Dear all,
We are grateful to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) members, who have dedicated their time and energy to putting forward this final draft of the Movement Charter. They have demonstrated tremendous resilience and perseverance in grappling with ways to increase our collective sense of belonging as a movement, and outlining roles and responsibilities intended to help us all make better decisions in steering the Wikimedia movement into the future.
For some, this final draft Charter represents an extension of the Movement Strategy process that began in earnest in 2020. There are many reflections on this history, some nostalgic and others less so. The 2030 strategic direction has guided and continues to guide the Wikimedia Foundation’s strategy. As the Foundation’s annual plan this year https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History observed, there is much to celebrate in the collective advancement of the original ten movement strategy recommendations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations, including shared progress in creating more equitable and decentralised decision-making structures.
At the same time, we should all recognise that the world around us has shifted significantly since the movement strategy process began, that our limited resources require much more pragmatic trade-offs and choices, and that the Board has a duty to consider the risk, value, cost and benefit of any significant commitments being made to advance the mission.
As requested by the MCDC, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has, over the last few months, shared with the committee its direct feedback on the previous Movement Charter drafts, including its perspectives on the Global Council https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council and its feedback on a previous draft https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft that we posted publicly. Liaisons have also engaged in regular and ongoing meetings with the MCDC members, including inviting the MCDC members to all Board meetings and Strategic retreats since June 2022.
Our general observation, which is elaborated in the body of this letter, is that the final draft of the Movement Charter *still does not address the significant concerns* previously raised by the Board. Thus, as liaisons, *our recommendations* to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are:
- *not to ratify* the final draft of the Movement Charter *as proposed; and* - *support* the Foundation in developing *concrete, time-bound next steps* on a more practical scale, allowing us all to *evaluate progress*, and see what to change or build on.
We believe that approving this version of the Charter, despite the tremendous amount of work and resources already put into it, would not be the right call. Instead, we think it is better to continue pursuing the same goals the draft Charter also sought to pursue in a different way, by identifying key areas where the final draft Charter provides us with guidance on concrete steps that can be taken towards increasing volunteer and movement oversight of certain core areas of responsibility. We believe this will allow the Foundation, and all of us, to live into the recommendation of Movement Strategy to evaluate, iterate, and adapt https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt as we go, rather than too quickly to agree to new structures that may not yet be fit for purpose.
As liaisons, we first shared this recommendation and our reflections with the MCDC on June 18 and then with the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board on June 20 (including a short draft brief https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_liaisons_reflections_on_final_Movement_charter_draft/Brief). The Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement Charter now and *plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9*, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting.
== Context for sharing these reflections: why now? ==
As liaisons, we believe that the final draft does not address the concerns previously stated by the Board of Trustees in its feedback https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft on previous drafts of the Charter. Specifically, the final draft still falls short of providing a clear enough explanation of *how* it will advance Wikimedia's public interest mission and effectively address the shortcomings of Wikimedia's current structures to enable more effective and equitable decisions.
These points are not new and were shared in previous Board feedback to the MCDC, including the January 22 letter (shared publicly in February https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council) in response to the first public draft and the May letter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft in response to the second public draft. In response to both affiliates and individual contributors who have asked the Foundation to speak more clearly about its views, and do it sooner, we felt it was important to reiterate these points in the interest of transparency and learning. == Process accountability ==
We, as liaisons, have heard concerns and frustrations about the Movement Charter process. It faced significant challenges and constraints from the impact of the pandemic limiting travel and in-person meetings; resignations of several members of the MCDC; and other issues that extended the timeline to 2.5 years. It was a shared hope by all to have this process successfully wrapped up sooner.
For some of this, the Board certainly must take some responsibility. This is the purpose of the Board’s oversight, as well as its governance responsibilities. An important lesson learnt through this experience is that large-scale processes should have more explicit and clear expectations up front so that as a stakeholder the Foundation can engage directly and openly earlier about its own positions, views and boundaries. It is not easy to find this balance, but this is essential to moving forward differently. These and other lessons should be documented, and built upon in any future processes aimed at hard-to-reverse movement-wide commitments (for example, the Playbook https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Reports/Movement_Strategy_Playbook that was developed after the Wikimedia's Movement Strategy process). == Reflections on the final draft ==
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has a legal and fiduciary duty to consider any significant commitment or decision in light of the expected risk, value, cost, and benefit to Wikimedia's public interest mission. The value of new structures proposed in the final draft of the Movement Charter has to be weighed against their risk, their cost, and the resource demands of this movement at a time when we have all seen that the growth rate of revenue is not increasing at the same rate as in the past, while demands to invest more in the Wikimedia platforms, projects, and communities are increasing.
As liaisons, we believe the *risks and costs* associated with the currently proposed form of the Global Council *outweigh its potential value*.
Firstly and most importantly, the proposed Global Council's *purpose* is not clearly connected to advancing Wikimedia's public interest mission. It lacks a compelling explanation of *how* it will ensure more equitable decision-making and support the mission of sharing free knowledge. It also does not guide us on how to address many of the most pressing issues facing community governance on Wikimedia projects. We recognise that for some, the status quo *also* does not provide that clarity, but we do not believe that the final draft Charter moves us closer.
Secondly, we note that the *proposed structure and makeup* of the Global Council have changed significantly with each iteration of the published drafts (from a small body to a large assembly to a flexible-sized body in the most recent text). This may have been done in response to feedback from multiple stakeholders, but it raises an ongoing concern we have expressed in all of our feedback that this proposed structure is not based on the *form following function* principle -- we do not see a deliberate or intentional design that seeks to meet the purpose of such a critical and important new body.
Finally, as liaisons we believe that important elements within the final draft Charter, including, most critically, the *Values and Principles*, require more consensus of communities before attempting to incorporate them into a larger document that enshrines binding commitments on us all. Ensuring values are understood, shared, and - importantly - prioritised similarly across the movement is essential to relying on them to help craft an effective and accepted decision-making framework. == Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment: what to do irrespective of the outcome of the ratification vote ==
As liaisons, the proposal that we are making to the Board is that, instead of ratifying the Movement Charter in its current form, it is better to follow the Movement Strategy Recommendation to experiment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt more quickly with key areas of responsibility before establishing a more permanent body with a wider scope. That is why, irrespective of the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, the Foundation has already begun to work on shifting core areas of decision-making https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History#Clarifying_movement_roles_and_responsibilities_moving_forward to increased volunteer oversight, including *fund dissemination*, and volunteers offering more immediate input on Foundation decisions, such as *advising on product & technology*.
More specifically, we propose that by January 2025, fund dissemination, which is one functional area of the proposed Global Council, be handled by a global decision-making body to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for the rest of fiscal year 2024-2025 and to plan grantmaking estimates for the next two years. A global, but narrower scope, will help to experiment with more accountability for the results.
This process, which we shall ask to be co-created with affiliates and individual community members, would build on the experience of the Regional Funds Committees https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021/Regional_Committees, and the past Funds Dissemination Committee https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee, in line with the Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #27 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Flexible_resource_allocation_framework and the work currently taking place with Affiliate EDs and Regional Funds Committees to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for FY 2024-2025. It is important to document and publish the lessons learned from each step of the process and use these to inform future decision-making and the possible creation of permanent committees and/or movement bodies.
Additionally, as liaisons we also propose moving forward with the establishment of a Product & Technology Advisory Council https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_and_Technology_Advisory_Council/Proposal, following a proposal from the Foundation that was shared with the MCDC. This is in line with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #31 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Technology_Council to advance shared decision-making and co-creative spaces in technology spaces that are fundamental to support the mission. == Next steps ==
As all affiliates and individuals prepare to vote on the final Charter draft, we as liaisons hope that voters will also take the time to provide written comments alongside their “yes”, “no”, and “--” https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Method_of_voting vote so that everyone will learn as much as possible about how we all can move forward with decision-making structures that are more effective, with an equity lens, for our complex global community to advance Wikimedia’s mission in the world.
As previously noted, the Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement charter now and *plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9*, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting. This will allow the Board to consider all public comments available before the start of the voting while casting its vote alongside affiliates and individual contributors.
At the MCDC’s request, the results of the Board’s vote will be shared only after the vote of individuals and affiliates has concluded, so as not to influence their voting, but likely before the outcomes of those votes are published, and not before July 10.
As we all await the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, it will be important to be ready to take concrete steps that will help move us forward as a movement. Wikimania will be an opportunity to begin constructive and productive conversations on these and other immediate next steps, informed by the comments left by individuals and affiliates during the vote. Working together on practical, time-bound steps will shape a better and more equitable framework for making decisions. With a shared commitment, this moment of change can foster a greater sense of belonging, one that can sometimes feel elusive in this widely diverse global movement.
Best regards
Nat and Lorenzo
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees liaisons to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee =========================================== Best regards, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!*
Dear Natalia and Lorenzo, I have read your message and there are good reasons to support what you are claiming there, even if I don't share your views. The discussion about how to share power is always complex, and the ones losing power might have good reasons to try keeping it. I don't doubt that whatever the WMF BoT decides will be for done in good faith, and not only to prevent sharing power.
However, I find something weird in your message. You, Natalia, were directly appointed by the board, so it is evident that, as a Liaison to the MCDC, you have represented the Board's view and interests. My doubt resides more in how it is possible that Lorenzo, who was elected by the community to serve the community's view (whatever that means, I will return to that soon) acts as a liaison for the WMF and not for the community itself.
I know that acting as a representative of "the community" is not easy: we don't know yet what the community is going to vote. We don't have a crystal ball, and that's why promoting a vote in one direction or the other is not a problem by itself. It would be more interesting if the four "community" elected members at the BoT vote aligned with the community, and the two Affiliated elected members vote aligned with the affiliates voting. Whatever it is.
We don't know what the Community and the Affiliates will vote yet. But we know why you were elected, because every candidate presented goals and priorities for the election. I would like to quote a couple of sentences from your stated goals (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidat...)
Now, with the Movement Strategy, the new Global Council is expected to finally give a body that is truly representative of our movement. We don't know yet how it will be shaped, but in order to achieve its potential the Wikimedia Foundation Board, and the Wikimedia Foundation itself, will have to learn a new way.
Strategy implementation, in a fair way. (...). This strategy talks about decentralization, equity in decision-making, empowering communities. This is a great opportunity to change our movement for the better. At the same time, there is the risk that a time of changes will end favouring the old power structures. We need to make sure this does not happen.
The community is a governing body. The community is not just a bunch of people providing free work to support the projects. The community is the Wikimedia movement itself. It is our ultimate decision-making body.
It's evident that people can change their mind, and that accessing to other viewpoints and information may affect what we decide. Anyway, it would be interesting to know which are the reasons to making just the opposite that was stated. As a community member, I think that this is an interesting insight on why we should oppose the Movement Charter.
Thanks
Galder
________________________________ From: Nataliia Tymkiv ntymkiv@wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 1:17 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board liaisons reflections on final Movement charter draft
Dear all,
We are grateful to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) members, who have dedicated their time and energy to putting forward this final draft of the Movement Charter. They have demonstrated tremendous resilience and perseverance in grappling with ways to increase our collective sense of belonging as a movement, and outlining roles and responsibilities intended to help us all make better decisions in steering the Wikimedia movement into the future.
