Dear all,
My intent is contributing to drafting a text of the Movement Charter which will be ratified by the communities, the affiliates, and the WMF. IMHO this will have to be an iterative process of community consultations. The committee will produce texts and gather feedback from the communities - and other stakeholders - in multiple rounds. This will be an open consultative process, based on consent decision making. In the feedback rounds anyone is allowed to raise objections against parts of the text. For the Charter to be ratified in the end, the drafting committee will have to have resolved any blocking objections, before asking anyone to ratify the text. A succesfull committee will gather feedback frequently, and resolve issues swiftly.
To come up with a workable first draft it would be convenient to have "the whole system in the room", to be inclusive of the perspectives of all major types of stakeholders involved. The composition of the committee, and the method of selection of committee members should be without prejudice for the composition of the Global Council, and the method of selection of Global Council members. The major types of stakeholders within the Wikimedia Movement are IMHO volunteer contributors to online content project wikis (aka editors, users, or community members), members of small affiliates, members of large affiliates, board members of affiliates, staff of affiliates, board members of the Wikimedia Foundation, and staff of the WMF.
The method of selection of Movement Charter Drafting Committee members will be different for each group of stakeholders, of which there are three: the WMF, the affiliates, and the community. IMHO I do belief the WMF board and staff to be well capable through their internal decision making processes to appoint to the Committee one or two board members, and a couple of staff. Nobody outside WMF has any business in trying to influence or determine who the WMF will appoint from their ranks. IMHO I do belief the affiliates are well capable of through their method of liking, select, elect, or appoint to the Committee some affiliate members, some affiliate board members and some affiliate staff. Nobody outside the affiliates has any business in trying to influence or determine who from the affiliates will be on the Committee.
So, what about the community members on the Community. IMHO neither the WMF nor the affiliates should even think of trying to influence which community members will be on the Committee. How will the community make such a movement wide decision? That is a problem to be solved by the ratified Movement Charter, which we are about to create.
Lacking such a defined process to select community members to the committee, there are IMHO two options (which have been discussed many times): 1 Hold elections 2 Appointments And I do assume both options to be based on self-nomination.
The objection to 1 is mainly that it takes too much time. This whole discussion is going around in circles for six months, which would have been sufficient time for two rounds of elections. To resolve this objection, people who dislike elections propose appointments. Who will appoint? Only recently Pharos proposed the community sourced board members to act as electoral college for the community members of the committee. That is, the people who are going to be elected in the upcoming elections. That will necessarily take more time than starting an elections for the community members to the Committee right now. However, elections are only necessary if there is anything to choose for the voters, that is (many) more candidates than room in the committee. Another option is to delegate the screening of candidates, and selecting to for example to the members of the Roles and Responsibilities Working Group, or the Election Committee as someone proposed in the Telegram channel. What I would like to see is how the committee matches the diversity matrix and expertise matrix as presented in the Global Conversations on June 12 and 13.
On the weekend of June 26 and 27 there will be another round of Global (and local) Conversations about how to form a committee. A third option is that anyone who would like to be on the committee as community member (and not selected by the affiliates nor the WMF) express their interest publicly, either by replying to this mail, or on meta before June 26, so all present at the Global Conversations in the weekend of June 26 and 27 can screen candidates and raise objections if necessary to the size, or composition of the committee, or raising doubts against individual candidates, or make proposals towards their preferred composition of community members on the committee, or maybe nominate themselves to remedy a problem they see.
In case we can't reach consensus or consent in the weekend of June 26 and 27 who of the community will be on the committee, maybe because there are too many people who have expressed their interest, than a resolution could be to hold elections, starting with a call for candidates through a central banner.
In case you don't want to express your interest - assuming you don't want to be on the committee and you do want to participate in the Global Conversations on June 26 and 27, please start participating in the discussion now, by replying to this mail, state your intent for participating in the Global Conversation, and what you do want to achieve, or accomplish in this process. If you do participate to block the creation of a Movement Charter, please state your objections against a Movement Charter. If you do participate to block the creation of a Global Council, please state your objections against a Global Council. If you do participate out of fear this process will intrude the autonomy of local community of the content project wikis, please state so, and come up with ways to resolve this issue, or, what should in your opinion be explicitly in the Movement Charter to reduce this fear.
