Good {{timezone appropriate greeting}},
I have worked as a facilitator in a few organisations. In the Wikimedia Movement (2021-2022), I engaged people for the BoT elections and the UCoC process. Global vote and engagement on this scale take a toll on a community, and this should not be overlooked.
I have worked as a facilitator in a few organisations. In the Wikimedia Movement (2021-2022), I engaged people for the BoT elections and the UCoC process. Global vote and engagement on this scale take a toll on a community, and this should not be overlooked.
In the last few months, we have already had a couple of global activities, including overhauls of the Movement Charter. The U4C (Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee) elections ended just a few weeks ago, their charter vote happened not long before that. This complicated process led to a situation in which less than 50% of the committee was elected (only 7 out of 16 seats filled).
We must start treating volunteer time and attention as resources according to the same rules as money and staff capacity. We cannot afford to communicate with and engage tens of thousands of people, explain concepts, and navigate them through this multi-tier process if we know (or suspect) that the result is already decided.
The cost to the Board of Trustees to accelerate their meeting and vote is negligible compared to the cost we are demanding from the community to participate in a process that may very well end up trivial because the BoT already made their decision.
I second Christophe Henner's voice in bringing forward the BoT vote (either by expediting it or delaying the community/affiliate votes, which would not be a precedent). Suppose there is a risk that a body of 12 could affect the process by voting the Charter down (which is their right according to the rules created by the MCDC for ratification). In that case, we should do all we can to avoid "wasting" the attention and engagement of 100,000 community members (approx. # of eligible voters).
The community and the affiliates should have their voice heard. We are the primary stakeholder of the Movement Charter. However, if just a few days before the vote commences, there is a risk that the BoT will not ratify the Charter, and the community should not go through a complicated and demanding process; it should be delayed.
P.S. I would like to thank Nat for sharing this statement (as well as the previous ones in February and May). This should be noted as an improvement in the transparency of the BoT actions, which is an example of the improvements we need.
The community and the affiliates should have their voice heard. We are the primary stakeholder of the Movement Charter. However, if just a few days before the vote commences, there is a risk that the BoT will not ratify the Charter, and the community should not go through a complicated and demanding process; it should be delayed.
P.S. I would like to thank Nat for sharing this statement (as well as the previous ones in February and May). This should be noted as an improvement in the transparency of the BoT actions, which is an example of the improvements we need.
Cheers,
--