For some, this final draft Charter represents an extension of the Movement Strategy process that began in earnest in 2020. There are many reflections on this history, some nostalgic and others less so. The 2030 strategic direction has guided and continues to guide the Wikimedia Foundation’s strategy. As the Foundation’s annual plan this yearhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History observed, there is much to celebrate in the collective advancement of the original ten movement strategy recommendationshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations, including shared progress in creating more equitable and decentralised decision-making structures.
At the same time, we should all recognise that the world around us has shifted significantly since the movement strategy process began, that our limited resources require much more pragmatic trade-offs and choices, and that the Board has a duty to consider the risk, value, cost and benefit of any significant commitments being made to advance the mission.
As requested by the MCDC, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has, over the last few months, shared with the committee its direct feedback on the previous Movement Charter drafts, including its perspectives on the Global Councilhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council and its feedback on a previous drafthttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft that we posted publicly. Liaisons have also engaged in regular and ongoing meetings with the MCDC members, including inviting the MCDC members to all Board meetings and Strategic retreats since June 2022.
Our general observation, which is elaborated in the body of this letter, is that the final draft of the Movement Charter still does not address the significant concerns previously raised by the Board. Thus, as liaisons, our recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are:
* not to ratify the final draft of the Movement Charter as proposed; and * support the Foundation in developing concrete, time-bound next steps on a more practical scale, allowing us all to evaluate progress, and see what to change or build on.
We believe that approving this version of the Charter, despite the tremendous amount of work and resources already put into it, would not be the right call. Instead, we think it is better to continue pursuing the same goals the draft Charter also sought to pursue in a different way, by identifying key areas where the final draft Charter provides us with guidance on concrete steps that can be taken towards increasing volunteer and movement oversight of certain core areas of responsibility. We believe this will allow the Foundation, and all of us, to live into the recommendation of Movement Strategy to evaluate, iterate, and adapthttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt as we go, rather than too quickly to agree to new structures that may not yet be fit for purpose.
As liaisons, we first shared this recommendation and our reflections with the MCDC on June 18 and then with the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board on June 20 (including a short draft briefhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_liaisons_reflections_on_final_Movement_charter_draft/Brief). The Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement Charter now and plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9, during the voting period for all affiliates and individualshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting.
== Context for sharing these reflections: why now? ==
As liaisons, we believe that the final draft does not address the concerns previously stated by the Board of Trustees in its feedbackhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft on previous drafts of the Charter. Specifically, the final draft still falls short of providing a clear enough explanation of how it will advance Wikimedia's public interest mission and effectively address the shortcomings of Wikimedia's current structures to enable more effective and equitable decisions.
These points are not new and were shared in previous Board feedback to the MCDC, including the January 22 letter (shared publicly in Februaryhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council) in response to the first public draft and the May letterhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft in response to the second public draft. In response to both affiliates and individual contributors who have asked the Foundation to speak more clearly about its views, and do it sooner, we felt it was important to reiterate these points in the interest of transparency and learning.
== Process accountability ==
We, as liaisons, have heard concerns and frustrations about the Movement Charter process. It faced significant challenges and constraints from the impact of the pandemic limiting travel and in-person meetings; resignations of several members of the MCDC; and other issues that extended the timeline to 2.5 years. It was a shared hope by all to have this process successfully wrapped up sooner.
For some of this, the Board certainly must take some responsibility. This is the purpose of the Board’s oversight, as well as its governance responsibilities. An important lesson learnt through this experience is that large-scale processes should have more explicit and clear expectations up front so that as a stakeholder the Foundation can engage directly and openly earlier about its own positions, views and boundaries. It is not easy to find this balance, but this is essential to moving forward differently. These and other lessons should be documented, and built upon in any future processes aimed at hard-to-reverse movement-wide commitments (for example, the Playbookhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Reports/Movement_Strategy_Playbook that was developed after the Wikimedia's Movement Strategy process).
== Reflections on the final draft ==
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has a legal and fiduciary duty to consider any significant commitment or decision in light of the expected risk, value, cost, and benefit to Wikimedia's public interest mission. The value of new structures proposed in the final draft of the Movement Charter has to be weighed against their risk, their cost, and the resource demands of this movement at a time when we have all seen that the growth rate of revenue is not increasing at the same rate as in the past, while demands to invest more in the Wikimedia platforms, projects, and communities are increasing.
As liaisons, we believe the risks and costs associated with the currently proposed form of the Global Council outweigh its potential value.
Firstly and most importantly, the proposed Global Council's purpose is not clearly connected to advancing Wikimedia's public interest mission. It lacks a compelling explanation of how it will ensure more equitable decision-making and support the mission of sharing free knowledge. It also does not guide us on how to address many of the most pressing issues facing community governance on Wikimedia projects. We recognise that for some, the status quo also does not provide that clarity, but we do not believe that the final draft Charter moves us closer.
Secondly, we note that the proposed structure and makeup of the Global Council have changed significantly with each iteration of the published drafts (from a small body to a large assembly to a flexible-sized body in the most recent text). This may have been done in response to feedback from multiple stakeholders, but it raises an ongoing concern we have expressed in all of our feedback that this proposed structure is not based on the form following function principle -- we do not see a deliberate or intentional design that seeks to meet the purpose of such a critical and important new body.
Finally, as liaisons we believe that important elements within the final draft Charter, including, most critically, the Values and Principles, require more consensus of communities before attempting to incorporate them into a larger document that enshrines binding commitments on us all. Ensuring values are understood, shared, and - importantly - prioritised similarly across the movement is essential to relying on them to help craft an effective and accepted decision-making framework.
== Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment: what to do irrespective of the outcome of the ratification vote ==
As liaisons, the proposal that we are making to the Board is that, instead of ratifying the Movement Charter in its current form, it is better to follow the Movement Strategy Recommendation to experimenthttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt more quickly with key areas of responsibility before establishing a more permanent body with a wider scope. That is why, irrespective of the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, the Foundation has already begun to work on shifting core areas of decision-makinghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History#Clarifying_movement_roles_and_responsibilities_moving_forward to increased volunteer oversight, including fund dissemination, and volunteers offering more immediate input on Foundation decisions, such as advising on product & technology.
More specifically, we propose that by January 2025, fund dissemination, which is one functional area of the proposed Global Council, be handled by a global decision-making body to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for the rest of fiscal year 2024-2025 and to plan grantmaking estimates for the next two years. A global, but narrower scope, will help to experiment with more accountability for the results.
This process, which we shall ask to be co-created with affiliates and individual community members, would build on the experience of the Regional Funds Committeeshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021/Regional_Committees, and the past Funds Dissemination Committeehttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee, in line with the Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #27https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Flexible_resource_allocation_framework and the work currently taking place with Affiliate EDs and Regional Funds Committees to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for FY 2024-2025. It is important to document and publish the lessons learned from each step of the process and use these to inform future decision-making and the possible creation of permanent committees and/or movement bodies.
Additionally, as liaisons we also propose moving forward with the establishment of a Product & Technology Advisory Councilhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_and_Technology_Advisory_Council/Proposal, following a proposal from the Foundation that was shared with the MCDC. This is in line with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #31https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Technology_Council to advance shared decision-making and co-creative spaces in technology spaces that are fundamental to support the mission.
== Next steps ==
As all affiliates and individuals prepare to vote on the final Charter draft, we as liaisons hope that voters will also take the time to provide written comments alongside their “yes”, “no”, and “--”https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Method_of_voting vote so that everyone will learn as much as possible about how we all can move forward with decision-making structures that are more effective, with an equity lens, for our complex global community to advance Wikimedia’s mission in the world.
As previously noted, the Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement charter now and plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9, during the voting period for all affiliates and individualshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting. This will allow the Board to consider all public comments available before the start of the voting while casting its vote alongside affiliates and individual contributors.
At the MCDC’s request, the results of the Board’s vote will be shared only after the vote of individuals and affiliates has concluded, so as not to influence their voting, but likely before the outcomes of those votes are published, and not before July 10.
As we all await the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, it will be important to be ready to take concrete steps that will help move us forward as a movement. Wikimania will be an opportunity to begin constructive and productive conversations on these and other immediate next steps, informed by the comments left by individuals and affiliates during the vote. Working together on practical, time-bound steps will shape a better and more equitable framework for making decisions. With a shared commitment, this moment of change can foster a greater sense of belonging, one that can sometimes feel elusive in this widely diverse global movement.
Best regards
Nat and Lorenzo
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees liaisons to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee
=========================================== Best regards, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!
All boards members of the WMF are required legally to represent the interests of the WMF no matter how they arrived on the board. However, when I was on the board I viewed the best interests of the foundation and community as inseparable as neither can succeed without the other.
J
Sent from Gmail Mobile
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:55 Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Natalia and Lorenzo, I have read your message and there are good reasons to support what you are claiming there, even if I don't share your views. The discussion about how to share power is always complex, and the ones losing power might have good reasons to try keeping it. I don't doubt that whatever the WMF BoT decides will be for done in good faith, and not only to prevent sharing power.
However, I find something weird in your message. You, Natalia, were directly appointed by the board, so it is evident that, as a Liaison to the MCDC, you have represented the Board's view and interests. My doubt resides more in how it is possible that Lorenzo, who was elected by the community to serve the community's view (whatever that means, I will return to that soon) acts as a liaison for the WMF and not for the community itself.
I know that acting as a representative of "the community" is not easy: we don't know yet what the community is going to vote. We don't have a crystal ball, and that's why promoting a vote in one direction or the other is not a problem by itself. It would be more interesting if the four "community" elected members at the BoT vote aligned with the community, and the two Affiliated elected members vote aligned with the affiliates voting. Whatever it is.
We don't know what the Community and the Affiliates will vote yet. But we know why you were elected, because every candidate presented goals and priorities for the election. I would like to quote a couple of sentences from your stated goals ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidat... )
*Now, with the Movement Strategy, the new Global Council is expected to finally give a body that is truly representative of our movement. We don't know yet how it will be shaped, but in order to achieve its potential the Wikimedia Foundation Board, and the Wikimedia Foundation itself, will have to learn a new way.*
*Strategy implementation, in a fair way. (...). This strategy talks about decentralization, equity in decision-making, empowering communities. This is a great opportunity to change our movement for the better. At the same time, there is the risk that a time of changes will end favouring the old power structures. We need to make sure this does not happen.*
*The community is a governing body. The community is not just a bunch of people providing free work to support the projects. The community is the Wikimedia movement itself. It is our ultimate decision-making body.*
It's evident that people can change their mind, and that accessing to other viewpoints and information may affect what we decide. Anyway, it would be interesting to know which are the reasons to making just the opposite that was stated. As a community member, I think that this is an interesting insight on why we should oppose the Movement Charter.
Thanks
Galder
*From:* Nataliia Tymkiv ntymkiv@wikimedia.org *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2024 1:17 AM *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board liaisons reflections on final Movement charter draft
Dear all,
We are grateful to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) members, who have dedicated their time and energy to putting forward this final draft of the Movement Charter. They have demonstrated tremendous resilience and perseverance in grappling with ways to increase our collective sense of belonging as a movement, and outlining roles and responsibilities intended to help us all make better decisions in steering the Wikimedia movement into the future.
