" 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? "
Agreed. I've shared it a while ago on Strategy Telegram channel after the board liaisons first declaration and I repeat it here: We need to know very clearly Foundation's vision on "*Ensure Equity in Decision-making". * I don't want to waste my time on discussing/reviewing/sharing/meeting/voting on new suggestions or appendix before knowing how the party who said "No" is seeing the 4th recommendation. Best, NANöR On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 4:47 PM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_resolution_and_vote_on_the_proposed_Movement_Charter/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 > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pundit/Charter> 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%) from > Leave / (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. > > Pete > Editor 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] > <[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]
_______________________________________________ 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/ZV6FWLFCR4QMYRIUOBKRC3AGLFOXOCBZ/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
