Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Election Compass/Statements

Movement Charter

Supplementary documents

Project

Community Consultation

Drafting Committee

Ratification vote

FAQ

Selected Statements ["Results"]

Selected statements, ranked by votes. 19 were selected.

Rank	Votes	Statements
1	38	1: The Movement Charter should be based on the principle of decentralisation and self-management
2	30	72: The Movement Charter should be developed in an open, iterative, consultative, participatory and transparent process
3	23	6: The Movement Charter should limit the role of the Wikimedia Foundation to 'keep the servers running' and perform some legal duties, such as guarding the trademarks
4	21	18: The Movement Charter should include transparency requirements on the Foundation and affiliates
6	20	21c: The Movement Charter should reaffirm the editorial integrity and independence of the editor communities, and the right to self-governance of projects.
7	20	82: The Drafting Committee should prioritize community engagement, drafting iterations, and translations, even if it requires more time to "do it right"
10	18	11: Wikimedia organizations will all have a democratic governance The Movement Charter will state that all Wikimedia organizations and groups should have a democratic governance structure.
13	16	34: The Global Council should eventually become the governing body of a new international Wikimedia organization.
15	16	108: The Movement Charter should be written in a gender neutral language
16	15	24: The Global Council should be largely elected on the basis of regional elections where Wikimedians vote for members to represent their geographical area
18	15	96: The language of the Movement Charter should be as simple as possible
21	14	20: The Movement Charter should open the path for new forms of knowledge representation inside Wikimedia projects
24	14	63: The Movement Charter should mention the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
25	14	84: The Drafting Committee should balance the interests of the large communities with the needs of the small ones
26	14	92: The Movement Charter should ensure ratification has confirmation from all core groups, including: editors, projects, affiliates, Board of Trustees
29	13	27: The Global Council should be a counter voice to the Wikimedia Foundation
30	13	45: The Movement Charter should recommend a percentage of Wikimedia Movement money to allocate to Wikimedia organizations and groups
31	13	55: The Movement shall give due attention to under-recognized / marginalized communities
33	13	78: The Committee should seek review and advice from others, including experts outside of the Movement