The stakes are high, and there are multiple competing interest in the movement, while we all do serve the same mission. Given this complexity I do expect robust (but amical) debate within the committee, and I will not exclude harsh criticism - or outright rejection - from multiple community members to whatever text the committee produces as their first draft. To deal with this, we need a committee consisting of members willing to deal with this complexity, and willing to process, and digest any feedback given by the community, with an eye on resolving objections raised.
Regards,
Ad Huikeshoven
About me: Economist - graduated in 1992 from University Maastricht, civil servant, certified Professional Scrum Product Owner (PSP I), certified Prince2 Foundation projectmanagement, experience in Theory U and hosting u.lab, trained facilitator, trained in Art of Hosting, Wikipedian since 2005, former Audit Committee member, former board member of Wikimedia Nederland, presenter of Virtual Friendly Space Policy at Wikimania Hong Kong 2013, former election facilitator of the 2019 Affiliate Selected Board Seats process (I drafted the initial version of the Resolution 2019, amending the previous Resolution), facilitator of the discussion tools consultation 2019 at the Dutch Wikipedia, member of UCoC enforcement drafting committee of Wikimedia Nederland, father of two kids - one in university, one about to start. My native tongue is Dutch. Fortynine languages have globally more native speakers than Dutch.
Also posted on meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Movement_Charter_Drafting_G...
Dear Ad,
Could you please clarify the following;
Based on your email, does it mean that only candidates who express interest in being part of the drafting committee before the 2nd round of global conversations will be up for scrutiny? What about those that will be fronted by affiliates and WMF?
On Fri, 18 Jun 2021, 15:29 , ad@huikeshoven.org wrote:
Dear all,
My intent is contributing to drafting a text of the Movement Charter which will be ratified by the communities, the affiliates, and the WMF. IMHO this will have to be an iterative process of community consultations. The committee will produce texts and gather feedback from the communities - and other stakeholders - in multiple rounds. This will be an open consultative process, based on consent decision making. In the feedback rounds anyone is allowed to raise objections against parts of the text. For the Charter to be ratified in the end, the drafting committee will have to have resolved any blocking objections, before asking anyone to ratify the text. A succesfull committee will gather feedback frequently, and resolve issues swiftly.
To come up with a workable first draft it would be convenient to have "the whole system in the room", to be inclusive of the perspectives of all major types of stakeholders involved. The composition of the committee, and the method of selection of committee members should be without prejudice for the composition of the Global Council, and the method of selection of Global Council members. The major types of stakeholders within the Wikimedia Movement are IMHO volunteer contributors to online content project wikis (aka editors, users, or community members), members of small affiliates, members of large affiliates, board members of affiliates, staff of affiliates, board members of the Wikimedia Foundation, and staff of the WMF.
The method of selection of Movement Charter Drafting Committee members will be different for each group of stakeholders, of which there are three: the WMF, the affiliates, and the community. IMHO I do belief the WMF board and staff to be well capable through their internal decision making processes to appoint to the Committee one or two board members, and a couple of staff. Nobody outside WMF has any business in trying to influence or determine who the WMF will appoint from their ranks. IMHO I do belief the affiliates are well capable of through their method of liking, select, elect, or appoint to the Committee some affiliate members, some affiliate board members and some affiliate staff. Nobody outside the affiliates has any business in trying to influence or determine who from the affiliates will be on the Committee.
So, what about the community members on the Community. IMHO neither the WMF nor the affiliates should even think of trying to influence which community members will be on the Committee. How will the community make such a movement wide decision? That is a problem to be solved by the ratified Movement Charter, which we are about to create.
Lacking such a defined process to select community members to the committee, there are IMHO two options (which have been discussed many times): 1 Hold elections 2 Appointments And I do assume both options to be based on self-nomination.
The objection to 1 is mainly that it takes too much time. This whole discussion is going around in circles for six months, which would have been sufficient time for two rounds of elections. To resolve this objection, people who dislike elections propose appointments. Who will appoint? Only recently Pharos proposed the community sourced board members to act as electoral college for the community members of the committee. That is, the people who are going to be elected in the upcoming elections. That will necessarily take more time than starting an elections for the community members to the Committee right now. However, elections are only necessary if there is anything to choose for the voters, that is (many) more candidates than room in the committee. Another option is to delegate the screening of candidates, and selecting to for example to the members of the Roles and Responsibilities Working Group, or the Election Committee as someone proposed in the Telegram channel. What I would like to see is how the committee matches the diversity matrix and expertise matrix as presented in the Global Conversations on June 12 and 13.
