It appears that the WMF Board has indicated that they would vote against the Charter. WMDE published a call in support, and they seem to be doing some lobbying (I got the info via an official mail from Wikimedia CH; not sure their board has decided anything yet)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%...
SCM
Well, the two WMF Board liaisons to the committee have suggested that the Board not ratify it. WMDE and Wikimedia CEE have said they would vote for it. Others (like JMabel's thoughts I posted in the other thread) have also shared their takes.
In general many concerns raised on this list a month ago have not been addressed: the charter has inconsistencies and gaps, but makes it very hard to amend itself. It mandates that the new Council do four difficult things all at once, including developing a new movement-wide strategy. It does not talk about how these tasks relate to existing movement bodies (like chapters and Projects that maintain their own priorities, 2030 goals, or annual plans). It has not addressed input from unaffiliated editors, many of whom said the current framework over privileges the views and needs of affiliates. So I understand why the WMF liaisons keep expressing concern and suggested starting by transitioning a few specific functions.
I also understand why those who have felt held back by stagnating funding and inconsistent communications with the WMF might feel this is their only chance to have more say over evolution of collective priorities. And fear that if this vote doesn't pass right this instant, there might not be another such opportunity.
I would like to hear what you & others think.
SJ
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 11:13 AM Stephane Coillet-Matillon stephane@kiwix.org wrote:
It appears that the WMF Board has indicated that they would vote against the Charter. WMDE published a call in support, and they seem to be doing some lobbying (I got the
via an official mail from Wikimedia CH; not sure their board has decided
anything yet)
Talk:Movement Charter - Meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees meta.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees [image: community.ico] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees
SCM _______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I am going to try to put things into perspective.
I do like any of the two options. I am not fan of the proposition. For all the reasons already mentionned. I also think that if it were adopted, it would take several years before getting implemented, and it would certainly be amended. I see a long path ahead. I am not fan of doing nothing either (not ratifying it), as I think it would send the wrong signal (fully opposed; or not interested)
Being appreciative of the fact we have the right to vote (which not everyone has...), I thus would rather support we ratify it.
What do others think ?
Flo
Le 26/06/2024 à 21:07, Samuel Klein a écrit :
Well, the two WMF Board liaisons to the committee have suggested that the Board not ratify it. WMDE and Wikimedia CEE have said they would vote for it. Others (like JMabel's thoughts I posted in the other thread) have also shared their takes.
In general many concerns raised on this list a month ago have not been addressed: the charter has inconsistencies and gaps, but makes it very hard to amend itself. It mandates that the new Council do four difficult things all at once, including developing a new movement-wide strategy. It does not talk about how these tasks relate to existing movement bodies (like chapters and Projects that maintain their own priorities, 2030 goals, or annual plans). It has not addressed input from unaffiliated editors, many of whom said the current framework over privileges the views and needs of affiliates. So I understand why the WMF liaisons keep expressing concern and suggested starting by transitioning a few specific functions.
I also understand why those who have felt held back by stagnating funding and inconsistent communications with the WMF might feel this is their only chance to have more say over evolution of collective priorities. And fear that if this vote doesn't pass right this instant, there might not be another such opportunity.
I would like to hear what you & others think.
SJ
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 11:13 AM Stephane Coillet-Matillon stephane@kiwix.org wrote:
It appears that the WMF Board has indicated that they would vote against the Charter. WMDE published a call in support, and they seem to be doing some lobbying (I got the via an official mail from Wikimedia CH; not sure their board has decided anything yet) Talk:Movement Charter - Meta <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees> meta.wikimedia.org <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees> community.ico <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees> SCM _______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Offline-l mailing list --offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email tooffline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Nevertheless want to insist on the fact I am not sold. So if others feel unconfortable, prefer for us to abstain or vote against... I am totally fine with that.
Said differently... count me rather in the "undecided - depends on the hour of the day"
Flo
Le 02/07/2024 à 00:47, Florence Devouard a écrit :
I am going to try to put things into perspective.
I do like any of the two options. I am not fan of the proposition. For all the reasons already mentionned. I also think that if it were adopted, it would take several years before getting implemented, and it would certainly be amended. I see a long path ahead. I am not fan of doing nothing either (not ratifying it), as I think it would send the wrong signal (fully opposed; or not interested)
Being appreciative of the fact we have the right to vote (which not everyone has...), I thus would rather support we ratify it.
What do others think ?
Flo
Le 26/06/2024 à 21:07, Samuel Klein a écrit :
Well, the two WMF Board liaisons to the committee have suggested that the Board not ratify it. WMDE and Wikimedia CEE have said they would vote for it. Others (like JMabel's thoughts I posted in the other thread) have also shared their takes.
