Ok, I’ll bite (I’m in a bit of a rush so apologies in advance if the tone seems curt. Not the intent, but emails often come out as such)
My first concern is that I still don’t know what the exact problem is that this charter is trying to solve. If it is to restore some balance between Chapters/UG on one hand and the Foundation on the other hand (basically undo what Sue Gardner did 15+ years ago and spread money around), I’m not convinced at all: no matter how we frame it, the WMF’s main mission is to support the tech that makes the whole movement exist in the first place, and it is in some respects struggling at that. Except for Wikidata/Wikibase (managed by WMDE; and possibly Kiwix as it spun off from WMCH), I don’t see chapters/UG having brought much to the table in that regard. Could it be that they could not because they did not have the resources? Well, that’s what someone writing an AI/crypto pitch deck would say, but I’m not convinced. So what is left when all this is said and done is this charter being a fight for the « proper » allocation of money, and there is plenty of literature to explain that there will never be enough of that. Whatever the problem, it won’t be solved. In fact, the Brazilians have been very smart in pushing their requirements for a bigger focus on Global South users (Global Majority is not a good term, so don’t @ me), and it really did not require having 100 people sitting on some sort of council to get things moving forward. Which brings me to the Global council, the one thing that really rattles me. There is a structural risk in putting people in charge only because they demonstrated their love and participation in the project rather than because they have specific skills/vision needed to give directions to a Foundation spending 100 millions each year. We already have that, and though I like them as people I also remember that a previous WMF board pulled a Lila Tretikov on its employees; the French had Nathalie Martin, so clearly it is a structural thing (even if I also acknowledge that some useful learnings were made. Yet do I wish more such learnings on anyone? I’m not sure). Now, this is what we get with 5-7 Wikimedians mostly speaking the same language. How much solid, reasonable decision-making can we expect when we will put 100 of them from 80+ different countries together? What we’re likely to end up with is something like that 2030 strategy thing: free travel for those willing to answer emails, and a final product that is so disconnected from reality that it could get its own show on the Sify network. Someone on this list once told me that strategy was all about dropping things you would like to do but can not. There is a culture of « consensus » in this movement that is exactly about doing the opposite, and this is why we still have Wikinews. Lastly, there are some 163 members on this list, yet only 3 (4?) of us have weighed in over the past couple of months. This also makes me slightly worried that priorities could easily be hogged by a small, hyper-active minority (cue wikimedia-l). TL;DR: too complicated; structurally unable to address any type of challenge. Strong oppose. Stephane > On 2 Jul 2024, at 16:36, Florence Devouard <fdevou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nevertheless want to insist on the fact I am not sold. > So if others feel unconfortable, prefer for us to abstain or vote against... > I am totally fine with that. > > Said differently... count me rather in the "undecided - depends on the hour > of the day" > > Flo > > Le 02/07/2024 à 00:47, Florence Devouard a écrit : >> I am going to try to put things into perspective. >> >> I do like any of the two options. >> I am not fan of the proposition. For all the reasons already mentionned. I >> also think that if it were adopted, it would take several years before >> getting implemented, and it would certainly be amended. I see a long path >> ahead. >> I am not fan of doing nothing either (not ratifying it), as I think it would >> send the wrong signal (fully opposed; or not interested) >> >> Being appreciative of the fact we have the right to vote (which not everyone >> has...), I thus would rather support we ratify it. >> >> What do others think ? >> >> Flo >> >> Le 26/06/2024 à 21:07, Samuel Klein a écrit : >>> Well, the two WMF Board liaisons to the committee have suggested that the >>> Board not ratify it. WMDE and Wikimedia CEE have said they would vote for >>> it. Others (like JMabel's thoughts I posted in the other thread) have also >>> shared their takes. >>> >>> In general many concerns raised on this list a month ago have not been >>> addressed: the charter has inconsistencies and gaps, but makes it very hard >>> to amend itself. It mandates that the new Council do four difficult things >>> all at once, including developing a new movement-wide strategy. It does >>> not talk about how these tasks relate to existing movement bodies (like >>> chapters and Projects that maintain their own priorities, 2030 goals, or >>> annual plans). It has not addressed input from unaffiliated editors, many >>> of whom said the current framework over privileges the views and needs of >>> affiliates. So I understand why the WMF liaisons keep expressing concern >>> and suggested starting by transitioning a few specific functions. >>> >>> I also understand why those who have felt held back by stagnating funding >>> and inconsistent communications with the WMF might feel this is their only >>> chance to have more say over evolution of collective priorities. And fear >>> that if this vote doesn't pass right this instant, there might not be >>> another such opportunity. >>> >>> I would like to hear what you & others think. >>> >>> SJ >>> >>> 🌍🌏🌎🌑 >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 11:13 AM Stephane Coillet-Matillon >>> <steph...@kiwix.org <mailto:steph...@kiwix.org>> wrote: >>>> It appears that the WMF Board has indicated that they would vote against >>>> the Charter. WMDE published a call in support, and they seem to be doing >>>> some lobbying (I got the >>> >>> >>>> via an official mail from Wikimedia CH; not sure their board has decided >>>> anything yet) >>>> >>>> Talk:Movement Charter - Meta >>>> meta.wikimedia.org >>>> >>>> >>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees>Talk:Movement >>>> Charter - Meta >>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees> >>>> meta.wikimedia.org >>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees> >>>> >>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees> >>>> >>>> SCM >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> <mailto:offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> <mailto:offline-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> <mailto:offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> <mailto:offline-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> <mailto:offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >> To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> <mailto:offline-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org> > _______________________________________________ > Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list -- offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to offline-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