For some, this final draft Charter represents an extension of the Movement Strategy process that began in earnest in 2020. There are many reflections on this history, some nostalgic and others less so. The 2030 strategic direction has guided and continues to guide the Wikimedia Foundation’s strategy. As the Foundation’s annual plan this year https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History observed, there is much to celebrate in the collective advancement of the original ten movement strategy recommendations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations, including shared progress in creating more equitable and decentralised decision-making structures.
At the same time, we should all recognise that the world around us has shifted significantly since the movement strategy process began, that our limited resources require much more pragmatic trade-offs and choices, and that the Board has a duty to consider the risk, value, cost and benefit of any significant commitments being made to advance the mission.
As requested by the MCDC, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has, over the last few months, shared with the committee its direct feedback on the previous Movement Charter drafts, including its perspectives on the Global Council https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council and its feedback on a previous draft https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft that we posted publicly. Liaisons have also engaged in regular and ongoing meetings with the MCDC members, including inviting the MCDC members to all Board meetings and Strategic retreats since June 2022.
Our general observation, which is elaborated in the body of this letter, is that the final draft of the Movement Charter *still does not address the significant concerns* previously raised by the Board. Thus, as liaisons, *our recommendations* to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are:
- *not to ratify* the final draft of the Movement Charter *as
proposed; and*
- *support* the Foundation in developing *concrete, time-bound next
steps* on a more practical scale, allowing us all to *evaluate progress*, and see what to change or build on.
We believe that approving this version of the Charter, despite the tremendous amount of work and resources already put into it, would not be the right call. Instead, we think it is better to continue pursuing the same goals the draft Charter also sought to pursue in a different way, by identifying key areas where the final draft Charter provides us with guidance on concrete steps that can be taken towards increasing volunteer and movement oversight of certain core areas of responsibility. We believe this will allow the Foundation, and all of us, to live into the recommendation of Movement Strategy to evaluate, iterate, and adapt https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt as we go, rather than too quickly to agree to new structures that may not yet be fit for purpose.
As liaisons, we first shared this recommendation and our reflections with the MCDC on June 18 and then with the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board on June 20 (including a short draft brief https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_liaisons_reflections_on_final_Movement_charter_draft/Brief). The Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement Charter now and *plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9*, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting.
== Context for sharing these reflections: why now? ==
As liaisons, we believe that the final draft does not address the concerns previously stated by the Board of Trustees in its feedback https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft on previous drafts of the Charter. Specifically, the final draft still falls short of providing a clear enough explanation of *how* it will advance Wikimedia's public interest mission and effectively address the shortcomings of Wikimedia's current structures to enable more effective and equitable decisions.
These points are not new and were shared in previous Board feedback to the MCDC, including the January 22 letter (shared publicly in February https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council) in response to the first public draft and the May letter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft in response to the second public draft. In response to both affiliates and individual contributors who have asked the Foundation to speak more clearly about its views, and do it sooner, we felt it was important to reiterate these points in the interest of transparency and learning. == Process accountability ==
We, as liaisons, have heard concerns and frustrations about the Movement Charter process. It faced significant challenges and constraints from the impact of the pandemic limiting travel and in-person meetings; resignations of several members of the MCDC; and other issues that extended the timeline to 2.5 years. It was a shared hope by all to have this process successfully wrapped up sooner.
For some of this, the Board certainly must take some responsibility. This is the purpose of the Board’s oversight, as well as its governance responsibilities. An important lesson learnt through this experience is that large-scale processes should have more explicit and clear expectations up front so that as a stakeholder the Foundation can engage directly and openly earlier about its own positions, views and boundaries. It is not easy to find this balance, but this is essential to moving forward differently. These and other lessons should be documented, and built upon in any future processes aimed at hard-to-reverse movement-wide commitments (for example, the Playbook https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Reports/Movement_Strategy_Playbook that was developed after the Wikimedia's Movement Strategy process). == Reflections on the final draft ==
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has a legal and fiduciary duty to consider any significant commitment or decision in light of the expected risk, value, cost, and benefit to Wikimedia's public interest mission. The value of new structures proposed in the final draft of the Movement Charter has to be weighed against their risk, their cost, and the resource demands of this movement at a time when we have all seen that the growth rate of revenue is not increasing at the same rate as in the past, while demands to invest more in the Wikimedia platforms, projects, and communities are increasing.
As liaisons, we believe the *risks and costs* associated with the currently proposed form of the Global Council *outweigh its potential value*.
Firstly and most importantly, the proposed Global Council's *purpose* is not clearly connected to advancing Wikimedia's public interest mission. It lacks a compelling explanation of *how* it will ensure more equitable decision-making and support the mission of sharing free knowledge. It also does not guide us on how to address many of the most pressing issues facing community governance on Wikimedia projects. We recognise that for some, the status quo *also* does not provide that clarity, but we do not believe that the final draft Charter moves us closer.
Secondly, we note that the *proposed structure and makeup* of the Global Council have changed significantly with each iteration of the published drafts (from a small body to a large assembly to a flexible-sized body in the most recent text). This may have been done in response to feedback from multiple stakeholders, but it raises an ongoing concern we have expressed in all of our feedback that this proposed structure is not based on the *form following function* principle -- we do not see a deliberate or intentional design that seeks to meet the purpose of such a critical and important new body.
Finally, as liaisons we believe that important elements within the final draft Charter, including, most critically, the *Values and Principles*, require more consensus of communities before attempting to incorporate them into a larger document that enshrines binding commitments on us all. Ensuring values are understood, shared, and - importantly - prioritised similarly across the movement is essential to relying on them to help craft an effective and accepted decision-making framework. == Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment: what to do irrespective of the outcome of the ratification vote ==
As liaisons, the proposal that we are making to the Board is that, instead of ratifying the Movement Charter in its current form, it is better to follow the Movement Strategy Recommendation to experiment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt more quickly with key areas of responsibility before establishing a more permanent body with a wider scope. That is why, irrespective of the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, the Foundation has already begun to work on shifting core areas of decision-making https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History#Clarifying_movement_roles_and_responsibilities_moving_forward to increased volunteer oversight, including *fund dissemination*, and volunteers offering more immediate input on Foundation decisions, such as *advising on product & technology*.
More specifically, we propose that by January 2025, fund dissemination, which is one functional area of the proposed Global Council, be handled by a global decision-making body to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for the rest of fiscal year 2024-2025 and to plan grantmaking estimates for the next two years. A global, but narrower scope, will help to experiment with more accountability for the results.
This process, which we shall ask to be co-created with affiliates and individual community members, would build on the experience of the Regional Funds Committees https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021/Regional_Committees, and the past Funds Dissemination Committee https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee, in line with the Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #27 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Flexible_resource_allocation_framework and the work currently taking place with Affiliate EDs and Regional Funds Committees to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for FY 2024-2025. It is important to document and publish the lessons learned from each step of the process and use these to inform future decision-making and the possible creation of permanent committees and/or movement bodies.
Additionally, as liaisons we also propose moving forward with the establishment of a Product & Technology Advisory Council https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_and_Technology_Advisory_Council/Proposal, following a proposal from the Foundation that was shared with the MCDC. This is in line with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #31 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Technology_Council to advance shared decision-making and co-creative spaces in technology spaces that are fundamental to support the mission. == Next steps ==
As all affiliates and individuals prepare to vote on the final Charter draft, we as liaisons hope that voters will also take the time to provide written comments alongside their “yes”, “no”, and “--” https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Method_of_voting vote so that everyone will learn as much as possible about how we all can move forward with decision-making structures that are more effective, with an equity lens, for our complex global community to advance Wikimedia’s mission in the world.
As previously noted, the Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement charter now and *plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9*, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting. This will allow the Board to consider all public comments available before the start of the voting while casting its vote alongside affiliates and individual contributors.
At the MCDC’s request, the results of the Board’s vote will be shared only after the vote of individuals and affiliates has concluded, so as not to influence their voting, but likely before the outcomes of those votes are published, and not before July 10.
As we all await the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, it will be important to be ready to take concrete steps that will help move us forward as a movement. Wikimania will be an opportunity to begin constructive and productive conversations on these and other immediate next steps, informed by the comments left by individuals and affiliates during the vote. Working together on practical, time-bound steps will shape a better and more equitable framework for making decisions. With a shared commitment, this moment of change can foster a greater sense of belonging, one that can sometimes feel elusive in this widely diverse global movement.
Best regards
Nat and Lorenzo
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees liaisons to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee =========================================== Best regards, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!*
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
That's quite weird, as it has three worrying implications:
* It doesn't matter what you state for the election, you can't promote that view, but the "interests of the WMF". * If it doesn't matter what you state, it doesn't matter who we elect. There can't be any difference, as everyone should defend the same thing. Elections are futile. * There is something called "interests of the WMF" that is above the Board of Trustees, and must be followed, even if the BoT is the maximum governing body.
________________________________ From: James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 12:22 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board liaisons reflections on final Movement charter draft
All boards members of the WMF are required legally to represent the interests of the WMF no matter how they arrived on the board. However, when I was on the board I viewed the best interests of the foundation and community as inseparable as neither can succeed without the other.
J
Sent from Gmail Mobile
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:55 Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder158@hotmail.commailto:galder158@hotmail.com> wrote: Dear Natalia and Lorenzo, I have read your message and there are good reasons to support what you are claiming there, even if I don't share your views. The discussion about how to share power is always complex, and the ones losing power might have good reasons to try keeping it. I don't doubt that whatever the WMF BoT decides will be for done in good faith, and not only to prevent sharing power.
However, I find something weird in your message. You, Natalia, were directly appointed by the board, so it is evident that, as a Liaison to the MCDC, you have represented the Board's view and interests. My doubt resides more in how it is possible that Lorenzo, who was elected by the community to serve the community's view (whatever that means, I will return to that soon) acts as a liaison for the WMF and not for the community itself.
I know that acting as a representative of "the community" is not easy: we don't know yet what the community is going to vote. We don't have a crystal ball, and that's why promoting a vote in one direction or the other is not a problem by itself. It would be more interesting if the four "community" elected members at the BoT vote aligned with the community, and the two Affiliated elected members vote aligned with the affiliates voting. Whatever it is.
We don't know what the Community and the Affiliates will vote yet. But we know why you were elected, because every candidate presented goals and priorities for the election. I would like to quote a couple of sentences from your stated goals (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidat...)
Now, with the Movement Strategy, the new Global Council is expected to finally give a body that is truly representative of our movement. We don't know yet how it will be shaped, but in order to achieve its potential the Wikimedia Foundation Board, and the Wikimedia Foundation itself, will have to learn a new way.
Strategy implementation, in a fair way. (...). This strategy talks about decentralization, equity in decision-making, empowering communities. This is a great opportunity to change our movement for the better. At the same time, there is the risk that a time of changes will end favouring the old power structures. We need to make sure this does not happen.
The community is a governing body. The community is not just a bunch of people providing free work to support the projects. The community is the Wikimedia movement itself. It is our ultimate decision-making body.
It's evident that people can change their mind, and that accessing to other viewpoints and information may affect what we decide. Anyway, it would be interesting to know which are the reasons to making just the opposite that was stated. As a community member, I think that this is an interesting insight on why we should oppose the Movement Charter.
