Hi,
While I can follow the reasoning behind the concerns about the Charter draft
(and I personally share some of these in parts), I still do not understand the
reasoning for the proposed next steps (appendix):* Why is there no Movement
Charter and no Global Council mentioned in the Appendix as they are considered
relevant parts of more equal decision making within the Movement Strategy which
was also adopted by the wMF? What is the vision of the WMF on these parts of
the Movement Strategy and how to we make progress on these over the next couple
of years? — With this proposal I feel like we're left in vacuum without any
idea how and where to progress with these topics together with WMF.* Why are
all currently proposed bodies designed exactly the way all parties had problems
with over the past decade?** One of them fully selected by WMF staff:
“Applications for the PTAC […] Candidates will be selected [by WMF] for an
interview on a rolling basis.”, etc. -> “recommendations for Wikimedia
Foundation Product and Technology teams”** The other one financially fully
dependent on budget allocation -> “will seek the recommendations and insights
of this body for proposals“*: I assume that some of these wordings have legal
reasons, but they create more frustration than needed because nobody knows if
and how recommendations are heard and many of us carry their baggage. This is
getting even more complicated the way the next steps were announced: Maybe
there is a general need for the WMF Board to put everything in motions instead
of starting conversations with other stakeholders, but for me it feels that by
doing this there is not much ground for conversation but the next steps are put
in stone just to fill a vacuum none of us ever wanted.
Both of these points, the omission of core Movement Strategy vocabulary and the
way the experiments are designed and seem to be set in stone, are nowhere close
to “equity in decision-making”. I think we can do better, together! Why not
also with regard to the next steps?
Maybe you can also emphasize on this. :) It's helpful to read more from the
Board perspective for one's own reflections, thanks once again! I'm also
looking forward to conversations about it at Wikimania and meeting many of you
again.
(PS: If you prefer that I move these questions to the Appendix talk page,
please let me know.)
Best,DerHexer
Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2024 um 16:00:06 MESZ hat Dariusz Jemielniak
<[email protected]> Folgendes geschrieben:
If the Board is not just a token body, it was in the voting pipeline for a
reason. We really worked hard on trying to make things work - unfortunately,
the visions have dramatically diverted. As I wrote before, we have been very
supportive of the approach that is problem-oriented and organic (one possible
idea draft I personally was in favor of, but there were others).
The Board, as I understand it, is fully supportive of the changes in principle.
It is just responsible enough to not go blindly for an approach that it
considers flawed and costly. This is, fundamentally, an essential fiduciary
duty of a trustee: to say "no," when needed, and even when a lot of people
chant "yes".
I personally am very much in favor of a transfer of responsibility to the
community at large, I am quite against a large, parliamentary-style body, as
it, paradoxically, takes quite a bit of power from the community itself, while
not offering an effective solution.
I may be definitely wrong in my views, but assuming bad faith, dictatorship,
illusionary elections... Goes quite a bit too far, to my taste.
best
Dariusz
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 4:20 AM Itzik Edri <[email protected]> wrote:
When I realized the entire "voting" process was a hoax by the board a few weeks
ago, I wanted to join other people in protesting against the board's behavior.
However, I felt it would be pointless, as the board had already wasted far too
much time, knowing it wouldn't accept anything other than its own decision.
Why spend more time and talk about this charter, collaborate together, in what
we thought was a democratic decision-making process for this movement, but then
when it failed to meet the board's own needs, it became a dictatorship, where
elections aren't just an illusion, and even a majority of the movement won't
convince the board to accept the existing rules.
But rather than addressing the fundamental issue of the board's disregard for
this process, which is a waste of millions of dollars and even worse, the time
spent by countless volunteers thinking, writing, and developing this charter,
this discussion has shifted to irrelevant issues such as whether neutral votes
should be counted and whether 100 members (a maximum number, not a desired
number) of the Global Council should attend Wikimania (a matter that is not
even mentioned in the charter).
I'm sorry, but all of this is dodging the truth that the board made very clear
in their resolution - they don’t want any change of forces.
