Thanks both for these thoughts! I also don't want to "just" say yes or no, but those are the options. We can leave a detailed comment about what we actually want to see. Maybe we draft that collaboratively?
Stephane writes:
TL;DR: too complicated; structurally unable to address any type of
challenge.
I agree with this assessment for now. Overall engagement in these matters has dropped steadily since 2018. Creating a new body that's likely to struggle but will take up the time of another 25-100 people, may be depleting a critical resource. My preference is not to 'fake it till we make it', but to make simple clear steps that play to our strengths, solve explicit problems, and don't further divide us. Iterating on and strengthening a much simpler + more focused charter/council could build shared identity, and feel like moving from success to success. On this issue, to me that suggests voting "No" with a detailed, constructive comment rather than "Yes" with such a comment.
*Longer thoughts*:
Even at the fully-subsidized WM Summit, people complained it was hard to make time to participate without an additional stipend. Not many attendees had experience or appetite to run a new parliamentary bureaucracy [except those already employed by affiliates, who would be ineligible]. I proposed simplifications https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/Design_chats/Charter/en to the charter at the time; 8 people found me to share comments in person, but none left comments or edits online. (I would have been just as happy with postive or negative edits; but *no* edits suggests a lack of energy for real drafting of policy or process texts)
Participants all wanted more say in global decisions, for various reasons (including wanting more say in their own budget growth), but there was an odd sense of dependency. At the end of the Summit, a working group was formed to organize the next Summit in two years' time. They nominated a spokesperson to report to the audience. He said, and I swear I did not hallucinate this, "We are excited to start planning the next summit. First we need the WMF to provide a staff facilitator to help us schedule our meetings and keep notes."
In contrast, the editors on the projects are quite independent, but are not that interested in nebulous governance issues. (perhaps like many on this list ;) The unaffiliated community hasn't given much feedback up til now, and should be part of the next step of the process. We must upgrade our global self-governance if we want the projects to evolve and thrive... but we have to work up to that.
Things we need: a) Some rebalancing of resources across the movement. The example championed by Brazil is a good one, we need more like that. b) Larger affiliates need more stable funding commitments. Like 3-year commitments that can be revised down in line with all budgets if there's a global shortfall. --> We don't need a charter for these things; but an interim group that pushes hard on global allocation percentages. The WMF has already committed to having a body that could do this, in place by January.
Problems: c) The council as currently written is a new bureaucracy, accountable only to itself and its new time-consuming election process. d) The latest charter sets up the council to implement and enforce a new global strategy... something no one really asked for. It's unlikely to go well. (Read cynically, this is a way for the council to force WMF to change its plans. Not a good start to trust-building. Under "Responsibilities" for WMF, *but not for affiliates*, the Charter reads "*The Wikimedia Foundation should align its work with the strategic direction and global strategy of the Global Council*" )
Problems that may be irreversible: e) The current charter is impossible to update. Any edits require 50 people to support the change on Meta, plus months for translation + announcement + full-movement ratification. Of course an edit could change the amendment clause... but policy-creep suggests this won't happen. It makes no sense to *start* with the sort of red tape that will one day grind things to a halt. f) The worst outcome in my view is that we somehow create a new class of self-perpetuating 'paid global bureaucrats' who become a new power bloc, with its own problems and conflicts, without solving existing problems.
Sam.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:00 PM Stephane Coillet-Matillon < stephane@kiwix.org> wrote:
Ok, I’ll bite (I’m in a bit of a rush so apologies in advance if the tone seems curt. Not the intent, but emails often come out as such)
My first concern is that I still don’t know what the exact problem is that this charter is trying to solve. If it is to restore some balance between Chapters/UG on one hand and the Foundation on the other hand (basically undo what Sue Gardner did 15+ years ago and spread money around), I’m not convinced at all: no matter how we frame it, the WMF’s main mission is to support the tech that makes the whole movement exist in the first place, and it is in some respects struggling at that. Except for Wikidata/Wikibase (managed by WMDE; and possibly Kiwix as it spun off from WMCH), I don’t see chapters/UG having brought much to the table in that regard. Could it be that they could not because they did not have the resources? Well, that’s what someone writing an AI/crypto pitch deck would say, but I’m not convinced.
So what is left when all this is said and done is this charter being a fight for the « proper » allocation of money, and there is plenty of literature to explain that there will never be enough of that. Whatever the problem, it won’t be solved. In fact, the Brazilians have been *very *smart in pushing their requirements for a bigger focus on Global South users (Global Majority is not a good term, so don’t @ me), and it really did not require having 100 people sitting on some sort of council to get things moving forward.
Which brings me to the Global council, the one thing that really rattles me. There is a structural risk in putting people in charge only because they demonstrated their love and participation in the project rather than because they have specific skills/vision needed to give directions to a Foundation spending 100 millions each year. We already have that, and though I like them as people I also remember