Thanks
Galder
________________________________ From: Nataliia Tymkiv <ntymkiv@wikimedia.orgmailto:ntymkiv@wikimedia.org> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2024 1:17 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board liaisons reflections on final Movement charter draft
Dear all,
We are grateful to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) members, who have dedicated their time and energy to putting forward this final draft of the Movement Charter. They have demonstrated tremendous resilience and perseverance in grappling with ways to increase our collective sense of belonging as a movement, and outlining roles and responsibilities intended to help us all make better decisions in steering the Wikimedia movement into the future.
For some, this final draft Charter represents an extension of the Movement Strategy process that began in earnest in 2020. There are many reflections on this history, some nostalgic and others less so. The 2030 strategic direction has guided and continues to guide the Wikimedia Foundation’s strategy. As the Foundation’s annual plan this yearhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History observed, there is much to celebrate in the collective advancement of the original ten movement strategy recommendationshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations, including shared progress in creating more equitable and decentralised decision-making structures.
At the same time, we should all recognise that the world around us has shifted significantly since the movement strategy process began, that our limited resources require much more pragmatic trade-offs and choices, and that the Board has a duty to consider the risk, value, cost and benefit of any significant commitments being made to advance the mission.
As requested by the MCDC, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has, over the last few months, shared with the committee its direct feedback on the previous Movement Charter drafts, including its perspectives on the Global Councilhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council and its feedback on a previous drafthttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft that we posted publicly. Liaisons have also engaged in regular and ongoing meetings with the MCDC members, including inviting the MCDC members to all Board meetings and Strategic retreats since June 2022.
Our general observation, which is elaborated in the body of this letter, is that the final draft of the Movement Charter still does not address the significant concerns previously raised by the Board. Thus, as liaisons, our recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are:
* not to ratify the final draft of the Movement Charter as proposed; and * support the Foundation in developing concrete, time-bound next steps on a more practical scale, allowing us all to evaluate progress, and see what to change or build on.
We believe that approving this version of the Charter, despite the tremendous amount of work and resources already put into it, would not be the right call. Instead, we think it is better to continue pursuing the same goals the draft Charter also sought to pursue in a different way, by identifying key areas where the final draft Charter provides us with guidance on concrete steps that can be taken towards increasing volunteer and movement oversight of certain core areas of responsibility. We believe this will allow the Foundation, and all of us, to live into the recommendation of Movement Strategy to evaluate, iterate, and adapthttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt as we go, rather than too quickly to agree to new structures that may not yet be fit for purpose.
As liaisons, we first shared this recommendation and our reflections with the MCDC on June 18 and then with the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board on June 20 (including a short draft briefhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_liaisons_reflections_on_final_Movement_charter_draft/Brief). The Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement Charter now and plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9, during the voting period for all affiliates and individualshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting.
== Context for sharing these reflections: why now? ==
As liaisons, we believe that the final draft does not address the concerns previously stated by the Board of Trustees in its feedbackhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft on previous drafts of the Charter. Specifically, the final draft still falls short of providing a clear enough explanation of how it will advance Wikimedia's public interest mission and effectively address the shortcomings of Wikimedia's current structures to enable more effective and equitable decisions.
These points are not new and were shared in previous Board feedback to the MCDC, including the January 22 letter (shared publicly in Februaryhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council) in response to the first public draft and the May letterhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft in response to the second public draft. In response to both affiliates and individual contributors who have asked the Foundation to speak more clearly about its views, and do it sooner, we felt it was important to reiterate these points in the interest of transparency and learning.
== Process accountability ==
We, as liaisons, have heard concerns and frustrations about the Movement Charter process. It faced significant challenges and constraints from the impact of the pandemic limiting travel and in-person meetings; resignations of several members of the MCDC; and other issues that extended the timeline to 2.5 years. It was a shared hope by all to have this process successfully wrapped up sooner.
For some of this, the Board certainly must take some responsibility. This is the purpose of the Board’s oversight, as well as its governance responsibilities. An important lesson learnt through this experience is that large-scale processes should have more explicit and clear expectations up front so that as a stakeholder the Foundation can engage directly and openly earlier about its own positions, views and boundaries. It is not easy to find this balance, but this is essential to moving forward differently. These and other lessons should be documented, and built upon in any future processes aimed at hard-to-reverse movement-wide commitments (for example, the Playbookhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Reports/Movement_Strategy_Playbook that was developed after the Wikimedia's Movement Strategy process).
== Reflections on the final draft ==
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has a legal and fiduciary duty to consider any significant commitment or decision in light of the expected risk, value, cost, and benefit to Wikimedia's public interest mission. The value of new structures proposed in the final draft of the Movement Charter has to be weighed against their risk, their cost, and the resource demands of this movement at a time when we have all seen that the growth rate of revenue is not increasing at the same rate as in the past, while demands to invest more in the Wikimedia platforms, projects, and communities are increasing.
As liaisons, we believe the risks and costs associated with the currently proposed form of the Global Council outweigh its potential value.
Firstly and most importantly, the proposed Global Council's purpose is not clearly connected to advancing Wikimedia's public interest mission. It lacks a compelling explanation of how it will ensure more equitable decision-making and support the mission of sharing free knowledge. It also does not guide us on how to address many of the most pressing issues facing community governance on Wikimedia projects. We recognise that for some, the status quo also does not provide that clarity, but we do not believe that the final draft Charter moves us closer.
Secondly, we note that the proposed structure and makeup of the Global Council have changed significantly with each iteration of the published drafts (from a small body to a large assembly to a flexible-sized body in the most recent text). This may have been done in response to feedback from multiple stakeholders, but it raises an ongoing concern we have expressed in all of our feedback that this proposed structure is not based on the form following function principle -- we do not see a deliberate or intentional design that seeks to meet the purpose of such a critical and important new body.
Finally, as liaisons we believe that important elements within the final draft Charter, including, most critically, the Values and Principles, require more consensus of communities before attempting to incorporate them into a larger document that enshrines binding commitments on us all. Ensuring values are understood, shared, and - importantly - prioritised similarly across the movement is essential to relying on them to help craft an effective and accepted decision-making framework.
== Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment: what to do irrespective of the outcome of the ratification vote ==
As liaisons, the proposal that we are making to the Board is that, instead of ratifying the Movement Charter in its current form, it is better to follow the Movement Strategy Recommendation to experimenthttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt more quickly with key areas of responsibility before establishing a more permanent body with a wider scope. That is why, irrespective of the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, the Foundation has already begun to work on shifting core areas of decision-makinghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History#Clarifying_movement_roles_and_responsibilities_moving_forward to increased volunteer oversight, including fund dissemination, and volunteers offering more immediate input on Foundation decisions, such as advising on product & technology.
More specifically, we propose that by January 2025, fund dissemination, which is one functional area of the proposed Global Council, be handled by a global decision-making body to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for the rest of fiscal year 2024-2025 and to plan grantmaking estimates for the next two years. A global, but narrower scope, will help to experiment with more accountability for the results.
This process, which we shall ask to be co-created with affiliates and individual community members, would build on the experience of the Regional Funds Committeeshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021/Regional_Committees, and the past Funds Dissemination Committeehttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee, in line with the Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #27https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Flexible_resource_allocation_framework and the work currently taking place with Affiliate EDs and Regional Funds Committees to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for FY 2024-2025. It is important to document and publish the lessons learned from each step of the process and use these to inform future decision-making and the possible creation of permanent committees and/or movement bodies.
Additionally, as liaisons we also propose moving forward with the establishment of a Product & Technology Advisory Councilhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_and_Technology_Advisory_Council/Proposal, following a proposal from the Foundation that was shared with the MCDC. This is in line with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #31https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Technology_Council to advance shared decision-making and co-creative spaces in technology spaces that are fundamental to support the mission.
== Next steps ==
As all affiliates and individuals prepare to vote on the final Charter draft, we as liaisons hope that voters will also take the time to provide written comments alongside their “yes”, “no”, and “--”https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Method_of_voting vote so that everyone will learn as much as possible about how we all can move forward with decision-making structures that are more effective, with an equity lens, for our complex global community to advance Wikimedia’s mission in the world.
As previously noted, the Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement charter now and plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9, during the voting period for all affiliates and individualshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting. This will allow the Board to consider all public comments available before the start of the voting while casting its vote alongside affiliates and individual contributors.
At the MCDC’s request, the results of the Board’s vote will be shared only after the vote of individuals and affiliates has concluded, so as not to influence their voting, but likely before the outcomes of those votes are published, and not before July 10.
As we all await the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, it will be important to be ready to take concrete steps that will help move us forward as a movement. Wikimania will be an opportunity to begin constructive and productive conversations on these and other immediate next steps, informed by the comments left by individuals and affiliates during the vote. Working together on practical, time-bound steps will shape a better and more equitable framework for making decisions. With a shared commitment, this moment of change can foster a greater sense of belonging, one that can sometimes feel elusive in this widely diverse global movement.
Best regards
Nat and Lorenzo
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees liaisons to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee
=========================================== Best regards, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto: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.orgmailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I am a volunteer. There is nothing unique in my credential and experience (15 years, 4-6 hours every day, 800000 edits, being a member of some 8-10 movement bodies, mostly in grant-making).
I spend this time and effort because I believe in our aim, knowledge to all, but also as I do like the culture/way of working. No hierarchy, it is result that matters. And even if it can be seen as an inefficient way of working (I was earlier this year involved in a three months long discussion over the relevance and naming of a minor roundabout) I still love how it works.
Looking at the board comment, I am happy they state an ambition for a more independent grant making process and have already been involved in discussions in how to make it happen. But I see this in no way a cause of criticism for the movement charter, also stating the same ambition.
I can also agree that the movement charter in many way is not clear in details, but I find it just the way we in the community work towards goals. I react quite a bit over the statement*risks and costs* associated with the currently proposed form of the Global Council *outweigh its potential value*. I read it we should act in all levels as a big organisation, and has that culture as target. But it is just that that makes the culture of the community:it is not organised as a big businesses.
So I see no real conflict in what the BoT want to see and the movement charter states. But I se a huge difference in respect for the volunteers and the culture we live and thrive in, If the ambition of BoT is to make us into soldiers steered by generals in BoT, the volunteer body will quickly evaporate
Anders
Den 2024-06-21 kl. 12:22, skrev James Heilman:
All boards members of the WMF are required legally to represent the interests of the WMF no matter how they arrived on the board. However, when I was on the board I viewed the best interests of the foundation and community as inseparable as neither can succeed without the other.
