Dearly offline,
The Wikimedia Summit was last weekend in Berlin, which I attended on behalf of WOW. It focused entirely on the idea of a Charter for our movement and setting up a representative Council that could make global decisions independently of the WMF.
Notes from the WM Summit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2024#Final_Outputs_of_the_Wikimedia_Summit_2024 compiled by the hosts. Photos from the event https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Summit_2024
*Charter thoughts*
I found aspects of the current charter draft to be arbitrary and too operational https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#In_flux,_incomplete,_tries_to_do_too_many_things_at_once, creating a large body without clarity about what it would do, with little connection to the work of editors on the projects, and with hard-to-change founding documents.
The main focus of the Berlin discussions was to identify changes that attendees felt had to be made to the charter, for it to work. Answers to questions posed ['what do you see as deal-breakers to approving a charter? / how would you improve the current text?"] were workshopped over two days in groups. Then there was a final filtering into 46 condensed suggestions that those in attendance voted on, and this filter removed some important points of feedback. Given how the whole progressed, it would have benefited from input from a broader group [at least sharing regular photos back with our groups? I would try this next time] and from having already responded to the most common feedback given on the charter talk page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter.
I don't feel the conclusion of the process worked. Some of the condensed statements were underspecified, overcomplicated, or costly for little benefit. Some common points -- for instance, that the charter had to be simpler; or that a supermajority should be needed for ratification -- were filtered out entirely. Only one proposal even mentioned unaffiliated editors + groups, and translated that concept as '*unorganized volunteers*' which, considering the wealth and depth of on-wiki organization, is not accurate at all. The emotional build-up to the vote, and the presentation of proposals in isolation, as though there were no tradeoffs involved, contributed to every proposal getting majority support.
As an alternate example of how we could make progress in global governance, I drafted a minimalist charter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/Design_chats/Charter/en that captures tasks I heard people expect such a body to do, and would stay flexible while we try to actually address those tasks in the coming year. This is a wiki document: if the idea appeals, please edit it.
The drafting committee's plan is unchanged: to revise the charter draft once more, then hold a movement-wide vote to ratify it in June. The ratification would include a vote of affiliates (one vote per affiliate?), and a simultaneous vote of all editors (one vote per person).
*Other movement thoughts*
Many recurring topics at the Summit seemed healthy: WMDE was adamant about helping others learn to manage movement-governance events like the Summit, and about not hosting themselves in two years' time. The spirit of peer support and mentorship was very strong. And some recurring topics felt unhealthy: mainly a sense of dependency. Some affiliates said they felt they could not do anything without WMF approval and grants, but did not want to feel any obligation to learn how to develop independent support and partnerships. Some committee members felt they could only function with WMF-assigned staff and substantial budgets, based on a bureaucratic model of governance that has not worked well for us.
*WOW interest*
There was much interest in offline wikis among other attendees, and people who said they would reach out in the coming weeks. We might think about running an online workshop on getting started with offline wikis, before Wikimania. Jan Ainali interviewed me and others about our groups, for a podcast series; I will let you know when it comes out.
— SJ
Thanks SJ, very interesting. And cool to hear that there’s interest around offline wikis.
The million-dollar question I guess after what you wrote is whether we should support or not this Charter when it is put up for a vote?
SCM
On 28 Apr 2024, at 13:29, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Dearly offline,
The Wikimedia Summit was last weekend in Berlin, which I attended on behalf of WOW. It focused entirely on the idea of a Charter for our movement and setting up a representative Council that could make global decisions independently of the WMF.
Notes from the WM Summit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2024#Final_Outputs_of_the_Wikimedia_Summit_2024 compiled by the hosts. Photos from the event https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Summit_2024
Charter thoughts
I found aspects of the current charter draft to be arbitrary and too operational https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#In_flux,_incomplete,_tries_to_do_too_many_things_at_once, creating a large body without clarity about what it would do, with little connection to the work of editors on the projects, and with hard-to-change founding documents.
The main focus of the Berlin discussions was to identify changes that attendees felt had to be made to the charter, for it to work. Answers to questions posed ['what do you see as deal-breakers to approving a charter? / how would you improve the current text?"] were workshopped over two days in groups. Then there was a final filtering into 46 condensed suggestions that those in attendance voted on, and this filter removed some important points of feedback. Given how the whole progressed, it would have benefited from input from a broader group [at least sharing regular photos back with our groups? I would try this next time] and from having already responded to the most common feedback given on the charter talk page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter.
