Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy report identified a need to streamline the role of the Affiliations Committee (AffCom) on Wikimedia Affiliates recognition, while identifying issues. After conversations with AffCom, Board liaisons identified two big areas for improvement in the current work with affiliates related to recognition:

• requirements for affiliates
• improving the workflows around the creation and recognition of user groups

More can be found by reading the information about the 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations and Initiatives.

Participants are invited to share thoughts on the talk page and sign up to attend live sessions to provide input into this process.

提携団体認証の要件案

提携団体との会話を介して現状の作業上、公認要件を含めて、提携団体の関連で理事会連絡係が改善が必要と認識した分野があります。

これら要件を提言する対象には既存のウィキメディア提携団体の全件（認定国・地域別協会、テーマ別組織、利用者グループ）が含まれます。特定要件の一部には、一部の提携団体とは無関係の場合があります。たとえば現在、利用者グループには法的地位がない上、資金管理を自ら行わない事例があるため、これら特定要件は適用されません。

認証要件の草案

You can comment on these Proposed requirements here.

The requirements listed below are to be self-reported by the affiliates as a part of the annual report. Documentation of the criteria might be providing links or notes about the sharing of non-public information.

For examples of how existing affiliates can demonstrate how they fulfill these requirements, see Wikimedia Ghana User Group (as an active user group) and Wikimedia Ukraine (as a small-to-middle chapter).

In alignment with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #35 (Facilitate a culture of documentation), the effective requirements should be documented and measurable. A potential rubric for evaluation is below. Please comment on the talk page if you have other suggestions on how to check – or describe what else is missing.

基準	基準の解説	基準を満たすには
提携団体の伸び率	Active and welcoming new users and leadership, including to its board (if applicable), or other relevant decision-making body (like a committee or some other executive body). Encouraging contributors to develop organizationally as leaders/organizers.	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 about changes in membership (an affiliate might have 100 members in 2022, and 100 in 2023, but there was a turnover of 50 people).
ジェンダーの均衡	Encouraging actions which are conscious of gender balance, including in leadership positions.	Public information on who are the people making decisions. Public information on what is being done to encourage gender diversity.
Good governance	Good governance with public-facing governance practices about board membership, affiliate membership, democratic elections, decision-making process, reporting, etc.	Public information 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	Diverse, skilled, and accountable leadership, in particular, skilled at managing funds (if it has any), communicating decisions, and being accountable to the membership.	年次報告書に組み込むものとして、該当する場合は参加者（特にリーダー層）が受けた研修コースの説明を求めます。研修の主催者は提携団体自体もしくは他の提携団体、地域ハブ、ウィキメディア財団、外部組織を想定します。（「運動戦略2030の取り組み33番 「リーダー開発計画」」に準拠）。 年次報告書に組み込むものとして、リーダー層の利益相反とその内容（該当する場合）。
コミュニティとの絆	Transparent and open to, and connected with the community it serves/supports.	Incorporated into the annual report, a description of how people are taking 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 engagement	Creating a space for offline (online or hybrid) collaboration and engagement.	Incorporated into the annual report, a record of regular meetings with a measurable outcome(s), and not only annual meetings.
Goal delivery	Actively delivering on mission goals, e.g. content creation.	Incorporated into the annual report, a self-evaluation against the stated goals from their plans; strategic plans (if applicable).
Financially well managed	Financially well managed (if there are funds) and legally compliant (if applicable).	Financial reporting (if applicable).
Universal Code of Conduct compliance	Respecting and enforcing the Universal Code of Conduct in all its activities.	Incorporated into the annual report, evidence of preventative steps, and addressing UCOC complaints in an effective and timely manner (or seeking external help).
Partnerships and collaboration	Developing effective partnerships inside and outside the Movement. Collaborating with other affiliates. Not engaging in conflict unnecessarily (as a note: conflicts are a part of life, and sometimes there might be a good reason for one!).	Incorporated into the annual report, documentation partnerships with other Wikimedia communities and partnerships with non-Wikimedia entities. (Enhance communication and collaboration capacity with partners and collaborators is a Movement Strategy 2030 initiative)

提携団体の要件に関する質問

質問に対するコメント投稿はこちらへお願いします.

