Movement Charter/Community Consultations/2023/Fiji Hindi Speaking Community

General Information

• Feedback channels:
  • One-on-one meetings, on 9 October 2023 at Rajbiraj, Nepal and 10 October 2023 at Kathmandu, Nepal
  • one-on-one telephonic conversations, between 10 October - 28 November 2023
  • Online meetings on Google Meet - 21, October 2023

• Number of participants: in total 9

Feedback

Global Council

Open Questions regarding Fund Dissemination

• What role should the Global Council have in fund dissemination?
  • Oversight or review of WMF decisions
  • Coordination with WMF
  • Other (please elaborate)
• Should there be a committee that reports to the Global Council and handles central/cross-regional fund dissemination?
• What should be the Global Council’s role with regards to the allocation of the funds within the WMF?
  • The Global Council should be consulted on the allocation of the funds within the WMF.
  • The Global Council should have no role in the allocation of the funds within the WMF and only be informed.
  • Other (please elaborate)

• 60% of respondents believe that the Global Council's primary role in fund dissemination should be oversight and review of WMF decisions. On the other hand, 40% of respondents believe that the Global Council should focus on coordination with the WMF to streamline and enhance fund dissemination processes.
• Yes, there should be a committee that reports to the Global Council and handles central/cross-regional fund dissemination. A committee dedicated to central/cross-regional fund dissemination will help ensure transparency, accountability, and effectiveness of fund allocation at the global and cross-regional levels. It will also provide a mechanism for the Global Council to receive input from the Wikimedia community on these matters.
• Based on the responses, the majority believe that the Global Council should be consulted on the allocation of funds within the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), while the remaining believe that the Global Council should have no role in fund allocation and should only be informed.

Open Questions regarding Structure

• Should the Global Council exist only as an executive body or should it exist as an executive body with an advisory board? (See scenarios below)
  • If the Global Council is an executive body with an advisory board, how are the members of both entities (executive body and advisory board) seated?
• With its size, the Global Council must have adequate diversity and clout, but not be so large as to undermine effectiveness. As an executive body, how many members should the Global Council have?
  • Option 1: 9-13 members
  • Option 2: 17-21 members

• By Election Process: Mejority of the respondents believe that all members of both the Global Council and its advisory board should be seated by-election. This would give the Wikimedia community a direct voice in selecting its leadership.
• Some Seats Should Be Done by Election and Some by Selection: Remaining respondents proposed that a certain percentage of seats, such as 75%, should be filled through an election, while the remaining 25% of seats would be filled through selection.
• Based on the consensus, it seems that there is a preference for a larger Global Council with 17-21 members over a smaller one with 9-13 members. This preference stems from the belief that a larger council would foster more diverse representation and a broader range of expertise, leading to more informed and well-rounded decision-making.
• Should there be some imposed limits on membership in terms of movement representation? - Yes

Open Questions regarding Membership

With an intention to ensure fair representation, power balance, and promote diversity and inclusivity within the Global Council, we seek your inputs on the following:

1. Should there be some imposed limits to the membership in terms of movement representation?

Please share your opinions about potential criteria of such limits:

1. Should there be a regional cap, e.g. max 3 persons from a single region? If yes, please specify the condition.
2. Should there be a home project or entity cap, e.g. max 2 persons from a single wiki project or affiliate? If yes, please specify the condition.
3. Should there be a specific cap for large language communities, projects, or affiliates, e.g. not more than 5 seats from between the 5 largest projects? If yes, please specify the condition.
4. Should there be any other limits for Global Council membership? If yes, please specify the condition.

• Yes, implementing a regional cap, such as a maximum of three persons from a single region, can help to ensure diversity and equitable representation within the movement's decision-making bodies. This is because it would prevent any one region from dominating the council, and it would also give an opportunity for representation from all regions. The regional cap should be set at a level that is fair and equitable, and it should be reviewed regularly to ensure that it is still effective. A regional cap can help to ensure that all voices are heard and that the movement's decisions are made with the interests of all regions in mind.
• Responses on 'home project or entity cap' were like this: Yes, implementing a home project or entity cap, such as allowing a maximum of two persons from a single wiki project or affiliate, encourages broader participation and prevents disproportionate influence, ensuring fair and inclusive representation across the movement. The home project or entity cap should be set at a level that is fair and equitable, and it should be reviewed regularly to ensure that it is still effective. It is an important step towards ensuring that the Wikimedia movement is governed in a way that is fair, inclusive, and equitable.
• Establishing a specific cap for large language communities, projects, or affiliates, such as limiting seats to not more than five from the five largest projects, ensures balanced representation while allowing diverse perspectives from significant communities. This approach ensures that the needs of various communities are considered and that no single entity dominates the decision-making process. By limiting the number of seats from larger entities, it gives smaller communities a chance to have their voices heard and their perspectives considered.

• There are several additional limits that could be considered for Global Council membership to ensure a well-rounded and inclusive council. These limits could include:

1. Ensuing representation across various thematic areas or expertise.
2. Promoting gender balance.
3. Fostering diversity in age, background, and skill sets.

Transparency and Fairness in Global Council Membership Process In addition to these limits, it is also important to ensure that the Global Council membership process is transparent and fair. This means that all eligible candidates should have a fair chance to be considered for membership and that the selection process should be free from bias or discrimination. By implementing these additional limits and ensuring a transparent and fair selection process, the Wikimedia movement can ensure that the Global Council is a well-rounded and inclusive body that represents the best interests of the movement as a whole.

Other feedback about the draft chapter:

• This is a promising draft.
• ...
• ...

Hubs

Community Question: Should there be a limit to how many hubs an affiliate can join? (Please elaborate on your answer.)

It depends on the modality of hubs. A maximum of 10–13 hubs would be appropriate to prevent any one affiliate from dominating the hubs and to encourage broader participation from a wider range of affiliates.

While there are some potential challenges to implementing this limit, such as defining distinct geographic boundaries in regions like ESEAP and SARC, the overall benefits outweigh the risks.

The draft doesn't delve deeply into Hubs, leaving ambiguity in their registration, particularly for geographically-based Hubs in regions like ESEAP and SARC. The second thematic aspect lacks clarity on its designation or registration. There's a need for more explicit information on how and where thematic Hubs will be situated or registered within the framework. This lack of detail poses challenges, especially in defining their operational boundaries and registration processes.

Other feedback about the draft chapter:

• ...
• ...
• ...

Roles & Responsibilities

• Acknowledgement of Thoughtfulness: The document is recognized as well-considered and comprehensive in its content, indicating that it covers essential aspects of roles and responsibilities within the movement.
• Recommendation for Improvements: There's a suggestion to simplify the document and add more explanatory content. This recommendation aims to make the document more accessible and understandable, especially for individuals who might not have extensive involvement or deep knowledge of the movement. Simplification and additional explanations could enhance its accessibility and usefulness to a broader audience.

• ...
• ...
• ...

Glossary

• The provided definitions seem clear and informative, covering key terms and concepts related to the Wikimedia Movement. They offer a good understanding of the structure, roles, and principles within the movement.
• More associated words can be added.

• ...
• ...
• ...

Miscellaneous feedback

• We need to spread more awareness of the new charter.
• There's an observed lack of awareness among Wiki contributors from various global regions regarding the Movement Charter and the Global Council. This lack of awareness raises concerns about the potential formation of the Global Council through member elections, selections, or a combination of both. There's a worry that such a process might not accurately represent the entirety of the Wikimedia global movement.

• ...
• ...
• ...