J
Sent from Gmail Mobile
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:55 Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com wrote:
Dear Natalia and Lorenzo, I have read your message and there are good reasons to support what you are claiming there, even if I don't share your views. The discussion about how to share power is always complex, and the ones losing power might have good reasons to try keeping it. I don't doubt that whatever the WMF BoT decides will be for done in good faith, and not only to prevent sharing power. However, I find something weird in your message. You, Natalia, were directly appointed by the board, so it is evident that, as a Liaison to the MCDC, you have represented the Board's view and interests. My doubt resides more in how it is possible that Lorenzo, who was elected by the community to serve the community's view (whatever that means, I will return to that soon) acts as a liaison for the WMF and not for the community itself. I know that acting as a representative of "the community" is not easy: we don't know yet what the community is going to vote. We don't have a crystal ball, and that's why promoting a vote in one direction or the other is not a problem by itself. It would be more interesting if the four "community" elected members at the BoT vote aligned with the community, and the two Affiliated elected members vote aligned with the affiliates voting. Whatever it is. We don't know what the Community and the Affiliates will vote yet. But we know why you were elected, because every candidate presented goals and priorities for the election. I would like to quote a couple of sentences from your stated goals (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/Lorenzo_Losa) /Now, with the Movement Strategy, the new Global Council is expected to finally give a body that is truly representative of our movement. We don't know yet how it will be shaped, but in order to achieve its potential the Wikimedia Foundation Board, and the Wikimedia Foundation itself, will have to learn a new way./ / / /Strategy implementation, in a fair way. (...). This strategy talks about decentralization, equity in decision-making, empowering communities. This is a great opportunity to change our movement for the better. At the same time, there is the risk that a time of changes will end favouring the old power structures. We need to make sure this does not happen./ / / /The community is a governing body. The community is not just a bunch of people providing free work to support the projects. The community is the Wikimedia movement itself. It is our ultimate decision-making body./ / / It's evident that people can change their mind, and that accessing to other viewpoints and information may affect what we decide. Anyway, it would be interesting to know which are the reasons to making just the opposite that was stated. As a community member, I think that this is an interesting insight on why we should oppose the Movement Charter. Thanks Galder / / / / ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Nataliia Tymkiv <ntymkiv@wikimedia.org> *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2024 1:17 AM *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board liaisons reflections on final Movement charter draft Dear all, We are grateful to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) members, who have dedicated their time and energy to putting forward this final draft of the Movement Charter. They have demonstrated tremendous resilience and perseverance in grappling with ways to increase our collective sense of belonging as a movement, and outlining roles and responsibilities intended to help us all make better decisions in steering the Wikimedia movement into the future. For some, this final draft Charter represents an extension of the Movement Strategy process that began in earnest in 2020. There are many reflections on this history, some nostalgic and others less so. The 2030 strategic direction has guided and continues to guide the Wikimedia Foundation’s strategy. As the Foundation’s annual plan this year <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History> observed, there is much to celebrate in the collective advancement of the original ten movement strategy recommendations <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations>, including shared progress in creating more equitable and decentralised decision-making structures. At the same time, we should all recognise that the world around us has shifted significantly since the movement strategy process began, that our limited resources require much more pragmatic trade-offs and choices, and that the Board has a duty to consider the risk, value, cost and benefit of any significant commitments being made to advance the mission. As requested by the MCDC, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has, over the last few months, shared with the committee its direct feedback on the previous Movement Charter drafts, including its perspectives on the Global Council <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council> and its feedback on a previous draft <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft> that we posted publicly. Liaisons have also engaged in regular and ongoing meetings with the MCDC members, including inviting the MCDC members to all Board meetings and Strategic retreats since June 2022. Our general observation, which is elaborated in the body of this letter, is that the final draft of the Movement Charter *still does not address the significant concerns* previously raised by the Board. Thus, as liaisons, *our recommendations* to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are: * *not to ratify* the final draft of the Movement Charter *as proposed; and* * *support* the Foundation in developing *concrete, time-bound next steps* on a more practical scale, allowing us all to *evaluate progress*, and see what to change or build on. We believe that approving this version of the Charter, despite the tremendous amount of work and resources already put into it, would not be the right call. Instead, we think it is better to continue pursuing the same goals the draft Charter also sought to pursue in a different way, by identifying key areas where the final draft Charter provides us with guidance on concrete steps that can be taken towards increasing volunteer and movement oversight of certain core areas of responsibility. We believe this will allow the Foundation, and all of us, to live into the recommendation of Movement Strategy to evaluate, iterate, and adapt <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt> as we go, rather than too quickly to agree to new structures that may not yet be fit for purpose. As liaisons, we first shared this recommendation and our reflections with the MCDC on June 18 and then with the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board on June 20 (including a short draft brief <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_liaisons_reflections_on_final_Movement_charter_draft/Brief>). The Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement Charter now and *plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9*, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting>. == Context for sharing these reflections: why now? == As liaisons, we believe that the final draft does not address the concerns previously stated by the Board of Trustees in its feedback <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft> on previous drafts of the Charter. Specifically, the final draft still falls short of providing a clear enough explanation of *how* it will advance Wikimedia's public interest mission and effectively address the shortcomings of Wikimedia's current structures to enable more effective and equitable decisions. These points are not new and were shared in previous Board feedback to the MCDC, including the January 22 letter (shared publicly in February <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council>) in response to the first public draft and the May letter <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft> in response to the second public draft. In response to both affiliates and individual contributors who have asked the Foundation to speak more clearly about its views, and do it sooner, we felt it was important to reiterate these points in the interest of transparency and learning. == Process accountability == We, as liaisons, have heard concerns and frustrations about the Movement Charter process. It faced significant challenges and constraints from the impact of the pandemic limiting travel and in-person meetings; resignations of several members of the MCDC; and other issues that extended the timeline to 2.5 years. It was a shared hope by all to have this process successfully wrapped up sooner. For some of this, the Board certainly must take some responsibility. This is the purpose of the Board’s oversight, as well as its governance responsibilities. An important lesson learnt through this experience is that large-scale processes should have more explicit and clear expectations up front so that as a stakeholder the Foundation can engage directly and openly earlier about its own positions, views and boundaries. It is not easy to find this balance, but this is essential to moving forward differently. These and other lessons should be documented, and built upon in any future processes aimed at hard-to-reverse movement-wide commitments (for example, the Playbook <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Reports/Movement_Strategy_Playbook> that was developed after the Wikimedia's Movement Strategy process). == Reflections on the final draft == The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has a legal and fiduciary duty to consider any significant commitment or decision in light of the expected risk, value, cost, and benefit to Wikimedia's public interest mission. The value of new structures proposed in the final draft of the Movement Charter has to be weighed against their risk, their cost, and the resource demands of this movement at a time when we have all seen that the growth rate of revenue is not increasing at the same rate as in the past, while demands to invest more in the Wikimedia platforms, projects, and communities are increasing. As liaisons, we believe the *risks and costs* associated with the currently proposed form of the Global Council *outweigh its potential value*. Firstly and most importantly, the proposed Global Council's *purpose* is not clearly connected to advancing Wikimedia's public interest mission. It lacks a compelling explanation of *how* it will ensure more equitable decision-making and support the mission of sharing free knowledge. It also does not guide us on how to address many of the most pressing issues facing community governance on Wikimedia projects. We recognise that for some, the status quo *also* does not provide that clarity, but we do not believe that the final draft Charter moves us closer. Secondly, we note that the *proposed structure and makeup* of the Global Council have changed significantly with each iteration of the published drafts (from a small body to a large assembly to a flexible-sized body in the most recent text). This may have been done in response to feedback from multiple stakeholders, but it raises an ongoing concern we have expressed in all of our feedback that this proposed structure is not based on the /form following function/ principle -- we do not see a deliberate or intentional design that seeks to meet the purpose of such a critical and important new body. Finally, as liaisons we believe that important elements within the final draft Charter, including, most critically, the /Values and Principles/, require more consensus of communities before attempting to incorporate them into a larger document that enshrines binding commitments on us all. Ensuring values are understood, shared, and - importantly - prioritised similarly across the movement is essential to relying on them to help craft an effective and accepted decision-making framework. == Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment: what to do irrespective of the outcome of the ratification vote == As liaisons, the proposal that we are making to the Board is that, instead of ratifying the Movement Charter in its current form, it is better to follow the Movement Strategy Recommendation to experiment <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt> more quickly with key areas of responsibility before establishing a more permanent body with a wider scope. That is why, irrespective of the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, the Foundation has already begun to work on shifting core areas of decision-making <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History#Clarifying_movement_roles_and_responsibilities_moving_forward> to increased volunteer oversight, including *fund dissemination*, and volunteers offering more immediate input on Foundation decisions, such as *advising on product & technology*. More specifically, we propose that by January 2025, fund dissemination, which is one functional area of the proposed Global Council, be handled by a global decision-making body to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for the rest of fiscal year 2024-2025 and to plan grantmaking estimates for the next two years. A global, but narrower scope, will help to experiment with more accountability for the results. This process, which we shall ask to be co-created with affiliates and individual community members, would build on the experience of the Regional Funds Committees <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021/Regional_Committees>, and the past Funds Dissemination Committee <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee>, in line with the Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #27 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Flexible_resource_allocation_framework> and the work currently taking place with Affiliate EDs and Regional Funds Committees to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for FY 2024-2025. It is important to document and publish the lessons learned from each step of the process and use these to inform future decision-making and the possible creation of permanent committees and/or movement bodies. Additionally, as liaisons we also propose moving forward with the establishment of a Product & Technology Advisory Council <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_and_Technology_Advisory_Council/Proposal>, following a proposal from the Foundation that was shared with the MCDC. This is in line with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #31 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Technology_Council> to advance shared decision-making and co-creative spaces in technology spaces that are fundamental to support the mission. == Next steps == As all affiliates and individuals prepare to vote on the final Charter draft, we as liaisons hope that voters will also take the time to provide written comments alongside their “yes”, “no”, and “--” <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Method_of_voting> vote so that everyone will learn as much as possible about how we all can move forward with decision-making structures that are more effective, with an equity lens, for our complex global community to advance Wikimedia’s mission in the world. As previously noted, the Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement charter now and *plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9*, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting>. This will allow the Board to consider all public comments available before the start of the voting while casting its vote alongside affiliates and individual contributors. At the MCDC’s request, the results of the Board’s vote will be shared only after the vote of individuals and affiliates has concluded, so as not to influence their voting, but likely before the outcomes of those votes are published, and not before July 10. As we all await the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, it will be important to be ready to take concrete steps that will help move us forward as a movement. Wikimania will be an opportunity to begin constructive and productive conversations on these and other immediate next steps, informed by the comments left by individuals and affiliates during the vote. Working together on practical, time-bound steps will shape a better and more equitable framework for making decisions. With a shared commitment, this moment of change can foster a greater sense of belonging, one that can sometimes feel elusive in this widely diverse global movement. Best regards Nat and Lorenzo Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees liaisons to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee =========================================== Best regards, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees /NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!/ _______________________________________________ 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/OIUNV5Q5RHAY6CAIQ2747QCMGMCIFHZ6/ 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 andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Well, I have never seen an organisation undermine its own strategy so spectacularly, or waste so many millions of dollars, or years-worth of volunteer time.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:18 AM Nataliia Tymkiv ntymkiv@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all,
We are grateful to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) members, who have dedicated their time and energy to putting forward this final draft of the Movement Charter. They have demonstrated tremendous resilience and perseverance in grappling with ways to increase our collective sense of belonging as a movement, and outlining roles and responsibilities intended to help us all make better decisions in steering the Wikimedia movement into the future.
For some, this final draft Charter represents an extension of the Movement Strategy process that began in earnest in 2020. There are many reflections on this history, some nostalgic and others less so. The 2030 strategic direction has guided and continues to guide the Wikimedia Foundation’s strategy. As the Foundation’s annual plan this year https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History observed, there is much to celebrate in the collective advancement of the original ten movement strategy recommendations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations, including shared progress in creating more equitable and decentralised decision-making structures.