Not selected (or disqualified) statements

Rank	Votes	Statements
5	21	94: The Movement Charter should be amendable	This is an obvious statements and was thus disqualified
8	19	22: The Movement Charter should establish a Global Council	This is an obvious statements and was thus disqualified
9	18	2: The Movement Charter should enact the right to self-governance of projects.	Duplicate to #21c, thus they were merged
11	16	3: Subsidiarity should be a guiding principle for the Wikimedia Movement	This is a Movement Strategy principle, which the Charter will be based on. Thus it is an obvious statement and thus disqualified.
12	16	23: The Movement Charter should specify the governance framework for the Wikimedia Movement	This is an obvious statements and was thus disqualified
14	16	57: The Movement Charter should specify the rights of the volunteer editors	This is an obvious statements and was thus disqualified
17	15	56: The Movement Charter should empower volunteers	This is an obvious statements and was thus disqualified
19	14	5: It is important that the Wikimedia Movement continues to have a single strong organisation at its core	Opposite of #6, thus only one was chosen
20	14	14: The Movement Charter should ensure equity in decision making	This is an obvious statements and was thus disqualified
22	14	32: The Foundation and the Global Council must have clearly defined roles	This is an obvious statements and was thus disqualified
23	14	33: The charter will be the founding document of a new governance structure, incl. descriptions of roles and responsibilities of (old and new) movement entities.	This is an obvious statements and was thus disqualified
27	13	8: The Wikimedia Movement should be a decentralized movement
28	13	15: The Movement Charter should define Roles and Responsibilities
32	13	76: Movement Charter drafting should be carried out publicly, with as little back-channel communication as possible
34	12	49: The Movement Charter should confirm that the donations to the Wikimedia Movement belong to the Wikimedia volunteer community
35	12	90: The process should include strong, innovative methods of participatory policy development.
36	12	97: The Movement Charter should be written in simple English with translations
37	12	98: The Movement charter should be detailed and not be a high level document that will allow different interpretations of one thing and its opposite
38	11	12: The Movement Charter should include the values of the Wikimedia movement
39	11	19: The Movement charter should clearly impose transparency on some instances in the movement (such as the BoT and the Affcom)
40	11	26: The election of the Global Council should balance representation of the electorate as a whole, and representation of (small) communities and affiliates
41	11	38: The communities should get real access to resources for support.
42	11	50: The Movement Charter should hold movement actors to account
43	11	87: The Drafting Committee should make soon a rough draft, publish it, get feedback, improve and repeat the process
44	10	9: Guidelines on support for Decentralization
45	10	13: The Movement Charter should include our principles
46	10	21b: The Charter should aim to set up the movement for growth.
47	10	25: It is vital that the Global Council reflects the gender balance of the population, not the gender balance of Wikimedia volunteers
48	10	31: The Foundation must seek advice and opinion from the Global Council about its major decision, including but not limited to the choice of its CEO
49	10	37: The WMF should allocate a massive budget to make our projects technologically better
50	10	44: The Charter should provide guidelines for creation and functioning of Affiliates, local Chapters
51	10	48: WMF should allocate funding for administration and operational expenses of Affiliates
52	10	67: The Movement charter should clarify the boundaries between volunteering and employment, and protect volunteers from being overused in "non-volunteer" work
53	10	80: If the drafting and ratification process takes longer than expected, having a Global Council created within a year is more important than having a Charter fully ratified
54	10	103: Special focus on language & translations of the Movement Charter
55	9	61: The Movement Charter should provide pathways for dealing with oppression
56	8	4: The Movement Charter should formalise the principal of subsidiarity
57	8	21a: The Charter should promote evidence-based governance.
58	8	40: The Movement Charter should pave the way for a chapter with a small office in every country
59	8	41: The Movement Charter should specify the right for Chapter to raise funds using the Wikipedia and other marks, including banners on Wikipedia pages directed at people residing in their locality
60	8	47: The Movement Charter should send most Wikimedia Movement money into lower and middle income countries
61	8	51: The Charter should define the rights and limits of all the stakeholders clearly
62	8	58: The Movement Charter should specify the right to communication in all languages
63	8	77: The committee should seek feedback about the Charter also from affiliates' members, donors and readers
64	8	81: The Charter may be drafted, proposed and ratified in parts, not necessarily all at once.
65	8	88: As part of the drafting process, the Committee should consult with partner organizations from the free knowledge movement
66	8	91: The Movement Charter should be ratified by all constituents: volunteer editors, communities, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation
67	7	10: The Wikimedia Movement should be a democratic movement
68	7	17: The Movement must recognize the importance of technologies and tools
69	7	21: The WMF should use its communication channels to promote language, content and project diversity
70	7	29: The Global Council should be a legal entity
71	7	30: The Movement Charter must provide guidelines on the "Structure of Global Council"
72	7	39: The Movement Charter should spell out a fair way of allocating resources
73	7	42: The Movement Charter should specify the right for Chapters to determine themselves how to spend the money they raised
74	7	43: The Movement must provide adequate administrative support for affiliates small-in-size
75	7	64: The Movement shall make due effort protecting the well-being of its volunteers
76	7	66: The Charter shall not limit the way each affiliate is organized
77	7	75: Meta-Wiki should be the only official place for discussion and decision of the Movement Charter
78	7	95: The Charter should be a relatively short text focusing on values and principles, leaving the implementation details to policies created by the Global Council
79	7	100: The Charter shall focus on high-level ideas, not implementations
80	6	7: The Foundation's role other than that of an fiscal host, should be granted explicitly by the Global Council
81	6	46: The Movement Charter should empower independent Wikimedia community evaluation and reporting of Wikimedia Movement finances
82	6	53: The Movement Charter should focus on the relations between the different entities of the Wikiverse
83	6	60: The Wikimedia Movement should be a social movement for change and improvement of the lives of volunteer editors, and promote their mental health
84	6	62: The Movement Charter should be inclusive for neurodivergent people
85	6	65: The Movement must provide support for the development of technologies we use by groups or individuals other than the Foundation
86	6	93: Communities should be given the space to implement the Movement Charter in a manner suitable to their own local context
87	5	28: The Global Council shall have the ability to manage assets
88	5	69: The Movement Charter should define who its constituents are
89	5	79: Ensuring regional diversity in the drafting process is more important than ensuring participation from all projects beyond the Wikipedias
90	5	83: The drafting committee should develop the Charter as part of an ongoing conversation with the movement
91	5	85: The Drafting Committee should publish monthly reports about recent progress, failures and next steps to take
92	4	35: The Drafting Committee should decide which governance model the group will work towards before discussing the content of the charter in detail.
93	4	52: The Movement charter should name some specific key roles and stakeholders so that they can be held accountable in need
94	4	70: There should be regulation in joining as well as holding a leadership role in affiliate organizations at a given time
95	4	71: The Membership in the board must also be financially rewarded
96	4	102: The Movement Charter must be elaborate but not very specific making it easy to adopt
97	3	36: The creation of Regional and Thematic Hubs must wait until the Global Council is there to approve them
98	3	54: The Movement Charter should identify formal Communication Channels and a Central Calendar
99	3	59: The Movement Charter should specify the right to local support for localization of templates and gadgets
100	3	74: The committee should have a draft ready for movement ratification within 6 months
101	3	86: The Drafting Committee should work hard in an efficient way to get a good draft as soon as possible and only then propose the draft
102	3	89: The drafting process should start with the important negotiations about who makes decisions and how they will be made in the future.
103	3	99: The Charter shall be as concise as possibly
104	3	106: The Movement Charter should have information on Oversight, OKRs, and Roles & Responsibilities
105	3	107: The Movement Charter should have guidelines on meetings, reviews & approvals
106	2	16: The Committee must differentiate goals and principles
107	2	73: The Committee may draft specific recommendations alongside of, but not within the Charter
108	2	101: The Movement Charter as a "Resource Document"
109	2	104: The Movement Charter must follow "Decentralization in focus & review"
110	2	105: The movement charter should have clear guidelines on scope, budget, timeline, success markers, risks & resources
111	0	68: The Charter should include no claims to the effect that merely contributing to a Wikimedia project makes a person a member of, or supporter of, any 'movement'