In general many concerns raised on this list a month ago have not been addressed: the charter has inconsistencies and gaps, but makes it very hard to amend itself. It mandates that the new Council do four difficult things all at once, including developing a new movement-wide strategy. It does not talk about how these tasks relate to existing movement bodies (like chapters and Projects that maintain their own priorities, 2030 goals, or annual plans). It has not addressed input from unaffiliated editors, many of whom said the current framework over privileges the views and needs of affiliates. So I understand why the WMF liaisons keep expressing concern and suggested starting by transitioning a few specific functions.
I also understand why those who have felt held back by stagnating funding and inconsistent communications with the WMF might feel this is their only chance to have more say over evolution of collective priorities. And fear that if this vote doesn't pass right this instant, there might not be another such opportunity.
I would like to hear what you & others think.
SJ
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 11:13 AM Stephane Coillet-Matillon stephane@kiwix.org wrote:
It appears that the WMF Board has indicated that they would vote against the Charter. WMDE published a call in support, and they seem to be doing some lobbying (I got the via an official mail from Wikimedia CH; not sure their board has decided anything yet) Talk:Movement Charter - Meta <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees> meta.wikimedia.org <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees> community.ico <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees> SCM _______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Offline-l mailing list --offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email tooffline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Offline-l mailing list --offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email tooffline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
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 that a previous WMF board pulled a Lila Tretikov on its employees; the French had Nathalie Martin, so clearly it is a structural thing (even if I also acknowledge that some useful learnings were made. Yet do I wish more such learnings on anyone? I’m not sure).
Now, this is what we get with 5-7 Wikimedians mostly speaking the same language. How much solid, reasonable decision-making can we expect when we will put 100 of them from 80+ different countries together?
What we’re likely to end up with is something like that 2030 strategy thing: free travel for those willing to answer emails, and a final product that is so disconnected from reality that it could get its own show on the Sify network. Someone on this list once told me that strategy was all about dropping things you would like to do but can not. There is a culture of « consensus » in this movement that is exactly about doing the opposite, and this is why we still have Wikinews.
Lastly, there are some 163 members on this list, yet only 3 (4?) of us have weighed in over the past couple of months. This also makes me slightly worried that priorities could easily be hogged by a small, hyper-active minority (cue wikimedia-l).
TL;DR: too complicated; structurally unable to address any type of challenge. Strong oppose.
Stephane
On 2 Jul 2024, at 16:36, Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless want to insist on the fact I am not sold. So if others feel unconfortable, prefer for us to abstain or vote against... I am totally fine with that.
Said differently... count me rather in the "undecided - depends on the hour of the day"
Flo
Le 02/07/2024 à 00:47, Florence Devouard a écrit :
I am going to try to put things into perspective.
I do like any of the two options. I am not fan of the proposition. For all the reasons already mentionned. I also think that if it were adopted, it would take several years before getting implemented, and it would certainly be amended. I see a long path ahead. I am not fan of doing nothing either (not ratifying it), as I think it would send the wrong signal (fully opposed; or not interested)
Being appreciative of the fact we have the right to vote (which not everyone has...), I thus would rather support we ratify it.
What do others think ?
Flo
Le 26/06/2024 à 21:07, Samuel Klein a écrit :
Well, the two WMF Board liaisons to the committee have suggested that the Board not ratify it. WMDE and Wikimedia CEE have said they would vote for it. Others (like JMabel's thoughts I posted in the other thread) have also shared their takes.
In general many concerns raised on this list a month ago have not been addressed: the charter has inconsistencies and gaps, but makes it very hard to amend itself. It mandates that the new Council do four difficult things all at once, including developing a new movement-wide strategy. It does not talk about how these tasks relate to existing movement bodies (like chapters and Projects that maintain their own priorities, 2030 goals, or annual plans). It has not addressed input from unaffiliated editors, many of whom said the current framework over privileges the views and needs of affiliates. So I understand why the WMF liaisons keep expressing concern and suggested starting by transitioning a few specific functions.
I also understand why those who have felt held back by stagnating funding and inconsistent communications with the WMF might feel this is their only chance to have more say over evolution of collective priorities. And fear that if this vote doesn't pass right this instant, there might not be another such opportunity.
I would like to hear what you & others think.
SJ
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 11:13 AM Stephane Coillet-Matillon <stephane@kiwix.org mailto:stephane@kiwix.org> wrote:
It appears that the WMF Board has indicated that they would vote against the Charter. WMDE published a call in support, and they seem to be doing some lobbying (I got the
via an official mail from Wikimedia CH; not sure their board has decided anything yet)
Talk:Movement Charter - Meta meta.wikimedia.org
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_TrusteesTalk:Movement Charter - Meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees meta.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees
SCM _______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
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
I have no opinion on whether the UG should vote yes or no, because it's not clear which vote is more likely to produce changes. A resounding no either from the community or from affiliates may just lead WMF to cancel the entire thing. The WMF BoT's current proposals are based on the premise that there is some support for the charter so they need to do something else in return for rejecting it.