At the same time, we should all recognise that the world around us has shifted significantly since the movement strategy process began, that our limited resources require much more pragmatic trade-offs and choices, and that the Board has a duty to consider the risk, value, cost and benefit of any significant commitments being made to advance the mission.
As requested by the MCDC, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has, over the last few months, shared with the committee its direct feedback on the previous Movement Charter drafts, including its perspectives on the Global Council https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council and its feedback on a previous draft https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft that we posted publicly. Liaisons have also engaged in regular and ongoing meetings with the MCDC members, including inviting the MCDC members to all Board meetings and Strategic retreats since June 2022.
Our general observation, which is elaborated in the body of this letter, is that the final draft of the Movement Charter *still does not address the significant concerns* previously raised by the Board. Thus, as liaisons, *our recommendations* to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are:
- *not to ratify* the final draft of the Movement Charter *as
proposed; and*
- *support* the Foundation in developing *concrete, time-bound next
steps* on a more practical scale, allowing us all to *evaluate progress*, and see what to change or build on.
We believe that approving this version of the Charter, despite the tremendous amount of work and resources already put into it, would not be the right call. Instead, we think it is better to continue pursuing the same goals the draft Charter also sought to pursue in a different way, by identifying key areas where the final draft Charter provides us with guidance on concrete steps that can be taken towards increasing volunteer and movement oversight of certain core areas of responsibility. We believe this will allow the Foundation, and all of us, to live into the recommendation of Movement Strategy to evaluate, iterate, and adapt https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt as we go, rather than too quickly to agree to new structures that may not yet be fit for purpose.
As liaisons, we first shared this recommendation and our reflections with the MCDC on June 18 and then with the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board on June 20 (including a short draft brief https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_liaisons_reflections_on_final_Movement_charter_draft/Brief). The Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement Charter now and *plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9*, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting.
== Context for sharing these reflections: why now? ==
As liaisons, we believe that the final draft does not address the concerns previously stated by the Board of Trustees in its feedback https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft on previous drafts of the Charter. Specifically, the final draft still falls short of providing a clear enough explanation of *how* it will advance Wikimedia's public interest mission and effectively address the shortcomings of Wikimedia's current structures to enable more effective and equitable decisions.
These points are not new and were shared in previous Board feedback to the MCDC, including the January 22 letter (shared publicly in February https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council) in response to the first public draft and the May letter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft in response to the second public draft. In response to both affiliates and individual contributors who have asked the Foundation to speak more clearly about its views, and do it sooner, we felt it was important to reiterate these points in the interest of transparency and learning. == Process accountability ==
We, as liaisons, have heard concerns and frustrations about the Movement Charter process. It faced significant challenges and constraints from the impact of the pandemic limiting travel and in-person meetings; resignations of several members of the MCDC; and other issues that extended the timeline to 2.5 years. It was a shared hope by all to have this process successfully wrapped up sooner.
For some of this, the Board certainly must take some responsibility. This is the purpose of the Board’s oversight, as well as its governance responsibilities. An important lesson learnt through this experience is that large-scale processes should have more explicit and clear expectations up front so that as a stakeholder the Foundation can engage directly and openly earlier about its own positions, views and boundaries. It is not easy to find this balance, but this is essential to moving forward differently. These and other lessons should be documented, and built upon in any future processes aimed at hard-to-reverse movement-wide commitments (for example, the Playbook https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Reports/Movement_Strategy_Playbook that was developed after the Wikimedia's Movement Strategy process). == Reflections on the final draft ==
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has a legal and fiduciary duty to consider any significant commitment or decision in light of the expected risk, value, cost, and benefit to Wikimedia's public interest mission. The value of new structures proposed in the final draft of the Movement Charter has to be weighed against their risk, their cost, and the resource demands of this movement at a time when we have all seen that the growth rate of revenue is not increasing at the same rate as in the past, while demands to invest more in the Wikimedia platforms, projects, and communities are increasing.
As liaisons, we believe the *risks and costs* associated with the currently proposed form of the Global Council *outweigh its potential value*.
Firstly and most importantly, the proposed Global Council's *purpose* is not clearly connected to advancing Wikimedia's public interest mission. It lacks a compelling explanation of *how* it will ensure more equitable decision-making and support the mission of sharing free knowledge. It also does not guide us on how to address many of the most pressing issues facing community governance on Wikimedia projects. We recognise that for some, the status quo *also* does not provide that clarity, but we do not believe that the final draft Charter moves us closer.
Secondly, we note that the *proposed structure and makeup* of the Global Council have changed significantly with each iteration of the published drafts (from a small body to a large assembly to a flexible-sized body in the most recent text). This may have been done in response to feedback from multiple stakeholders, but it raises an ongoing concern we have expressed in all of our feedback that this proposed structure is not based on the *form following function* principle -- we do not see a deliberate or intentional design that seeks to meet the purpose of such a critical and important new body.
Finally, as liaisons we believe that important elements within the final draft Charter, including, most critically, the *Values and Principles*, require more consensus of communities before attempting to incorporate them into a larger document that enshrines binding commitments on us all. Ensuring values are understood, shared, and - importantly - prioritised similarly across the movement is essential to relying on them to help craft an effective and accepted decision-making framework. == Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment: what to do irrespective of the outcome of the ratification vote ==
As liaisons, the proposal that we are making to the Board is that, instead of ratifying the Movement Charter in its current form, it is better to follow the Movement Strategy Recommendation to experiment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt more quickly with key areas of responsibility before establishing a more permanent body with a wider scope. That is why, irrespective of the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, the Foundation has already begun to work on shifting core areas of decision-making https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History#Clarifying_movement_roles_and_responsibilities_moving_forward to increased volunteer oversight, including *fund dissemination*, and volunteers offering more immediate input on Foundation decisions, such as *advising on product & technology*.
More specifically, we propose that by January 2025, fund dissemination, which is one functional area of the proposed Global Council, be handled by a global decision-making body to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for the rest of fiscal year 2024-2025 and to plan grantmaking estimates for the next two years. A global, but narrower scope, will help to experiment with more accountability for the results.
This process, which we shall ask to be co-created with affiliates and individual community members, would build on the experience of the Regional Funds Committees https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021/Regional_Committees, and the past Funds Dissemination Committee https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee, in line with the Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #27 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Flexible_resource_allocation_framework and the work currently taking place with Affiliate EDs and Regional Funds Committees to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for FY 2024-2025. It is important to document and publish the lessons learned from each step of the process and use these to inform future decision-making and the possible creation of permanent committees and/or movement bodies.
Additionally, as liaisons we also propose moving forward with the establishment of a Product & Technology Advisory Council https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_and_Technology_Advisory_Council/Proposal, following a proposal from the Foundation that was shared with the MCDC. This is in line with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #31 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Technology_Council to advance shared decision-making and co-creative spaces in technology spaces that are fundamental to support the mission. == Next steps ==
As all affiliates and individuals prepare to vote on the final Charter draft, we as liaisons hope that voters will also take the time to provide written comments alongside their “yes”, “no”, and “--” https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Method_of_voting vote so that everyone will learn as much as possible about how we all can move forward with decision-making structures that are more effective, with an equity lens, for our complex global community to advance Wikimedia’s mission in the world.
As previously noted, the Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement charter now and *plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9*, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting. This will allow the Board to consider all public comments available before the start of the voting while casting its vote alongside affiliates and individual contributors.
At the MCDC’s request, the results of the Board’s vote will be shared only after the vote of individuals and affiliates has concluded, so as not to influence their voting, but likely before the outcomes of those votes are published, and not before July 10.
As we all await the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, it will be important to be ready to take concrete steps that will help move us forward as a movement. Wikimania will be an opportunity to begin constructive and productive conversations on these and other immediate next steps, informed by the comments left by individuals and affiliates during the vote. Working together on practical, time-bound steps will shape a better and more equitable framework for making decisions. With a shared commitment, this moment of change can foster a greater sense of belonging, one that can sometimes feel elusive in this widely diverse global movement.
Best regards
Nat and Lorenzo
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees liaisons to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee =========================================== Best regards, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!*
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
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:
1. Reopen discussions on the Movement Structures with clear objectives, support, timelines, and Foundation involvement. 2. Gather a small working group to outline, in a fast and agile way, the main questions and issues to tackle. 3. 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. 4. 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
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. 2. Gather a small working group to outline, in a fast and agile way, the main questions and issues to tackle. 3. 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. 4. 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
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. 2. Gather a small working group to outline, in a fast and agile way, the main questions and issues to tackle. 3. 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. 4. 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/... 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
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.
In the last few months, we have already had a couple of global activities, including overhauls of the Movement Charter. The U4C https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee (Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee) elections ended just a few weeks ago https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024#Voting, their charter vote happened not long before that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Charter/Voter_information. 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Voting&diff=prev&oldid=21827596). 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.
Cheers, --
Maciej Artur Nadzikiewicz (He/him)
Wikimania 2024 Poland – Team Lead
Wikimedia Europe Board Member
Wikipedia Administrator
User:Nadzik https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nadzik
pt., 21 cze 2024 o 14:50 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com napisał(a):
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. 2. Gather a small working group to outline, in a fast and agile way, the main questions and issues to tackle. 3. 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. 4. 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/... 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
-- 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
To offer a slightly fuller response:
Let us not forget that the current draft of the Movement Charter is a response to the WMF Board's resolution of 27 March 2020 (1) which endorsed the Movement Strategy Recommendations, including the Ensure Equity in Decision-Making recommendation (2) which envisaged the creation of a Global Council and Movement Charter.
The text of the Movement Charter as proposed doesn't do anything outside of the scope of the Movement Strategy recommendations that the Board has already approved.
It's therefore surprising to hear the Board liaisons say they don't know what the Movement Charter is for, or agree with what it is doing. To my mind, the Charter fulfills a commitment made by the WMF when it passed the resolution endorsing the Movement Strategy recommendations. This announcement, which effectively states that the Board will not endorse the Charter whatever happens, and renders the rest of the ratification process void, is a breach of this commitment which calls into question, frankly, why any volunteers should ever bother engaging with the WMF on this kind of issue again in future.
To reiterate why this whole thing exists, fundamentally there are three related points that come up time and again: 1) the WMF has poor relationships with the communities it works with 2) the WMF is essentially unable to deliver its own ambitious strategy about 'knowledge equity' because is has no satisfactory way of responding to the needs of immensely diverse communities who can help deliver it 3) there is no way for the Wikimedia community (or communities) to come together to even begin to work out a shared approach to solving any problems
These are *structural* problems. There is no method to solve them by simply making the WMF bigger, better resourced, or changing its culture.
Hence in the strategy recommendations there are 3 new structures; Hubs, the Movement Charter, and the Global Council. Creating and empowering Hubs is an attempt to solve problem 2, the Global Council is an attempt to solve problem 3, and if those are addressed that will help address problem 1.
No other solution to these problems has been proposed by anyone, not least by the WMF Board, who have continually outsourced trying to confront these challenges.