Proposed statements

Statements on general values and principles

1: The Movement Charter should be based on the principle of decentralisation and self-management

From the Roles and Responsibility working group draft recommendations: "Power and responsibilities need to be redistributed on the principle of self management. Decisions should be taken at the “lowest” possible level / as near as possible to the process/community/activity that will be affected by the decision" (proposed by The Land)

2: The Movement Charter should enact the right to self-governance of projects.

(proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

3: Subsidiarity should be a guiding principle for the Wikimedia Movement

Decision making should take at the lowest level possible where all relevant information is available. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

4: The Movement Charter should formalise the principal of subsidiarity

Duplicate of statement 3

(Proposed by Nosebagbear)

5: It is important that the Wikimedia Movement continues to have a single strong organisation at its core

This statement is contrary to the concept of decentralisation and regional hubs, allowing people who aren't in favour of those ideas to express their views (proposed by The Land)

6: The Movement Charter should limit the role of the Wikimedia Foundation to 'keep the servers running' and perform some legal duties, such as guarding the trademarks

The Wikimedia Foundation is currrently doing far more than it should. The time has come to limit the role of the Wikimedia Foundation. Any role not related to 'keep the servers running' or performing some legal duties, such as guarding the trademarks, should be decentralized, delegated and devolved to communities, affiliates and/or hubs. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

7: The Foundation's role other than that of an fiscal host, should be granted explicitly by the Global Council

(Proposed by Alvonte)

8: The Wikimedia Movement should be a decentralized movement

While the projects are decentralized, the organization is overly concentrated in the Wikimedia Foundation. It is necessary to devolve power and resources, to a Global Councial, and to affiliates and hubs. Preferably there is a chapter with a small office in every country, that can support local editors in their local languages. (proposed by The Land)