It's clear from their proposed changes to the resource distribution ("Because
the Board of Trustees holds ultimate financial and fiduciary obligations, they
are ultimately responsible for approving how much of the Foundation’s budget
will be made available for grants distribution") - No one will decide how much
money the foundation will spend. It is up to them to decide how much money will
go to the rest of the movement bodies, and volunteers can maybe only influence
how it will be split among them. How is it different from now?
The board's resolution is unambiguous, from the resource distribution component
to the complete disregard for the global council. The board is unwilling to
recognize any entity that could potentially challenge its authority. *Its*
staff will support affiliates, resource allocation, and other committees, but
any potential global council body would be entirely dependent on volunteers for
all its activities. In contrast, the board itself enjoys the support of 100~
paid staff (executives, legal, communications, administration..). This
arrangement represents a significant imbalance of power that serves no purpose
other than to maintain the board's control.
So what is the point?
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 7:57 PM Pete Forsyth <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 12:30 AM Victoria Doronina <[email protected]>
wrote:
Pete,
I live in Europe and am not familiar with the US rules. In the UK, spoilt
ballots, equivalent to the neutral vote, are counted in the tally.
I don't follow your connection between a spoilt ballot and a neutral vote, to
me these seem to be unrelated concepts. One has to do with the technical
condition of the ballot at the time when counted, while the other reflects the
intent of the voter.
The UK system also does not appear to work the way you describe. For the UK
referendum we all know best (Brexit), the percentage reported on the English
Wikipedia article (51.89%) aligns exactly with the result of this formula:Leave
/ (Leave + Remain)(the same formula used for the charter vote, and in Oregon
elections).
The percentage it differs (51.85%) fromLeave / (Leave + Remain + spoilt)(the
formula I think you endorse and, I think inaccurately, ascribe to British
referenda).
So I really am at a loss. The formula used by the Charter Commission seems both
to align with the policy it set up ahead of time, and with precedents in other
electoral systems.
Chris said:
> Given all of that, it is neither appropriate, not helpful, for you to now
>launch into some kind of public critique of this process based on your
>own views.
Victoria said:
The community-elected trustees were repeatedly demonised and asked for their
opinion. Now that I’m expressing my opinion, it is suddenly inappropriate. Is
it because I’m a woman or because the opinion that the Charter and the process
of its' ratification are not fit for purpose should be silenced by any means?
I disagree with Chris on this point. But I do find your position confusing. Is
it not *you* who are now demonizing the committee, by asserting that their
chosen methodology is unique among systems of referendum, and imputing ill
motives? In addition to being inaccurate (as to the propriety of the tallying
method), your words after the fact come across to me as spiteful. It's hard to
see what they accomplish beyond furthering acrimony.
Victoria said:
Dear all,
I regret to see that the communication in this thread fractured. People are now
asking who am I to use the wikimedia.org email address.
I certainly don't object to a Trustee commenting on something that has been a
significant project of the organization, that seems like an ideal use of a
wikimedia.org email address!
I also have no objection to the Board's singular act of vetoing the charter.
What *does* concern me is trying to comprehend what the Board is aiming for.
This seems like a uniquely important moment for the Board to clearly
communicate its vision, as it rejects the proposal that arose out of the
process it had previously defined.
Instead, communications from the Board (including yours) seem to be varying
shades of inaccurate, political, vague, and inarticulate.
I would urge you to reflect on that. I'm not saying don't communicate, but the
opposite. I urge you to communicate more clearly and carefully.
PeteEditor of English Wikisource, Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata, etc.
_______________________________________________
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/BE5EZWEQ3VUVIUULHJHRZPOTEFC2SOBP/
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/VJBDJFG34COTBWQJJYOH5727QQOA2AQP/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
--
________________________________________________________________________________Please,
note, that this email will expire at some point. Bookmark
[email protected] as a more permanent contact address.
_______________________________________________
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/OZYUAWU37TETDXKGHSZGWCQ4FPLD32N3/
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/XWZTQHVKOWJTWQQMIB34VANTXP2BGUP3/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
