Maybe to offer a bit of a counter-argument to you, Itzik, that not all is lost, if I may ;-)

I don't think the whole process was a waste of time in the sense that communities and affiliates have shown what they want, and the WMF can now decide if they want to be part of this process or not. Over the last few years the level of cooperation between communities and affiliates has become a lot higher, as a direct result of the strategy process and the simple idea, that yes, working together is actually worth time and money.

The result of the ratification tells us that at least in the visible Wikiverse there is a clear desire and need to create a better framework for Wikimedia that strengthens our understanding of each other and treats everyone working on these projects with the same dignity and respect, while also acknowledging that to be able to partcipate also requires people like us in privileged positions to be more flexible in the way think about participation and how we can create an environment where "equity in decision-making" actually has meaning.

The strategy process itself has enabled many volunteers and staff members to broaden their horizons about other people's situations, how difficult even the most mundane wiki-tasks can be in a different part of the world. The working groups wrote the recommendations, but more importantly, taught many people involved in the working groups about what the challenges are to implement those recommendations. The CEE Hub is a direct result of this process, because many participants in the early stages of the CEE Hub project transitioned there from their working groups.

So maybe the next step should not be to ask what's the point, but maybe to think, discuss and plan how we can shape the future we want to see. To build a structure that organisations, communities and indvidiuals voluntarily join, and not out of fear of missing out, but out of a sense of optimism and hope that together we can overcome the challenges we all together are facing and support each other in those challenges that only some of us need to face ;-)

I for one can't wait to get started.

On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 10:19, Itzik Edri <itzik@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

When I realized the entire "voting" process was a hoax by the board a few weeks ago, I wanted to join other people in protesting against the board's behavior. However, I felt it would be pointless, as the board had already wasted far too much time, knowing it wouldn't accept anything other than its own decision.
Why spend more time and talk about this charter, collaborate together, in what we thought was a democratic decision-making process for this movement, but then when it failed to meet the board's own needs, it became a dictatorship, where elections aren't just an illusion, and even a majority of the movement won't convince the board to accept the existing rules.

But rather than addressing the fundamental issue of the board's disregard for this process, which is a waste of millions of dollars and even worse, the time spent by countless volunteers thinking, writing, and developing this charter, this discussion has shifted to irrelevant issues such as whether neutral votes should be counted and whether 100 members (a maximum number, not a desired number) of the Global Council should attend Wikimania (a matter that is not even mentioned in the charter).

I'm sorry, but all of this is dodging the truth that the board made very clear in their resolution - they don’t want any change of forces.

It's clear from their proposed changes to the resource distribution ("Because the Board of Trustees holds ultimate financial and fiduciary obligations, they are ultimately responsible for approving how much of the Foundation’s budget will be made available for grants distribution") - No one will decide how much money the foundation will spend. It is up to them to decide how much money will go to the rest of the movement bodies, and volunteers can maybe only influence how it will be split among them. How is it different from now?

The board's resolution is unambiguous, from the resource distribution component to the complete disregard for the global council. The board is unwilling to recognize any entity that could potentially challenge its authority. *Its* staff will support affiliates, resource allocation, and other committees, but any potential global council body would be entirely dependent on volunteers for all its activities. In contrast, the board itself enjoys the support of 100~ paid staff (executives, legal, communications, administration..). This arrangement represents a significant imbalance of power that serves no purpose other than to maintain the board's control.

So what is the point?

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 7:57 PM Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 12:30 AM Victoria Doronina <vdoronina@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Pete,

I live in Europe and am not familiar with the US rules. In the UK, spoilt ballots, equivalent to the neutral vote, are counted in the tally.
I don't follow your connection between a spoilt ballot and a neutral vote, to me these seem to be unrelated concepts. One has to do with the technical condition of the ballot at the time when counted, while the other reflects the intent of the voter.

The UK system also does not appear to work the way you describe. For the UK referendum we all know best (Brexit), the percentage reported on the English Wikipedia article (51.89%) aligns exactly with the result of this formula:
Leave / (Leave + Remain)
(the same formula used for the charter vote, and in Oregon elections).

The percentage it differs (51.85%) from
Leave / (Leave + Remain + spoilt)
(the formula I think you endorse and, I think inaccurately, ascribe to British referenda).

So I really am at a loss. The formula used by the Charter Commission seems both to align with the policy it set up ahead of time, and with precedents in other electoral systems.

Chris said:
> Given all of that, it is neither appropriate, not helpful, for you to now
>launch into some kind of public critique of this process based on your
>own views.
Victoria said:
The community-elected trustees were repeatedly demonised and asked for their opinion. Now that I’m expressing my opinion, it is suddenly inappropriate. Is it because I’m a woman or because the opinion that the Charter and the process of its' ratification are not fit for purpose should be silenced by any means?

I disagree with Chris on this point. But I do find your position confusing. Is it not *you* who are now demonizing the committee, by asserting that their chosen methodology is unique among systems of referendum, and imputing ill motives? In addition to being inaccurate (as to the propriety of the tallying method), your words after the fact come across to me as spiteful. It's hard to see what they accomplish beyond furthering acrimony.

Victoria said:
Dear all,

I regret to see that the communication in this thread fractured. People are now asking who am I to use the wikimedia.org email address.

I certainly don't object to a Trustee commenting on something that has been a significant project of the organization, that seems like an ideal use of a wikimedia.org email address!

I also have no objection to the Board's singular act of vetoing the charter.

What *does* concern me is trying to comprehend what the Board is aiming for. This seems like a uniquely important moment for the Board to clearly communicate its vision, as it rejects the proposal that arose out of the process it had previously defined.

Instead, communications from the Board (including yours) seem to be varying shades of inaccurate, political, vague, and inarticulate.

I would urge you to reflect on that. I'm not saying don't communicate, but the opposite. I urge you to communicate more clearly and carefully.

Pete
Editor of English Wikisource, Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata, etc.

_______________________________________________
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/BE5EZWEQ3VUVIUULHJHRZPOTEFC2SOBP/
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/VJBDJFG34COTBWQJJYOH5727QQOA2AQP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org