New elements

1. The online meetings planned last week-end to discuss how to move forward with regards to the survey were successfully held.
Essie (WMF staff in charge of collecting the survey) attended the first part of the meeting to answer questions participants could have
Second part of the meeting was "without WMF staff". Long discussions etc.
Main point is that a team (Andrew Lih, Phoebe an Richard) proposed to write a Letter to the Board. A draft was produced and will be made public tomorrow (I will share the link, it is currently still private, but Sj and I have access to current version).
Essentially this Letter asks for a "pause" in the process to allow further discussions. Keep in mind that when the meeting was held, the deadline to answer the survey was June 30th

This letter will be proposed tomorrow for signature for Affiliates. <------ will have to be discussed from tomorrow on after link publicly published.

2. In the meanwhile, the board issued a statement. That you can read here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_Update_on_Branding
Summary and key points
- it was published by Nataliia, and though a "board statement", mostly read in the "I'. Apparently due to the urgency of the situation and not all board members being available over the week-end.
- outline that, contrariwise to what Heather said in the exec statement, the final decision has not been made yet. Likely to be made in August 2020 during the next board meeting
- and note that no decision has been made regarding the naming of the affiliates
- Natalia mentions the future Wikipedia 20th Anniversary and the former wish of the Board to get everything fixed before that date (which actually came a bit oddly in the discussion because very few community members discussed that in relation to the rebranding process)

3. This morning, Samir sent us an email and said the deadline to answer the survey is extended till July 7th. He also says

There are 3 office hours this week where the Brand Project Team will continue to answer questions. All links available here in the news section : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project#News If you are interested in joining and asking questions, this is the right time to do it. If you are short of time and/or already made it your time ---> drop

4. There is a community feedback and straw poll here  In light of recent events, including the publication of survey text and naming proposals, it may benefit the WMF to see how the community feels about certain naming-related issues, transparently and on-wiki. Therefore, the poll. This is an informal poll, and does not replace the WMF survey. At least, the results of this one are publicly visible ;) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll

-----------

My personal take on this is * that the board already decided a LONG time ago to rename Wikimedia Foundation into Wikipedia something; and that they will do that, no matter what. * that the two communication/brand companies were only hired to facilitate the process, and take the heat, being blamed for failing to provide good suggestions or supposingly pushing the board to adopt a new name. Whatever, they are just the safety valve. They will not take all the heat, but part of it making the pill easier to go down the throat of the community * that the process is being "pushed" with a feeling of urgency, which surprises many because usually we benefit from longer timeframe and covid19 oblige, everything is slowed. But the truth is... the main benefit of the renaming is likely to be financial, with an easier and better way to fundraise. With the current crisis, it is likely the future fundraising season will be bad. Fundraising season start around September. So the name change should benefit to be done before this year fundraising season. Additionnaly, the Wikipedia 20th birthday could be an excellent communication opportunity to promote the new name of the WMF. Hence the urgency and the unlikeliness that the process significantly slows down * in comparison, the renaming (or not) of affiliates is perceived as non urgent and non essential, which is quite logical in the WMF perspective. So it is possible to cut some slack here to cool down spirits * Natalia is possibly being the other sacrificed piece in the process.

----------

Your suggested todo list
1) Quickly read this page : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
2) read the executive statement if you have not done so. Always interesting: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Executive_statement
3) read the board statement. Always interesting. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_Update_on_Branding
4) reflect on the implications of the WMF rename on your own activities and structure
5) decide whether you will answer the individual survey (before July 07th) : https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
6) decide whether you want to take the community poll : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
7) tomorrow, read the open letter when I sent the link, and tell Sj and I whether you think the Offline UG should sign it or not
8) tell Sj and I if you have a strong opinion on what we should answer in the Affiliate Survey

Flo

It is a fair question Emmanuel

Well, what you say is true. In short, if I summarize super briefly

1) According to Heather, the brand redefinition was a request from the board back in 2015. But there is no mention in board meeting minutes and two former board members do not remember this decision. Note: this was in Lila time.
However, it seems indeed that the board confirmed its non-opposition to the communication team to work on that topic in 2018:
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding
Note that this does not appear to be a request from the board to the staff, but rather a request from the staff to be allowed to explore.

2) Brand awareness survey done in 7 countries in 2017 showed poor visibility and understanding of the wikimedia brand
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Brand_awareness,_attitudes,_and_usage_-_Executive_Summary

2) When a survey was done a bit later, the statistical results were displayed in such a way that the case was made from the brand team that there was very little opposition from the community
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communications%2FWikimedia_brands%2F2030_research_and_planning%2Fcommunity_review%2Fresults&type=revision&diff=19827063&oldid=19800238
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia#Updates_from_the_Foundation
Evidence was made that the statistical presentation was broken and misleading.
Arguments from opponents to the change include the fact the board members might have been mislead in believing there was no opposition from the community, and thus approved a rebranding without correct context.

3) Following that situation, a RFC was launched by the community, and show an overwelming opposition to replace Wikimedia with Wikipedia in our orgs and projects name.
Note that RFC is opt-in only, so might over represent those who oppose the rebranding. Hence the case made for the final survey to poll community members about their position on the matter.
Those who want to further explore: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Should_the_Foundation_call_itself_Wikipedia

4) The Brand team continued its work. Extensive discussions followed, with face to face brainstorming events to try to identify "good ideas". And key argument to opponants was that it was still in discussion phase etc.
Brand network was created to better inform etc., give arguments in favor of the change etc. (I joined it as representant of offline UG to keep track of what was going on)
There was further information provided about a month ago during a public meeting, revealing a collection of "words/directions"
There were repeated requests from the people following this topic, for the final survey to include the "no change please" option. But this has been dismissed repeatedly.

5) Then finally a new survey (the one I mentionned earlier) was proposed a few days ago with a short list of options. The "no option" is not proposed, and the three options include replacing wikimedia by wikipedia.
This is creating social unrest. Best person to know more about that is Andrew Lih.

6) An executive statement was published 2 days ago, stating that a) this rebranding was done per board request, and 2) the rename will happen
Quote: "We should have been clearer: a rebrand will happen. This has already been decided by the Board. The place where we seek consultation and input is on what an optimal rebrand looks like, and what the path to get there will be."
To read full statement : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Executive_statement

7) There is a boiling discussion on whether to set up a central banner to invite participants to respond the survey, with community opposition to set up the banner.
I have actually been contacted by some staff about this, who were apparently trying to evaluate the level of risk of WMF staff to be unsysoped if they decided the get over the community and activate the banner anyway
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Request/Movement_Brand_naming_proposals
I am not sure the banner is live yet. At least, I see no banner myself. It should have gone live on the 16th

8) Thus followed much discussion after the executive statement, on telegram and on meta.
Probably central place is here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Executive_statement#A_call_for_Board_statements,_and_disappointment
APPARENTLY, a statement from the board is expected. Unless wrong, it has not been published yet.

9) There is a meeting TONIGHT (21h UTC+2), community organized, on the matter.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/All-Affiliates_Brand_Meeting
I'll attend and will try to summarize