9: Guidelines on support for Decentralization

Guidelines on Decentralization/ Regionalisation of projects, extended support and available resources should also be provided. (proposed by Manavpreet Kaur)

10: The Wikimedia Movement should be a democratic movement

While the mission calls to empower people, which includes for empowering editors, the editors currently have to little power in decision making. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

(Are we supposed to comment under these? I hope so.) Many projects are explicitly non-democratic in many areas. "The movement" is ambiguous, and this statement doesn't specify whether it refers to the organizations specifically, or what. --Yair rand (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I have put a more specific version at #Wikimedia organizations will all have a democratic governance.--Pharos (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

11: Wikimedia organizations will all have a democratic governance

The Wikimedia Foundation and all affiliates will be required as a measure of good governance to have a majority of elected board members. Elections may also incoporate diversity-reinforcing mechanisms as appropriate, and those elected in this manner should be classified as elected board members as well. (proposed by Pharos)

12: The Movement Charter should include the values of the Wikimedia movement

We should be explicit about what we believe are our most important for everybody in the Wikimedia Movement, and not only what is most important for the Wikimedia Foundation. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven) To make it double clear: I removed "WMF's" that someone has added, and included " Wikimedia movement. The link is deliberately to an old version of the values, which could serve as example or inspiration gor the values to be included.

13: The Movement Charter should include our principles

We should be explicit about what we believe are the guiding principles for the Wikimedia Movement as a whole, and only what guides the Wikimedia Foundation. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

14: The Movement Charter should ensure equity in decision making

Having a Movement Charter is specified in the Movement Strategy recommendation to ensure equity in decision making. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

15: The Movement Charter should define Roles and Responsibilities

Many people want clarity about roles and responsibilities, and definition of boundaries between entities. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

Who's roles? Local admins? WMF and affiliates? --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 12:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost all roles. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

16: The Committee must differentiate goals and principles

Goals are the things we want to achieve. Principles are things that should always stand regardless of time. (Proposed by Alvonte)

17: The Movement must recognize the importance of technologies and tools

The kind of technologies we use and overall tools we have are severely outdated. (Proposed by Alvonte)

18: The Charter should include transparency requirements on the Foundation and affiliates

(Proposed by Pharos)

19: The Movement charter should clearly impose transparency on some instances in the movement (such as the BoT and the Affcom)

~ Almost duplicate of statement 18 (Proposed by Anass Sedrati)

20: The Charter should open the path for new forms of knowledge representation inside Wikimedia projects

(proposed by -Theklan (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC))

@Theklan: Could you clarify what you mean by this – new projects? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

21: The WMF should use its communication channels to promote language, content and project diversity

(proposed by -Theklan (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC))

21a: The Charter should promote evidence-based governance.

Our choices must be grounded in our values, but our values must be interpreted in the light of evidence and experimentation, not be used as a substitute for those. (proposed by Tgr)

Tgr has added the statement while I was preparing the page for upvoting. That's why it got this special number. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 03:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

21b: The Charter should aim to set up the movement for growth.

Our mission is to collect and share all human knowledge, and we are tiny when compared to the size of that task. Opportunities for future growth should always be at the forefront of our minds when making choices about governance, roles and resources. (proposed by Tgr)

Tgr has added the statement while I was preparing the page for upvoting. That's why it got this special number. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 03:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

21c: The Charter should reaffirm the editorial integrity and independence of the editor communities.