On the weekend of June 26 and 27 there will be another round of Global (and local) Conversations about how to form a committee. A third option is that anyone who would like to be on the committee as community member (and not selected by the affiliates nor the WMF) express their interest publicly, either by replying to this mail, or on meta before June 26, so all present at the Global Conversations in the weekend of June 26 and 27 can screen candidates and raise objections if necessary to the size, or composition of the committee, or raising doubts against individual candidates, or make proposals towards their preferred composition of community members on the committee, or maybe nominate themselves to remedy a problem they see.
In case we can't reach consensus or consent in the weekend of June 26 and 27 who of the community will be on the committee, maybe because there are too many people who have expressed their interest, than a resolution could be to hold elections, starting with a call for candidates through a central banner.
In case you don't want to express your interest - assuming you don't want to be on the committee and you do want to participate in the Global Conversations on June 26 and 27, please start participating in the discussion now, by replying to this mail, state your intent for participating in the Global Conversation, and what you do want to achieve, or accomplish in this process. If you do participate to block the creation of a Movement Charter, please state your objections against a Movement Charter. If you do participate to block the creation of a Global Council, please state your objections against a Global Council. If you do participate out of fear this process will intrude the autonomy of local community of the content project wikis, please state so, and come up with ways to resolve this issue, or, what should in your opinion be explicitly in the Movement Charter to reduce this fear.
The stakes are high, and there are multiple competing interest in the movement, while we all do serve the same mission. Given this complexity I do expect robust (but amical) debate within the committee, and I will not exclude harsh criticism - or outright rejection - from multiple community members to whatever text the committee produces as their first draft. To deal with this, we need a committee consisting of members willing to deal with this complexity, and willing to process, and digest any feedback given by the community, with an eye on resolving objections raised.
Regards,
Ad Huikeshoven
About me: Economist - graduated in 1992 from University Maastricht, civil servant, certified Professional Scrum Product Owner (PSP I), certified Prince2 Foundation projectmanagement, experience in Theory U and hosting u.lab, trained facilitator, trained in Art of Hosting, Wikipedian since 2005, former Audit Committee member, former board member of Wikimedia Nederland, presenter of Virtual Friendly Space Policy at Wikimania Hong Kong 2013, former election facilitator of the 2019 Affiliate Selected Board Seats process (I drafted the initial version of the Resolution 2019, amending the previous Resolution), facilitator of the discussion tools consultation 2019 at the Dutch Wikipedia, member of UCoC enforcement drafting committee of Wikimedia Nederland, father of two kids - one in university, one about to start. My native tongue is Dutch. Fortynine languages have globally more native speakers than Dutch.
Also posted on meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Movement_Charter_Drafting_G... _______________________________________________ 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear Ad,
Thank you for expressing your interest to be part of the continued conversations and work on the Movement Charter.
The thoughts you have shared are well in line with the current conversations regarding the set up of the Drafting Committee. I am sharing a link to the meta page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Events/Movement_Charter_Global_Conversation,_26-27_June_2021 that provides further context regarding these conversations and outlines key questions we are trying to address and answer. I hope this is helpful for everyone to see your email in context and engage with it and the wider conversations.
There are multiple discussions happening on the local and regional level this week which everyone is welcome to join https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Events/Movement_Charter_Global_Conversation,_26-27_June_2021. On Sunday, June 27 we are convening again for a Global Conversation to bring all the discussions together, define points of agreement and disagreement, and define the next steps to keep the process moving forward. You can find more information and registration form for the events here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Events.
Wishing everyone a great continuation to your week! Kaarel
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 5:25 PM Winnie kabintie kabinte@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Ad,
Could you please clarify the following;
Based on your email, does it mean that only candidates who express interest in being part of the drafting committee before the 2nd round of global conversations will be up for scrutiny? What about those that will be fronted by affiliates and WMF?
