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_Endorsement (2) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Strategy/Recommendations/Ensure_Equity_in_Decision-making On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 2:33 PM Wikipedysta Nadzik < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 < >> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 -- [email protected], >>>> 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/[email protected]/message/NZWTGC6AHECU7T4UEJZF4PWJER7766BB/ >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/3DTACB26TTAUBCGHOYGN6LREHS62S67L/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> >> >> -- >> Boodarwun >> Gnangarra >> 'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardon nlangan Nyungar koortabodjar' >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/VS2I3UXIXBTQUIPJ7GXHB3LDI3RJPUUK/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > > -- > *User:Nadzik <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nadzik>* > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/KAEGLM4XOZK7EK55AEC4RSGVRKMH7IFE/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/6I2A3EZEJKIOC6O64TUX3XSVNQ4LAU5M/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