• 提携団体がコンプライアンス遵守を支援するには、何をするべきでしょうか？
• コンプライアンス不在とはどのような状況か -- 次の段階として予測される仲裁、関係修復、指導、支援とは？
• 何か要件を見落としていないでしょうか？ あるいは規定を満たすためどんなことを提言しますか？
• 特定の提携団体はウィキメディア運動あるいは同財団発信の情報に関して、広報の努力を義務化するべきでしょうか？
• 提携団体に支給する助成金には段階別の上限を設けるべきか、それは開発段階に対応させ、組織統治／運営に関する課題があるかどうかで線引きするべきでしょうか？（例えば一定の課題は助成金需給の妨げにならないなど）
• 一般参加者である人は、一人で引き受ける創設者や連絡係、リーダーの件数に上限を設けるべきでしょうか？
• ユニバーサルな要件とは何を基準にしますか？（人によっては参加者数の増加を指標とするだろうし、それなら法的要件として対面型の年次総会が義務化されている場合には足を引っ張らないか、など）

試行期間の提案

After conversations with AffCom, the Board liaisons identified areas for improvement in the current work with affiliates related to recognition, including improving the workflows around the creation and recognition of user groups.

User groups (UG) were envisioned as a more straightforward first step to creating chapters or thematic organizations. One person involved in the past decision-making summarized the process: “To start a user group was supposed to be as easy as starting an article on Wikipedia”. Over the years, user groups developed as a separate type of Wikimedia organization – there are legally incorporated UGs, there are UGs with boards, annual funding, etc. There is still a need for that easier first step, with less bureaucracy, while demonstrating that a group and its collaboration are viable in the long run.

新規利用者グループの認証申請と試行期間の案

You can comment on the Proposed trial period here.

The proposed change to the current workflow connected to the recognition of user groups is creating a public step before an application to AffCom. An application triggers a lot of work for AffCom, staff, etc., and volunteers who want to start working together. With the introduction of this public step before the application, the volunteers do not need to work on the application as their first collaboration.

The new recommendations include that, a new affiliate should…

…have a scope that furthers the work towards the Movement Vision (guided through Strategic Direction – content, community support, partnerships)

…have demonstrated competence to execute its stated plans (e.g. a group planning to train editors must demonstrate it has expert editors with training experience willing to train other people)

…have the potential to sustain its activities for more than 1 year, and be a healthy affiliate, which means to have the potential to fulfill the requirements

試行期間の手順の案

You can comment on the Suggested process here.

The current process starts with (1) an application from a prospective UG; then (2) staff reviews (including logo and name) and seeks feedback from existing affiliates for any geographic or thematic user groups; next (3) AffCom reviews, staff prepares the agreement, and AffCom votes; and finally (4) staff prepares communication about the new UG and publishes relevant documents (like resolutions).

The initial steps in the revised process would be:

1. Submit a letter of interest to AffCom.
2. Participate in a live interview with AffCom.
3. Publish a public letter of intent on all affected projects / to all affected affiliates and a note to Community Resources.
4. Publish a realistic outline for the first-year activity report.
5. Demonstrate a track record of one year of activities in "trial period".

After the initial 5 steps in the process listed above, the following would need to be completed:

6. Legal compliance with naming, logo
7. AffCom voting
8. Signing the agreement

試行期間と認証を受けるまでのサポート提供

質問に対するコメント投稿はこちらへ.

• What parts of the organizing process need more clarification?
• What documentation should be developed for groups undertaking this process?
• How to make sure that people do not work on an application for a year when a user group just does not make sense from the start? For example, if there is a conflict with the existing affiliate or a founder is sanctioned by the Foundation, how many things can be checked before the application even?
• How can *pushing* groups into the affiliate ecosystem as a “seat at the table” be avoided where a seat has not been traditionally reserved?
• Do affiliates in non-democracies make sense? Can we provide safety for them? Is it even our job to provide safety? Some documents (even UCoC or policies built on it) might need not be public then, if they are not public – can they be enforced?
• Do we need to prioritize geography rather than languages? So that an affiliate does not support just one language (e,g. Nigeria alone has 200+ languages). Would a language hub be a better fit?

次の段階、その他の未解決の質問

質問に対するコメント投稿はこちらへ.

The next steps in this process will involve the Board of Trustee liaisons and Affiliations Committee reading and discussing the input provided. If there are no major concerns needed, the Affiliations Committee will publish a resolution implementing changes in 2024 April.

依然として未解決の質問が複数あります：

• How can AffCom better share the information (about its work, affiliates, best practices, opportunities, etc) – maybe regular office conversations? A collaboration with Let’s Connect? Better follow-up with affiliates, not only at the final (conflict) stage? Host regional office conversations?
• Can AffCom collaborate with more developed affiliates to support more Affiliates? (or provide better support) – hubs in the future?
• Can AffCom start helping by providing manuals of DOs and DONTs (or best practices) – like making sure affiliates know that taking grants from politicians or parties is not okay?