Thought it was worth adding a suggestion...

In the bylaws set-up at inception, WMF was an organisation with members.
Irrelevant to the complexity of the initial broken membership structure (1), the members had only "one right". Which was to be allowed to cast a vote to select a representative to join the board of Trustees.
That was IT. Nothing more. Members had to pay a due... and were able to cast a vote for the board election. That was it.

The Wikimedia Foundation does not have WMF members nowadays. But the community members still have the right to cast a vote to select a representative to join the board (yes... it must be followed by the approval by the active board)
There is a process to cast this vote, with an election committee, a technical solution to cast the vote, a verification process of the candidates, places to run campaign, a voting system etc.
The cast of vote for board members works, regardless of the fact the voters might be called community members rather than WMF members.

The main difference is that in the original bylaws, voters had to pay dues :)

In many membership based organizations though, the "rights" of the members of an organization extend beyond "casting a vote to get a representant on the board".
Often, the "rights" of the members include
1. voting for board members
2. approving the annual plan and the associated high level budget
3. at the end of the fiscal year, approving the annual report (including the associated high level financial report).
4. eventually voting for super high level decisions

What is currently happening ?
WMF does apply 1 (election of board members) and eventually 4 (such as code of conduct).

Why would WMF not also implement 2 and 3 ?
Why would WMF not also implement asking community members
- once a year, to vote for the annual plan and high level budget ?
- and once a year, to vote to "gratefully accept" the annual report of the last fiscal year ?
- and every now and then, to vote for an add-on... such as the Wikimedia Foundation 2030 strategy plan ? or Terms of Use. or Code of Conduct. Or similar.

I do understand the hesitation of the current board to approve the Wikimedia Charter proposition, because this is a huge change to assimilate in one mouthful, with many imperfections, and some potential deep pitfalls.
But after so many years, for a mix of community volunteers AND board representative working on the Charter, spending hundreds of hours on it... not being able to come with "an agreement of some sort", is quite unspeakable.

The WMF needs to come up with some baby steps, which would be less scary, not overly complicated to implement, and with limited damage if it really fails. Some steps that would restore some faith in the process and in the relationship.

So instead of simply ASKING the community to comment on the Annual Plan... why not actually also implement a vote to GET the plan approved ? All the elements already exist. The plateform to vote, the prior commenting system, the mettings to explain and justify, the voting process, the "list" of voters etc. all of that exists already. The calendar certainly would need to be reworked. But all elements are in place. 

Why not considering getting out of the confort zone then ?

Flo

(1) https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bylaws&oldid=620#ARTICLE_III:_MEMBERSHIP

Greetings

I can not wait to see how history of "current days" related to the "Wikimedia Summit, last modifications to the Wikimedia Movement Charter proposition, and voting period" will be dealt with in 18 years in the future. It promises to be stimulating.

In any cases, interesting "return in the past" Adam.

The initial bylaws were **extremely poorly made** and fully mis-adapted to our context. Anyone reading Article III would realize that. I am not impressed by the lawyer who wrote them, he did not do us a favor (not naming names on purpose)

Flo

Le 27/06/2024 à 12:51, Adam Wight a écrit :

Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> schrieb am Do. 27. Juni 2024 um 12:21:

When the WMF was set up, those involved chose not to make it a membership organisation.

Greetings!  I will emerge from the shadows to point out that WMF was originally incorporated as a membership organization, with criteria for membership, public pages about membership and discussions about how to implement the details.  However, its articles of incorporation were later changed under very likely illegal circumstances (through a vote made without informing their membership).  It's very possible that the many original members still have the standing to remedy this unfortunate situation of a self-appointing Board—if they can organize such a push.

The long story: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_membership_controversy

Regards,
[[mw:User:Adamw]]

_______________________________________________
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/AADLIHEE34LMPNLQHQDXN6IV6ZIJQKNT/
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/KKKR2BQB3J3IHJ53UYPNHW2IHLXRETZY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org