I don't feel the conclusion of the process worked. Some of the condensed statements were underspecified, overcomplicated, or costly for little benefit. Some common points -- for instance, that the charter had to be simpler; or that a supermajority should be needed for ratification -- were filtered out entirely. Only one proposal even mentioned unaffiliated editors + groups, and translated that concept as 'unorganized volunteers' which, considering the wealth and depth of on-wiki organization, is not accurate at all. The emotional build-up to the vote, and the presentation of proposals in isolation, as though there were no tradeoffs involved, contributed to every proposal getting majority support.
As an alternate example of how we could make progress in global governance, I drafted a minimalist charter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/Design_chats/Charter/en that captures tasks I heard people expect such a body to do, and would stay flexible while we try to actually address those tasks in the coming year. This is a wiki document: if the idea appeals, please edit it.
The drafting committee's plan is unchanged: to revise the charter draft once more, then hold a movement-wide vote to ratify it in June. The ratification would include a vote of affiliates (one vote per affiliate?), and a simultaneous vote of all editors (one vote per person).
Other movement thoughts
Many recurring topics at the Summit seemed healthy: WMDE was adamant about helping others learn to manage movement-governance events like the Summit, and about not hosting themselves in two years' time. The spirit of peer support and mentorship was very strong. And some recurring topics felt unhealthy: mainly a sense of dependency. Some affiliates said they felt they could not do anything without WMF approval and grants, but did not want to feel any obligation to learn how to develop independent support and partnerships. Some committee members felt they could only function with WMF-assigned staff and substantial budgets, based on a bureaucratic model of governance that has not worked well for us.
WOW interest
There was much interest in offline wikis among other attendees, and people who said they would reach out in the coming weeks. We might think about running an online workshop on getting started with offline wikis, before Wikimania. Jan Ainali interviewed me and others about our groups, for a podcast series; I will let you know when it comes out.
— SJ _______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Thanks for the feedback, Shaba.
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 7:47 AM Stephane Coillet-Matillon < stephane@kiwix.org> wrote:
Thanks SJ, very interesting. And cool to hear that there’s interest around offline wikis.
The million-dollar question I guess after what you wrote is whether we should support or not this Charter when it is put up for a vote?
Personally, I am unlikely to support this version of a Charter: it is still changing too much and too opaquely. A charter for our movement of all movements should honor the value of fast, flexible, frequent iteration. [the committee just confirmed https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#End_of_the_Community_Engagement they will make another major bulk revision and immediately proceed to a vote.]
For our group, even if the final text resolves the many open issues with the current draft, I think we should be wary of supporting it for two reasons:
*–* Revisions are going to be made even harder. From Risker's latest comment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Alternate_ratification_and_amendment_process_proposals on the talk page, all revisions of any substance may require a community vote. That's a risky outcome in my view: a high-overhead governance process, requiring a second high-overhead process to make any changes.
*=* This final round of outreach + vote has positioned affiliates against individual contributors in terms of setting tone, purpose, & priorities.* This is an affiliate-heavy governance proposal with a few affiliates already asking for a Council to be the "highest decision-maker" about resource distribution.** That doesn't feel right for reasons Yger expressed here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Concerns_over_comments_from_Affiliates_EDs_and_Affiliates_summit. We should fix this in the draft before voting, or indicate that more work is needed.
Sam
* There has been little substantive engagement of the broader editing community since the first drafts landed on Meta last year. The last month of outreach leaned heavily on a Summit gathering of affiliates alone. ** This would be risky governance practice to assign to a yet-undefined Council, with gameable governance and COI challenges. It's also rather different from the 2019 plans that started us down this path https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_2/Roles_%26_Responsibilities/2%263 .
Thank you so much dear Sj for your active participation during the summit and for the report/feedback provided to the group !
I finally took the time this evening to read again, in full, all documents, all discussion pages.
I equally feel uneasy about the proposition. The version proposed last year during the Wikimedia Summit was minimalist. The version this year is at the same time... too detailed/too long, and at the same time falling short on important points.
