I agree with Christophe (no surprise) and also with what Paulo and Gnangarra wrote.

– The Board should vote first. (Obviously the community can organize its own vote for a no-WMF-approval-required movement body, but here we are talking about shared decision-making that starts with WMF delegation and facilitation -- so alignment is a prerequisite.)

= The current charter has known flaws*. Its text and details have been in constant flux, and are absolutely not ready to be set in stone. It must be easy to change; not the current approach of making every small change very slow and difficult. As Paulo says, that is worse than no charter.

≡ We should all commit to meaningful change, to updating movement structures and distributing power and decision-making effectively. This year, that means starting to share aspects of each core responsibility, while iterating [in public!] towards a polished charter.

I appreciate the motion toward this suggested in Nat's letter; there should also be groups focusing on a simple version of movement support (complementing affcom) and on movement strategy (complementing existing annual processes).

☷ *Flaws: hundreds from small to large have been thoughtfully pointed out in feedback to date. Many were addressed in the last revision, but many more have not been. To name one prominent type of flaw: the current draft creates a number of new risks and problems for the movement, including risks related to the very power sharing it is designed to address, without acknowledging or addressing the challenges that each raises:

⧺ It is gameable. (Ex: the GC sets strategy for all, decides who can be an affiliate, its own budget and size, and all funds dissemination.)

⧺ It would shift most power from a WMF with few checks and balances, to a Council with almost none. That's not good governance, nor good transition tactics. It is also not in keeping with the recommendations from the last movement strategy process (which involved more community energy, and was done in a more collaborative + nuanced + open way, than this charter)

⧺ It would accelerate the unplanned trend of shifting power and governance responsibility to affiliates, specifically to user groups (which make up most affiliates) -- explicitly the opposite of the original intent of creating such a lightweight form of affiliation.

⧻ It would mandate that the Council immediately do four difficult things, and that an unspecified dispute resolution body will do a fifth. Overpromising leads to confusion, not strength.

Finally, after the practical issues are addressed, before proposing something like this as a founding movement document, the language deserves a round of tightening for eloquence, inspiration, and clarity. There are neologisms, grammatical quirks, odd wordings, easily misinterpreted clauses, and a lack of proportionality or parallelism.

🌍🌏🌎🌑

On Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 8:50 AM Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi

Have to agree with Christophe, if the recommendation of the BOT liaisons to the Board about the MCDC is to reject it, then the Board should meet first and make their collective decision regardless of the cost. This is a broad document, with as significant a potential for good and as it does harm.

On the checks and balances it has very limited capacity if not absolutely no meaningful options for change should it be needed, there's not even a last dire last resort Board can dissolve the GC nuclear option.

We have time to wait for the Boards decision.

On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 20:37, Paulo Santos Perneta <paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:

People don't approve a bad or deficient Constitution, and then hope for improvement afterwards.

No Charter is way better than a problematic Charter.

Paulo

Christophe Henner <christophe.henner@gmail.com> escreveu (sexta, 21/06/2024 à(s) 13:29):

Hi Nataliia,

Thank you for your clear feedback. I’m concerned about the current situation regarding the Movement Charter.

Firstly, I recommend the Foundation vote first in the process. The board, being the smaller group with decisive power, should lead by example to avoid wasting the community’s time and energy if the charter is not going to be approved. After three years of discussion, it is unlikely that a few more days will change the board's opinion.

Let’s be mindful of the toll additional voting will take on all of us. This way, we can collectively acknowledge that this effort did not result in an agreement by everyone and create space to move onto the next step of our collective journey sooner rather than later.

Secondly, the Strategy Process was initiated and funded by the Wikimedia Foundation and led by it until the recommendations phase.

It seems counterproductive to delegate the charter creation to a volunteer group only to dismiss their work when the outcome isn't as desired. Returning to previous structures, like the FDC, which we identified as a band-aid a few years ago, feels like a step back. This approach nullifies three years of effort and misses the opportunity to address fundamental issues in our power distribution.

The current Charter, while not perfect, opens the door for essential discussions and potential evolution in our governance. Rejecting the charter outright reinforces the status quo rather than fostering necessary changes. We must recognize that Wikimedia Foundation, after 21 years, needs to evolve alongside our projects and the wider world. The discussions we initiated opened new possibilities for our movement.

I hope the board will commit to meaningful change rather than reverting to old methods. We need to align our movement with our core value of equity, which requires embracing radical change.

To also walk the talk of collaborating together and sharing responsibilities, I propose the following steps to move forward:

Reopen discussions on the Movement Structures with clear objectives, support, timelines, and Foundation involvement.

Gather a small working group to outline, in a fast and agile way, the main questions and issues to tackle.

Engage more directly with community feedback to address key concerns, improving on what worked in the first phases of the Strategy Process that drove global discussions.

Engage openly and build together to avoid repeating the current situation of discarding three years of work.

I believe these steps could help us fulfill our mission and align our movement with the values we all share.

Best regards,
Christophe Henner (Schiste)
Former Wikimedia Foundation Board Chair
Former Wikimedia France Board Chair

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NZWTGC6AHECU7T4UEJZF4PWJER7766BB/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3DTACB26TTAUBCGHOYGN6LREHS62S67L/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

--

Boodarwun
Gnangarra

'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardon nlangan Nyungar koortabodjar'

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VS2I3UXIXBTQUIPJ7GXHB3LDI3RJPUUK/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org