The main change for the UG would perhaps be that it could become a tier 2 or even tier 3 affiliate: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Futu...
Whether that's something to care about, I don't know. (They're proposing to abolish the distinction between thematic and geographic orgs and even the incorporation requirement, so in practice all tiers seem blurred.)
Il 02/07/24 23:16, Samuel Klein ha scritto:
Problems that may be irreversible: e) The current charter is impossible to update. [...]
I don't understand how this is possible. The charter may be unamendable, but it can't override the bylaws, so it can be abolished by the WMF BoT with a stroke of a pen at any time, no? Hence:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Half_measures_and_next...
Cheers, Federico
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024, 5:42 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
The main change for the UG would perhaps be that it could become a tier 2 or even tier 3 affiliate:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Futu...
Yes, and a certain increased ability to push for support directly with a Council (which would have some function for technical prioritizartion). This is in theory more nuanced than the technical advisory group Selena has proposed, which may only choose one optional priority for the tech team to work on each year.
Il 02/07/24 23:16, Samuel Klein ha scritto:
Problems that may be irreversible: e) The current charter is impossible to update. [...]
I don't understand how this is possible. The charter may be unamendable, but it can't override the bylaws, so it can be abolished by the WMF BoT with a stroke of a pen at any time, no? Hence:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Half_measures_and_next...
Maybe? "Can" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The BoT can technically also choose to shut down the org. We are both a social community of practice, a coalition of affiliate orgs, and a global non profit. And the BoT is half community elected, the same primary form of accountability proposed for a Council. A clear and consistent community position on what should happen is unlikely to be denied or overturned by the board. (A primary strength of a council intermediating direct community engagement is it can have better message discipline to provide that consistent clarity throughout a decision process. A primary weakness of setting a low 55% threshold for approval of a council framework is it leaves room for uncertainty about the strength of its mandate)
SJ
Cheers, Federico
🌍🌏🌎🌑
You managed to sell the Charter so well Sj ;)
On another note... to comment on Stephane's below... I also feel that the only real pressuring need that led to the work on this charter is decision over funding - about collecting the money (eg; having the right to fundraise), about spending the money (in particular to address increase of funding, or at least stability), and about redistribution (per region, themes etc.)
Is there any other significant goal the Charter is trying to address that could justify the complicated scheme ?
Flo
Le 02/07/2024 à 22:16, Samuel Klein a écrit :
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
Offline-l mailing list --offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email tooffline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I agree broadly with your take SJ, we should make a short comment as to what could be more palatable, but this being said, how do we formally set the UG’s position one way or the other? Is there some internal voting tool we could use?
On 2 Jul 2024, at 22:16, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
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 mailto: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
Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I don't know of an internal tool (wudele is only for simpler single-queation votes), but can set up a poll today. Something like:
Q1: How should WOW vote on the movement charter? - Yes - No - No vote
Q2: What comments should we leave? (We will combine + summarize as many points from members as we can in the space provided)
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024, 2:35 AM Stephane Coillet-Matillon stephane@kiwix.org wrote:
I agree broadly with your take SJ, we should make a short comment as to what could be more palatable, but this being said, how do we formally set the UG’s position one way or the other? Is there some internal voting tool we could use?
On 2 Jul 2024, at 22:16, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
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
Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Thanks all for the comments so far. I've found limited discussions online, but see those ongoing at the Kurier https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Board_wird_Movement_Charter_wohl_ablehnen (de) and Signpost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-07-04/Special_report (en).
Here is a poll https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc4c1yYLJRSV7txFGb5Fi5xz543CIn16Dlv_iankQEcAhI-Hw/viewform?usp=sf_link about how we should vote -- please fill it out and suggest what comment we should leave. As we can each leave comments along with our individual votes, the comments by WOW should reflect group-level considerations (like some of those already shared in discussion so far).
Warmly, SJ
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 12:47 PM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know of an internal tool (wudele is only for simpler single-queation votes), but can set up a poll today.
One more useful link if you haven't seen it: an analysis (by the authors) of the content of the charter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Content_analysis, putting each section in context of what has come before and what is new.
On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 9:19 PM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks all for the comments so far. I've found limited discussions online, but see those ongoing at the Kurier https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Board_wird_Movement_Charter_wohl_ablehnen (de) and Signpost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-07-04/Special_report (en).
Here is a poll https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc4c1yYLJRSV7txFGb5Fi5xz543CIn16Dlv_iankQEcAhI-Hw/viewform?usp=sf_link about how we should vote -- please fill it out and suggest what comment we should leave. As we can each leave comments along with our individual votes, the comments by WOW should reflect group-level considerations (like some of those already shared in discussion so far).
Warmly, SJ
On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 12:47 PM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know of an internal tool (wudele is only for simpler single-queation votes), but can set up a poll today.