I am bemused by much of the language in the email (no, the situation hasn't changed much since 2020; no, this standard isn't consistent with the scrutiny the WMF Board applies to itself). But I am particularly bemused by the idea that people should use a free-text field in the ratification vote to give further input into what people would like to see.
First, there is no point at all now having a ratification vote as whatever happens the WMF Board will not endorse the Charter, as 2 of the 12 votes are essentially cast, and several trustees probably would not read a document the length of the movement charter and will just follow a recommendation from someone else. So there is no point everyone else being asked to vote; people who might have been motivated to vote will not bother, and probably then someone from the WMF will claim that the low turnout in an election that has already been rendered void is a sign of a lack of enthusaism for the whole thing. Secondly, what do we expect to see in free-text feedback that hasn't been surfaced in the previous 7 years of discussion and feedback gathering?
Overall, to my mind there is very little point any volunteer participating in any of the slightly vague steps proposed. So the WMF is now reinventing the FDC, great. Probably some rather tired and jaded people from the large affiliates who have strong incentives to make sure the WMF doesn't do anything completely random with their budgets will take part. Why would anyone else?
(1) https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Movement_Strategy_Endorseme... (2) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Ensure_Equ...
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 2:33 PM Wikipedysta Nadzik < pl.wikipedia.nadzik@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
In the last few months, we have already had a couple of global activities, including overhauls of the Movement Charter. The U4C https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee (Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee) elections ended just a few weeks ago https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024#Voting, their charter vote happened not long before that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Charter/Voter_information. 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Voting&diff=prev&oldid=21827596). 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.
Cheers,
Maciej Artur Nadzikiewicz (He/him)
Wikimania 2024 Poland – Team Lead
Wikimedia Europe Board Member
Wikipedia Administrator
User:Nadzik https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nadzik
pt., 21 cze 2024 o 14:50 Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com napisał(a):
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. 2. Gather a small working group to outline, in a fast and agile way, the main questions and issues to tackle. 3. 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. 4. 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/... 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
-- 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- *User:Nadzik https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nadzik* _______________________________________________ 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
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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Amendment_Process. 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).
SJ
☷ *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. 2. Gather a small working group to outline, in a fast and agile way, the main questions and issues to tackle. 3. 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. 4. 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/... 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
-- 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I strongly disagree with cancelling or delaying the ratification process.
I want my support for the charter to be duly noted, and the set up of the process and preparation have both going all OK.
I have participated in all parliamentary election in my country, even when i know my preferred party will not be able to form a government, or perhaps even win a seat in the parliament.
In the same belief in elections I intend to participate in the BoT election in early September. And there I will vote oppose to all candidates expressing support, explicitly or implicitly, to this disastrous proposal (for the BoT to reject the charter). And I have, perhaps naively, a hope that the new board formed in December will come to it senses and change its vote (if it will be a no)
Anders
Den 2024-06-21 kl. 22:42, skrev Samuel Klein:
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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Amendment_Process. 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).
SJ
☷ *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: 1. Reopen discussions on the Movement Structures with clear objectives, support, timelines, and Foundation involvement. 2. Gather a small working group to outline, in a fast and agile way, the main questions and issues to tackle. 3. 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. 4. 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
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I share many of the same concerns others have raised. However I did want to say that I appreciate the time and effort that Nat and Lorenzo put into writing the detailed message they sent, and the time and energy it will take to read responses and possibly respond to them.
That said, I have a request for the members of the MCDC. If you, individually or collectively, feel comfortable doing so, please share your thoughts about these issues. If any of you have concerns about anonymity/confidentiality because of possible retribution and/or other reasons, I would be happy to receive your comments, and post them on this email list after removing any information that identifies you, other than that you are a member of MCDC. I believe that it is important to understand at least 2 differing perspectives on any substantive issue.
One more concern, and this is not specific to today's email: It has become almost de rigueur for WMF leadership to send messages they know will be controversial on Fridays, often very late in the afternoon for US time zones. Professionals use that tactic to reduce and delay responses. For me, that is quite inappropriate behavior for WMF leadership to engage in. It is disrespectful and insulting, and is another sign that leadership does not really care what "the community" has to say. I put "the community" in quotation marks because I don't think that members of a true community would use that tactic on other members of the community.
Paul (Libcub)
On 2024-06-20 7:17 PM, Nataliia Tymkiv wrote:
Dear all,
We are grateful to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) members, who have dedicated their time and energy to putting forward this final draft of the Movement Charter. They have demonstrated tremendous resilience and perseverance in grappling with ways to increase our collective sense of belonging as a movement, and outlining roles and responsibilities intended to help us all make better decisions in steering the Wikimedia movement into the future.
For some, this final draft Charter represents an extension of the Movement Strategy process that began in earnest in 2020. There are many reflections on this history, some nostalgic and others less so. The 2030 strategic direction has guided and continues to guide the Wikimedia Foundation’s strategy. As the Foundation’s annual plan this year https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History observed, there is much to celebrate in the collective advancement of the original ten movement strategy recommendations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations, including shared progress in creating more equitable and decentralised decision-making structures.
At the same time, we should all recognise that the world around us has shifted significantly since the movement strategy process began, that our limited resources require much more pragmatic trade-offs and choices, and that the Board has a duty to consider the risk, value, cost and benefit of any significant commitments being made to advance the mission.
As requested by the MCDC, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has, over the last few months, shared with the committee its direct feedback on the previous Movement Charter drafts, including its perspectives on the Global Council https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council and its feedback on a previous draft https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft that we posted publicly. Liaisons have also engaged in regular and ongoing meetings with the MCDC members, including inviting the MCDC members to all Board meetings and Strategic retreats since June 2022.
Our general observation, which is elaborated in the body of this letter, is that the final draft of the Movement Charter *still does not address the significant concerns* previously raised by the Board. Thus, as liaisons, *our recommendations* to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are:
- *not to ratify* the final draft of the Movement Charter *as proposed; and*
- *support* the Foundation in developing *concrete, time-bound next steps* on a more practical scale, allowing us all to *evaluate progress*, and see what to change or build on.
We believe that approving this version of the Charter, despite the tremendous amount of work and resources already put into it, would not be the right call. Instead, we think it is better to continue pursuing the same goals the draft Charter also sought to pursue in a different way, by identifying key areas where the final draft Charter provides us with guidance on concrete steps that can be taken towards increasing volunteer and movement oversight of certain core areas of responsibility. We believe this will allow the Foundation, and all of us, to live into the recommendation of Movement Strategy to evaluate, iterate, and adapt https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt as we go, rather than too quickly to agree to new structures that may not yet be fit for purpose.
As liaisons, we first shared this recommendation and our reflections with the MCDC on June 18 and then with the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board on June 20 (including a short draft brief https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_liaisons_reflections_on_final_Movement_charter_draft/Brief). The Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement Charter now and *plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9*, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting.
== Context for sharing these reflections: why now? ==As liaisons, we believe that the final draft does not address the concerns previously stated by the Board of Trustees in its feedback https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft on previous drafts of the Charter. Specifically, the final draft still falls short of providing a clear enough explanation of *how* it will advance Wikimedia's public interest mission and effectively address the shortcomings of Wikimedia's current structures to enable more effective and equitable decisions.
These points are not new and were shared in previous Board feedback to the MCDC, including the January 22 letter (shared publicly in February https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council) in response to the first public draft and the May letter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft in response to the second public draft. In response to both affiliates and individual contributors who have asked the Foundation to speak more clearly about its views, and do it sooner, we felt it was important to reiterate these points in the interest of transparency and learning.
== Process accountability ==We, as liaisons, have heard concerns and frustrations about the Movement Charter process. It faced significant challenges and constraints from the impact of the pandemic limiting travel and in-person meetings; resignations of several members of the MCDC; and other issues that extended the timeline to 2.5 years. It was a shared hope by all to have this process successfully wrapped up sooner.
For some of this, the Board certainly must take some responsibility. This is the purpose of the Board’s oversight, as well as its governance responsibilities. An important lesson learnt through this experience is that large-scale processes should have more explicit and clear expectations up front so that as a stakeholder the Foundation can engage directly and openly earlier about its own positions, views and boundaries. It is not easy to find this balance, but this is essential to moving forward differently. These and other lessons should be documented, and built upon in any future processes aimed at hard-to-reverse movement-wide commitments (for example, the Playbook https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Reports/Movement_Strategy_Playbook that was developed after the Wikimedia's Movement Strategy process).
== Reflections on the final draft ==The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has a legal and fiduciary duty to consider any significant commitment or decision in light of the expected risk, value, cost, and benefit to Wikimedia's public interest mission. The value of new structures proposed in the final draft of the Movement Charter has to be weighed against their risk, their cost, and the resource demands of this movement at a time when we have all seen that the growth rate of revenue is not increasing at the same rate as in the past, while demands to invest more in the Wikimedia platforms, projects, and communities are increasing.
As liaisons, we believe the *risks and costs* associated with the currently proposed form of the Global Council *outweigh its potential value*.
Firstly and most importantly, the proposed Global Council's *purpose* is not clearly connected to advancing Wikimedia's public interest mission. It lacks a compelling explanation of *how* it will ensure more equitable decision-making and support the mission of sharing free knowledge. It also does not guide us on how to address many of the most pressing issues facing community governance on Wikimedia projects. We recognise that for some, the status quo *also* does not provide that clarity, but we do not believe that the final draft Charter moves us closer.
Secondly, we note that the *proposed structure and makeup* of the Global Council have changed significantly with each iteration of the published drafts (from a small body to a large assembly to a flexible-sized body in the most recent text). This may have been done in response to feedback from multiple stakeholders, but it raises an ongoing concern we have expressed in all of our feedback that this proposed structure is not based on the /form following function/ principle -- we do not see a deliberate or intentional design that seeks to meet the purpose of such a critical and important new body.
Finally, as liaisons we believe that important elements within the final draft Charter, including, most critically, the /Values and Principles/, require more consensus of communities before attempting to incorporate them into a larger document that enshrines binding commitments on us all. Ensuring values are understood, shared, and - importantly - prioritised similarly across the movement is essential to relying on them to help craft an effective and accepted decision-making framework.
== Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment: what to do irrespective of the outcome of the ratification vote ==As liaisons, the proposal that we are making to the Board is that, instead of ratifying the Movement Charter in its current form, it is better to follow the Movement Strategy Recommendation to experiment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt more quickly with key areas of responsibility before establishing a more permanent body with a wider scope. That is why, irrespective of the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, the Foundation has already begun to work on shifting core areas of decision-making https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History#Clarifying_movement_roles_and_responsibilities_moving_forward to increased volunteer oversight, including *fund dissemination*, and volunteers offering more immediate input on Foundation decisions, such as *advising on product & technology*.
More specifically, we propose that by January 2025, fund dissemination, which is one functional area of the proposed Global Council, be handled by a global decision-making body to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for the rest of fiscal year 2024-2025 and to plan grantmaking estimates for the next two years. A global, but narrower scope, will help to experiment with more accountability for the results.
This process, which we shall ask to be co-created with affiliates and individual community members, would build on the experience of the Regional Funds Committees https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021/Regional_Committees, and the past Funds Dissemination Committee https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee, in line with the Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #27 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Flexible_resource_allocation_framework and the work currently taking place with Affiliate EDs and Regional Funds Committees to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for FY 2024-2025. It is important to document and publish the lessons learned from each step of the process and use these to inform future decision-making and the possible creation of permanent committees and/or movement bodies.