On Fri, 18 Jun 2021, 15:29 , ad@huikeshoven.org wrote:
Dear all,
My intent is contributing to drafting a text of the Movement Charter which will be ratified by the communities, the affiliates, and the WMF. IMHO this will have to be an iterative process of community consultations. The committee will produce texts and gather feedback from the communities - and other stakeholders - in multiple rounds. This will be an open consultative process, based on consent decision making. In the feedback rounds anyone is allowed to raise objections against parts of the text. For the Charter to be ratified in the end, the drafting committee will have to have resolved any blocking objections, before asking anyone to ratify the text. A succesfull committee will gather feedback frequently, and resolve issues swiftly.
To come up with a workable first draft it would be convenient to have "the whole system in the room", to be inclusive of the perspectives of all major types of stakeholders involved. The composition of the committee, and the method of selection of committee members should be without prejudice for the composition of the Global Council, and the method of selection of Global Council members. The major types of stakeholders within the Wikimedia Movement are IMHO volunteer contributors to online content project wikis (aka editors, users, or community members), members of small affiliates, members of large affiliates, board members of affiliates, staff of affiliates, board members of the Wikimedia Foundation, and staff of the WMF.
The method of selection of Movement Charter Drafting Committee members will be different for each group of stakeholders, of which there are three: the WMF, the affiliates, and the community. IMHO I do belief the WMF board and staff to be well capable through their internal decision making processes to appoint to the Committee one or two board members, and a couple of staff. Nobody outside WMF has any business in trying to influence or determine who the WMF will appoint from their ranks. IMHO I do belief the affiliates are well capable of through their method of liking, select, elect, or appoint to the Committee some affiliate members, some affiliate board members and some affiliate staff. Nobody outside the affiliates has any business in trying to influence or determine who from the affiliates will be on the Committee.
So, what about the community members on the Community. IMHO neither the WMF nor the affiliates should even think of trying to influence which community members will be on the Committee. How will the community make such a movement wide decision? That is a problem to be solved by the ratified Movement Charter, which we are about to create.
Lacking such a defined process to select community members to the committee, there are IMHO two options (which have been discussed many times): 1 Hold elections 2 Appointments And I do assume both options to be based on self-nomination.
The objection to 1 is mainly that it takes too much time. This whole discussion is going around in circles for six months, which would have been sufficient time for two rounds of elections. To resolve this objection, people who dislike elections propose appointments. Who will appoint? Only recently Pharos proposed the community sourced board members to act as electoral college for the community members of the committee. That is, the people who are going to be elected in the upcoming elections. That will necessarily take more time than starting an elections for the community members to the Committee right now. However, elections are only necessary if there is anything to choose for the voters, that is (many) more candidates than room in the committee. Another option is to delegate the screening of candidates, and selecting to for example to the members of the Roles and Responsibilities Working Group, or the Election Committee as someone proposed in the Telegram channel. What I would like to see is how the committee matches the diversity matrix and expertise matrix as presented in the Global Conversations on June 12 and 13.
On the weekend of June 26 and 27 there will be another round of Global (and local) Conversations about how to form a committee. A third option is that anyone who would like to be on the committee as community member (and not selected by the affiliates nor the WMF) express their interest publicly, either by replying to this mail, or on meta before June 26, so all present at the Global Conversations in the weekend of June 26 and 27 can screen candidates and raise objections if necessary to the size, or composition of the committee, or raising doubts against individual candidates, or make proposals towards their preferred composition of community members on the committee, or maybe nominate themselves to remedy a problem they see.
In case we can't reach consensus or consent in the weekend of June 26 and 27 who of the community will be on the committee, maybe because there are too many people who have expressed their interest, than a resolution could be to hold elections, starting with a call for candidates through a central banner.
In case you don't want to express your interest - assuming you don't want to be on the committee and you do want to participate in the Global Conversations on June 26 and 27, please start participating in the discussion now, by replying to this mail, state your intent for participating in the Global Conversation, and what you do want to achieve, or accomplish in this process. If you do participate to block the creation of a Movement Charter, please state your objections against a Movement Charter. If you do participate to block the creation of a Global Council, please state your objections against a Global Council. If you do participate out of fear this process will intrude the autonomy of local community of the content project wikis, please state so, and come up with ways to resolve this issue, or, what should in your opinion be explicitly in the Movement Charter to reduce this fear.