Examples of a bureaucracy, which results in obvious flaws... 1) the charter goes into details such as "decision making at the Global Council Level requires absolute majority of voters." My thought : anyone who has been in an association knows this is a path for immobilism... 2) at the same time, there is no provision with regards to minimum requirement of participation 3) and a bit disorganized sometimes... for example; rules related to elections of global council members are mis-placed in the section related to "decision making process of the assembly"
Falling short on important points... ultimately... it looks like an advisory body more than a body with power. Examples... 1) the Global Council will establish a committee to collect technical wishes from community, and then provide advice to the WMF. 2) the Global Council would be responsible for distribution of funds to the communities... but no mention is made of any power of deciding how much the global envelop of grants might be
My favorite is probably the list of responsibilities of the core team (the Global Council Board), which include 1) Appointing and supervising its members (ok... ) 2) Serving as a representant of the Global Council activities (ok...) 3) Coordinating the annual meeting - 100+ people (ok...) 4) Maintaining accountability for the executions of the Global Council (ok...) [So far... nothing too exciting... very centric-roles...] But the best is ... 5) Drafting the initial Wikimedia Mouvement strategic plan... (as if Wikimedia 2030 did not exist ? or was considered... not the right strategy at all ?)
So far, the committee mentions that it will have 3 or 4 main functions 1) decision-making on fund dissemination (but it will have no decision-making on either how much money is allocated by WMF, nor any decision-making related to collecting money) 2) decision-making on affiliate recognition (which is good, but mostly serves affiliates) 3) advice on Product and Tech (unsure we need a GC for that) 4) and possibly something related to Trust and Safety (info not provided yet)
And to help implement the roles and responsibilities "transferred from WMF to the Global Council", the charter plan to rely on... Wikimedia Foundation staff to help...
I am not sure it is worth it at this point. Simplification would be best.
Besides, as Sj point very well, the process is quite opaque, and very much driven by Affiliates. That does not feel right to me. Nor the recurrent feeling that the only "good" path for a group is to become an affiliate to be "part of"
That being said... I mostly invite you to read the feedback published by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is very instructive. Short version
" In the present form, and following discussion with our fellow trustees, we, as the liaisons from the Board of Trustees, would not be able to recommend that the Board vote to ratify the Charter; substantive changes are still needed. We do hope there is opportunity to address some of these issues prior to the final text.
"
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Foundation_f...
Flo
Le 03/05/2024 à 23:30, Samuel Klein a écrit :
Thanks for the feedback, Shaba.
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 7:47 AM Stephane Coillet-Matillon stephane@kiwix.org wrote:
Thanks SJ, very interesting. And cool to hear that there’s interest around offline wikis. The million-dollar question I guess after what you wrote is whether we should support or not this Charter when it is put up for a vote?Personally, I am unlikely to support this version of a Charter: it is still changing too much and too opaquely. A charter for our movement of all movements should honor the value of fast, flexible, frequent iteration. [the committee just confirmed https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#End_of_the_Community_Engagement they will make another major bulk revision and immediately proceed to a vote.]
For our group, even if the final text resolves the many open issues with the current draft, I think we should be wary of supporting it for two reasons:
*–* Revisions are going to be made even harder. From Risker's latest comment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Alternate_ratification_and_amendment_process_proposals on the talk page, all revisions of any substance may require a community vote. That's a risky outcome in my view: a high-overhead governance process, requiring a second high-overhead process to make any changes.
*=* This final round of outreach + vote has positioned affiliates against individual contributors in terms of setting tone, purpose, & priorities.* This is an affiliate-heavy governance proposal with a few affiliates already asking for a Council to be the "highest decision-maker" about resource distribution.** That doesn't feel right for reasons Yger expressed here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Concerns_over_comments_from_Affiliates_EDs_and_Affiliates_summit. We should fix this in the draft before voting, or indicate that more work is needed.
Sam
- There has been little substantive engagement of the broader editing
community since the first drafts landed on Meta last year. The last month of outreach leaned heavily on a Summit gathering of affiliates alone. ** This would be risky governance practice to assign to a yet-undefined Council, with gameable governance and COI challenges. It's also rather different from the 2019 plans that started us down this path https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_2/Roles_%26_Responsibilities/2%263.
Offline-l mailing list --offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email tooffline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear WOW,
You may have seen the final draft of the proposed Charter has been posted: *Charter text* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter | Comments: WMF Board liaisons https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_liaisons_reflections_on_final_Movement_charter_draft_2 | Joe Mabel https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_Wikimedians/Joe_Mabel%27s_comments_on_the_proposed_Global_Charter
Please give it a read and see what you think! There have been numerous small edits made since the Summit, but on the whole the structure and fundamental issues remain the same. Then as a group we should decide how to vote on the charter (the only options are "yes" or "no" on full ratification), and what comments to leave via the voting form.
More soon, SJ
Thanks SJ,
Is this the part where we get to vote down this giant Rube Goldberg machine by calling it just that?