Additionally, as liaisons we also propose moving forward with the establishment of a Product & Technology Advisory Council https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_and_Technology_Advisory_Council/Proposal, following a proposal from the Foundation that was shared with the MCDC. This is in line with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #31 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Technology_Council to advance shared decision-making and co-creative spaces in technology spaces that are fundamental to support the mission.
== Next steps ==As all affiliates and individuals prepare to vote on the final Charter draft, we as liaisons hope that voters will also take the time to provide written comments alongside their “yes”, “no”, and “--” https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Method_of_voting vote so that everyone will learn as much as possible about how we all can move forward with decision-making structures that are more effective, with an equity lens, for our complex global community to advance Wikimedia’s mission in the world.
As previously noted, the Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement charter now and *plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9*, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting. This will allow the Board to consider all public comments available before the start of the voting while casting its vote alongside affiliates and individual contributors.
At the MCDC’s request, the results of the Board’s vote will be shared only after the vote of individuals and affiliates has concluded, so as not to influence their voting, but likely before the outcomes of those votes are published, and not before July 10.
As we all await the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, it will be important to be ready to take concrete steps that will help move us forward as a movement. Wikimania will be an opportunity to begin constructive and productive conversations on these and other immediate next steps, informed by the comments left by individuals and affiliates during the vote. Working together on practical, time-bound steps will shape a better and more equitable framework for making decisions. With a shared commitment, this moment of change can foster a greater sense of belonging, one that can sometimes feel elusive in this widely diverse global movement.
Best regards
Nat and Lorenzo
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees liaisons to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee
=========================================== Best regards, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees /NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!/
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear all,
Wikimedia Deutschland has just published an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to ratify the charter: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%...
The supervisory Board of Wikimedia Deutschland has just decided to vote in favor of the charter.
Alice. Chair of the supervisory board of Wikimedia Deutschland
Am Fr., 21. Juni 2024 um 01:18 Uhr schrieb Nataliia Tymkiv < ntymkiv@wikimedia.org>:
Dear all,
We are grateful to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) members, who have dedicated their time and energy to putting forward this final draft of the Movement Charter. They have demonstrated tremendous resilience and perseverance in grappling with ways to increase our collective sense of belonging as a movement, and outlining roles and responsibilities intended to help us all make better decisions in steering the Wikimedia movement into the future.
For some, this final draft Charter represents an extension of the Movement Strategy process that began in earnest in 2020. There are many reflections on this history, some nostalgic and others less so. The 2030 strategic direction has guided and continues to guide the Wikimedia Foundation’s strategy. As the Foundation’s annual plan this year https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History observed, there is much to celebrate in the collective advancement of the original ten movement strategy recommendations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations, including shared progress in creating more equitable and decentralised decision-making structures.
At the same time, we should all recognise that the world around us has shifted significantly since the movement strategy process began, that our limited resources require much more pragmatic trade-offs and choices, and that the Board has a duty to consider the risk, value, cost and benefit of any significant commitments being made to advance the mission.
As requested by the MCDC, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has, over the last few months, shared with the committee its direct feedback on the previous Movement Charter drafts, including its perspectives on the Global Council https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council and its feedback on a previous draft https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft that we posted publicly. Liaisons have also engaged in regular and ongoing meetings with the MCDC members, including inviting the MCDC members to all Board meetings and Strategic retreats since June 2022.
Our general observation, which is elaborated in the body of this letter, is that the final draft of the Movement Charter *still does not address the significant concerns* previously raised by the Board. Thus, as liaisons, *our recommendations* to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are:
- *not to ratify* the final draft of the Movement Charter *as
proposed; and*
- *support* the Foundation in developing *concrete, time-bound next
steps* on a more practical scale, allowing us all to *evaluate progress*, and see what to change or build on.
We believe that approving this version of the Charter, despite the tremendous amount of work and resources already put into it, would not be the right call. Instead, we think it is better to continue pursuing the same goals the draft Charter also sought to pursue in a different way, by identifying key areas where the final draft Charter provides us with guidance on concrete steps that can be taken towards increasing volunteer and movement oversight of certain core areas of responsibility. We believe this will allow the Foundation, and all of us, to live into the recommendation of Movement Strategy to evaluate, iterate, and adapt https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt as we go, rather than too quickly to agree to new structures that may not yet be fit for purpose.
As liaisons, we first shared this recommendation and our reflections with the MCDC on June 18 and then with the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board on June 20 (including a short draft brief https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_liaisons_reflections_on_final_Movement_charter_draft/Brief). The Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement Charter now and *plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9*, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting.
== Context for sharing these reflections: why now? ==
As liaisons, we believe that the final draft does not address the concerns previously stated by the Board of Trustees in its feedback https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft on previous drafts of the Charter. Specifically, the final draft still falls short of providing a clear enough explanation of *how* it will advance Wikimedia's public interest mission and effectively address the shortcomings of Wikimedia's current structures to enable more effective and equitable decisions.
These points are not new and were shared in previous Board feedback to the MCDC, including the January 22 letter (shared publicly in February https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_perspectives_on_the_Global_Council) in response to the first public draft and the May letter https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Archive_5#Wikimedia_Foundation_feedback_on_Movement_Charter_Final_Draft in response to the second public draft. In response to both affiliates and individual contributors who have asked the Foundation to speak more clearly about its views, and do it sooner, we felt it was important to reiterate these points in the interest of transparency and learning. == Process accountability ==
We, as liaisons, have heard concerns and frustrations about the Movement Charter process. It faced significant challenges and constraints from the impact of the pandemic limiting travel and in-person meetings; resignations of several members of the MCDC; and other issues that extended the timeline to 2.5 years. It was a shared hope by all to have this process successfully wrapped up sooner.
For some of this, the Board certainly must take some responsibility. This is the purpose of the Board’s oversight, as well as its governance responsibilities. An important lesson learnt through this experience is that large-scale processes should have more explicit and clear expectations up front so that as a stakeholder the Foundation can engage directly and openly earlier about its own positions, views and boundaries. It is not easy to find this balance, but this is essential to moving forward differently. These and other lessons should be documented, and built upon in any future processes aimed at hard-to-reverse movement-wide commitments (for example, the Playbook https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Reports/Movement_Strategy_Playbook that was developed after the Wikimedia's Movement Strategy process). == Reflections on the final draft ==
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has a legal and fiduciary duty to consider any significant commitment or decision in light of the expected risk, value, cost, and benefit to Wikimedia's public interest mission. The value of new structures proposed in the final draft of the Movement Charter has to be weighed against their risk, their cost, and the resource demands of this movement at a time when we have all seen that the growth rate of revenue is not increasing at the same rate as in the past, while demands to invest more in the Wikimedia platforms, projects, and communities are increasing.
As liaisons, we believe the *risks and costs* associated with the currently proposed form of the Global Council *outweigh its potential value*.
Firstly and most importantly, the proposed Global Council's *purpose* is not clearly connected to advancing Wikimedia's public interest mission. It lacks a compelling explanation of *how* it will ensure more equitable decision-making and support the mission of sharing free knowledge. It also does not guide us on how to address many of the most pressing issues facing community governance on Wikimedia projects. We recognise that for some, the status quo *also* does not provide that clarity, but we do not believe that the final draft Charter moves us closer.
Secondly, we note that the *proposed structure and makeup* of the Global Council have changed significantly with each iteration of the published drafts (from a small body to a large assembly to a flexible-sized body in the most recent text). This may have been done in response to feedback from multiple stakeholders, but it raises an ongoing concern we have expressed in all of our feedback that this proposed structure is not based on the *form following function* principle -- we do not see a deliberate or intentional design that seeks to meet the purpose of such a critical and important new body.
Finally, as liaisons we believe that important elements within the final draft Charter, including, most critically, the *Values and Principles*, require more consensus of communities before attempting to incorporate them into a larger document that enshrines binding commitments on us all. Ensuring values are understood, shared, and - importantly - prioritised similarly across the movement is essential to relying on them to help craft an effective and accepted decision-making framework. == Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment: what to do irrespective of the outcome of the ratification vote ==
As liaisons, the proposal that we are making to the Board is that, instead of ratifying the Movement Charter in its current form, it is better to follow the Movement Strategy Recommendation to experiment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate,_Iterate,_and_Adapt more quickly with key areas of responsibility before establishing a more permanent body with a wider scope. That is why, irrespective of the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, the Foundation has already begun to work on shifting core areas of decision-making https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025/History#Clarifying_movement_roles_and_responsibilities_moving_forward to increased volunteer oversight, including *fund dissemination*, and volunteers offering more immediate input on Foundation decisions, such as *advising on product & technology*.
More specifically, we propose that by January 2025, fund dissemination, which is one functional area of the proposed Global Council, be handled by a global decision-making body to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for the rest of fiscal year 2024-2025 and to plan grantmaking estimates for the next two years. A global, but narrower scope, will help to experiment with more accountability for the results.
This process, which we shall ask to be co-created with affiliates and individual community members, would build on the experience of the Regional Funds Committees https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources/Grants_Strategy_Relaunch_2020-2021/Regional_Committees, and the past Funds Dissemination Committee https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee, in line with the Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #27 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Flexible_resource_allocation_framework and the work currently taking place with Affiliate EDs and Regional Funds Committees to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for FY 2024-2025. It is important to document and publish the lessons learned from each step of the process and use these to inform future decision-making and the possible creation of permanent committees and/or movement bodies.
Additionally, as liaisons we also propose moving forward with the establishment of a Product & Technology Advisory Council https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_and_Technology_Advisory_Council/Proposal, following a proposal from the Foundation that was shared with the MCDC. This is in line with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #31 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Initiatives/Technology_Council to advance shared decision-making and co-creative spaces in technology spaces that are fundamental to support the mission. == Next steps ==
As all affiliates and individuals prepare to vote on the final Charter draft, we as liaisons hope that voters will also take the time to provide written comments alongside their “yes”, “no”, and “--” https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Method_of_voting vote so that everyone will learn as much as possible about how we all can move forward with decision-making structures that are more effective, with an equity lens, for our complex global community to advance Wikimedia’s mission in the world.
As previously noted, the Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement charter now and *plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9*, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Ratification_Methodology#Sequence_of_voting. This will allow the Board to consider all public comments available before the start of the voting while casting its vote alongside affiliates and individual contributors.
At the MCDC’s request, the results of the Board’s vote will be shared only after the vote of individuals and affiliates has concluded, so as not to influence their voting, but likely before the outcomes of those votes are published, and not before July 10.
As we all await the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, it will be important to be ready to take concrete steps that will help move us forward as a movement. Wikimania will be an opportunity to begin constructive and productive conversations on these and other immediate next steps, informed by the comments left by individuals and affiliates during the vote. Working together on practical, time-bound steps will shape a better and more equitable framework for making decisions. With a shared commitment, this moment of change can foster a greater sense of belonging, one that can sometimes feel elusive in this widely diverse global movement.
Best regards
Nat and Lorenzo
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees liaisons to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee =========================================== Best regards, antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!*
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