The stakes are high, and there are multiple competing interest in the movement, while we all do serve the same mission. Given this complexity I do expect robust (but amical) debate within the committee, and I will not exclude harsh criticism - or outright rejection - from multiple community members to whatever text the committee produces as their first draft. To deal with this, we need a committee consisting of members willing to deal with this complexity, and willing to process, and digest any feedback given by the community, with an eye on resolving objections raised.
Regards,
Ad Huikeshoven
About me: Economist - graduated in 1992 from University Maastricht, civil servant, certified Professional Scrum Product Owner (PSP I), certified Prince2 Foundation projectmanagement, experience in Theory U and hosting u.lab, trained facilitator, trained in Art of Hosting, Wikipedian since 2005, former Audit Committee member, former board member of Wikimedia Nederland, presenter of Virtual Friendly Space Policy at Wikimania Hong Kong 2013, former election facilitator of the 2019 Affiliate Selected Board Seats process (I drafted the initial version of the Resolution 2019, amending the previous Resolution), facilitator of the discussion tools consultation 2019 at the Dutch Wikipedia, member of UCoC enforcement drafting committee of Wikimedia Nederland, father of two kids - one in university, one about to start. My native tongue is Dutch. Fortynine languages have globally more native speakers than Dutch.
Also posted on meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Movement_Charter_Drafting_G... _______________________________________________ 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear all,
Today's Global Conversations were about the composition, the selection, and compensation of members for a Movement Charter Drafting Committee. To move forward, convergence of opinions on the different proposals is necessary. So far there are four proposals: 1. A proposal by Pharos (the 7/7/7 proposal): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Committee 2. A proposal by Movement Strategy veterans: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transiti... 3. A proposal by WMF: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Events/Movement_Charter_Gl... 4. A proposal by Nosebagbear: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter_Drafting_Committee_proposal
Which proposal do you favor? Please record your preferences on meta, to help move this process forward
Regards,
Ad Huikeshoven
P.S. I owed Winnie a reply, which you can read below.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 3:57 PM Winnie kabintie kabinte@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Ad,
Could you please clarify the following;
Based on your email, does it mean that only candidates who express interest in being part of the drafting committee before the 2nd round of global conversations will be up for scrutiny? What about those that will be fronted by affiliates and WMF?
Hi Winnie: The answer to the first question is no - I called for an expression of interest - to learn if there are potentially more candidates than seats, I did not call for candidates. The answer the second question: the affiliates and WMF will come up, or front candidates when asked and needed. The WMF did an interesting proposal, to which you don't have objections, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Movement_Strategy/Events/M... .
Hi, also related to the convergence of proposals related to the Movement Charter drafting committee...
A lot was discussed about the Movement Charter drafting committee last week, and the Movement Strategy team is completing the report.
The proposal the Foundation shared received some good feedback, some mixed and yet curious feedback, and also some criticism. We are introducing some changes to this proposal to address the main concerns: the timeline and the possibility to vote.
Please review this proposed modification. We hope that we all can find a point of compromise and a way forward.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Events/Movement_Charter_Gl...
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:34 PM Ad Huikeshoven ad.huikeshoven@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
Today's Global Conversations were about the composition, the selection, and compensation of members for a Movement Charter Drafting Committee. To move forward, convergence of opinions on the different proposals is necessary. So far there are four proposals:
- A proposal by Pharos (the 7/7/7 proposal):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Committee 2. A proposal by Movement Strategy veterans: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transiti... 3. A proposal by WMF: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Events/Movement_Charter_Gl... 4. A proposal by Nosebagbear: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter_Drafting_Committee_proposal
Which proposal do you favor? Please record your preferences on meta, to help move this process forward
Regards,
Ad Huikeshoven
P.S. I owed Winnie a reply, which you can read below.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 3:57 PM Winnie kabintie kabinte@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Ad,
Could you please clarify the following;
Based on your email, does it mean that only candidates who express interest in being part of the drafting committee before the 2nd round of global conversations will be up for scrutiny? What about those that will be fronted by affiliates and WMF?
Hi Winnie: The answer to the first question is no - I called for an expression of interest - to learn if there are potentially more candidates than seats, I did not call for candidates. The answer the second question: the affiliates and WMF will come up, or front candidates when asked and needed. The WMF did an interesting proposal, to which you don't have objections, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Movement_Strategy/Events/M... . _______________________________________________ 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org