I had more choice comments but I figured they’d be probably offensive to some people or others and I think I actually know and mostly appreciate a few of the people who took the time and effort to produce this very thorough document.
SCM
On 25 Jun 2024, at 04:57, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Dear WOW,
You may have seen the final draft of the proposed Charter has been posted: Charter text https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter | Comments: WMF Board liaisons https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_liaisons_reflections_on_final_Movement_charter_draft_2 | Joe Mabel https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_Wikimedians/Joe_Mabel%27s_comments_on_the_proposed_Global_Charter
Please give it a read and see what you think! There have been numerous small edits made since the Summit, but on the whole the structure and fundamental issues remain the same. Then as a group we should decide how to vote on the charter (the only options are "yes" or "no" on full ratification), and what comments to leave via the voting form.
More soon, SJ _______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hello Samuel,
Thank you for the detailed update on the Wikimedia Summit. I appreciate your insights and concerns regarding the proposed charter.
I agree that some aspects of the current draft seem arbitrary and overly operational.
I also share your concern about the lack of clarity regarding the charter's purpose and its connection to the work of editors on the projects.
I find your minimalist charter draft to be a promising alternative. It captures the essential tasks that such a body should undertake and provides flexibility for addressing those tasks in the coming year.
I will review the draft and consider contributing to it.
I am also interested in the online workshop on getting started with offline wikis that you mentioned.
Please keep me updated on the plans for the workshop.
Thank you again for the update.
Best regards, Aliyu Shaba
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024, 12:30 PM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Dearly offline,
The Wikimedia Summit was last weekend in Berlin, which I attended on behalf of WOW. It focused entirely on the idea of a Charter for our movement and setting up a representative Council that could make global decisions independently of the WMF.
Notes from the WM Summit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2024#Final_Outputs_of_the_Wikimedia_Summit_2024 compiled by the hosts. Photos from the event https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Summit_2024
*Charter thoughts*
I found aspects of the current charter draft to be arbitrary and too operational https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#In_flux,_incomplete,_tries_to_do_too_many_things_at_once, creating a large body without clarity about what it would do, with little connection to the work of editors on the projects, and with hard-to-change founding documents.
The main focus of the Berlin discussions was to identify changes that attendees felt had to be made to the charter, for it to work. Answers to questions posed ['what do you see as deal-breakers to approving a charter? / how would you improve the current text?"] were workshopped over two days in groups. Then there was a final filtering into 46 condensed suggestions that those in attendance voted on, and this filter removed some important points of feedback. Given how the whole progressed, it would have benefited from input from a broader group [at least sharing regular photos back with our groups? I would try this next time] and from having already responded to the most common feedback given on the charter talk page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter.
I don't feel the conclusion of the process worked. Some of the condensed statements were underspecified, overcomplicated, or costly for little benefit. Some common points -- for instance, that the charter had to be simpler; or that a supermajority should be needed for ratification -- were filtered out entirely. Only one proposal even mentioned unaffiliated editors + groups, and translated that concept as '*unorganized volunteers*' which, considering the wealth and depth of on-wiki organization, is not accurate at all. The emotional build-up to the vote, and the presentation of proposals in isolation, as though there were no tradeoffs involved, contributed to every proposal getting majority support.
As an alternate example of how we could make progress in global governance, I drafted a minimalist charter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/Design_chats/Charter/en that captures tasks I heard people expect such a body to do, and would stay flexible while we try to actually address those tasks in the coming year. This is a wiki document: if the idea appeals, please edit it.
The drafting committee's plan is unchanged: to revise the charter draft once more, then hold a movement-wide vote to ratify it in June. The ratification would include a vote of affiliates (one vote per affiliate?), and a simultaneous vote of all editors (one vote per person).
*Other movement thoughts*
Many recurring topics at the Summit seemed healthy: WMDE was adamant about helping others learn to manage movement-governance events like the Summit, and about not hosting themselves in two years' time. The spirit of peer support and mentorship was very strong. And some recurring topics felt unhealthy: mainly a sense of dependency. Some affiliates said they felt they could not do anything without WMF approval and grants, but did not want to feel any obligation to learn how to develop independent support and partnerships. Some committee members felt they could only function with WMF-assigned staff and substantial budgets, based on a bureaucratic model of governance that has not worked well for us.
*WOW interest*
There was much interest in offline wikis among other attendees, and people who said they would reach out in the coming weeks. We might think about running an online workshop on getting started with offline wikis, before Wikimania. Jan Ainali interviewed me and others about our groups, for a podcast series; I will let you know when it comes out.
— SJ _______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org