Editor communities are the experts on curating reliable, unbiased content. Affiliates run the technical, social and organizational platform that enables that curation work, but should eventually defer on questions of reliability and bias to the content experts. Content work must align with Wikimedia values, but the groups enforcing that have to be grounded in the editor community. (proposed by Tgr)

Tgr has added the statement while I was preparing the page for upvoting. That's why it got this special number. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 03:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Statements regarding the Global Council

22: The Movement Charter should establish a Global Council

The Global Council – a large body consisting of a diverse group of elected editors, should be the highest governing body in the Wikimedia Movement. The size is to be determined. Some say 40 to 60 seats. Others up to 100. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

23: The Movement Charter should specify the governance framework for the Wikimedia Movement

The Movement Charter should not only contain rights of volunteer editors, but also define governing bodies within the movement. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

24: The Global Council should be largely elected on the basis of regional elections where Wikimedians vote for members to represent their geographical area

This is one option for the potential composition of the Global Council, which can be expected to expose differences between candidates (proposed by The Land)

25: It is vital that the Global Council reflects the gender balance of the population, not the gender balance of Wikimedia volunteers

The view that the Global Council should be evenly balanced between men and women (with some method of also insuring inclusion of non-binary people) was expressed several times in previous rounds of global conversations (proposed by The Land)

26: The election of the Global Council should balance representation of the electorate as a whole, and representation of (small) communities and affiliates

Preferably the Global Council as a whole for all seats is elected by the volunteer editors from a single pool of candidates using Single Transferable Vote (STV) to guarantee representation. The number of seats determines the extent of diversity of the Global Council. To balance representation of the electorate as a whole with (small) communities and affiliates, most of which are underrepresented voice, preference can be given to candidates who gain a (relative) majority within their constituency. This is like the "direct mandate" of the German Bundestag. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

27: The Global Council should be a counter voice to the Wikimedia Foundation

Given the concentration of money and resources within the Wikimedia Foundation which does not have members, there should be a body, elected by volunteer editors, to balance that power. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

• I don't know about this. A "counter voice" doesn't seem like the correct description; I assume the GC will have a similar relationship to the WMF as to hubs/affiliates. Per the recommendations, the GC would be enforcing accountability in various areas, overseeing allocating funds to them, enforcing of certain good practices, ensuring Charter compliance, etc. (Along with its more general work, on strategy, etc.) That doesn't seem to fit the term. --Yair rand (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

28: The Global Council shall have the ability to manage assets

The Global Council will have a role in resource allocation, and dissemination of funds. Without the ability to manage assets, the Global Council will be powerless to execute this function. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

29: The Global Council should be a legal entity

The Movement Charter will be the Statutes or Articles of Incorporation of a legal entity (for example an association under Swiss law) with a name to be specified. With legal entity the Global Council will be able to manage assets – open a bank account, to receive and reallocate resources. With legal entity, the members of the Global Council will receive legal indemnity for the actions performed by the Global Council. Without legal entity status, individual members of the Global Council can be individually hold to account in a court of law for actions by the Global Council. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

30: The Movement Charter must provide guidelines on the "Structure of Global Council"

The GC must be structured in a way which showcases a balanced representation not only in terms of language, region, community or projects, but also in its focus and expertise. (proposed by Manavpreet Kaur)

31: The Foundation must seek advice and opinion from the Global Council about its major decision, including but not limited to the choice of its CEO

(Proposed by Alvonte)

32: The Foundation and the Global Council must have clearly defined roles

(Proposed by Alvonte)

33: The charter will be the founding document of a new governance structure, incl. descriptions of roles and responsibilities of (old and new) movement entities.

(proposed by Nicole Ebber (WMDE))

34: The Global Council should eventually become the governing body of a new international Wikimedia organization.

Duplicate of statement 29 (proposed by Nicole Ebber (WMDE))

35: The Drafting Committee should decide which governance model the group will work towards before discussing the content of the charter in detail.

(proposed by Nicole Ebber (WMDE))

36: The creation of Regional and Thematic Hubs must wait until the Global Council is there to approve them

(Proposed by Qgil-WMF)

@Qgil-WMF: Is this meaning "the actual instantiation" must wait, or the actual process of deciding what form they take (etc etc) must wait until there's a GC? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: The intention of this statement is about the official creation of specific hubs. Qgil-WMF (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Statements regarding revenue generation, distribution, and resources allocation

37: The WMF should allocate a massive budget to make our projects technologically better

(proposed by -Theklan (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC))

38: The communities should get real access to resources for support.

(proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

If you mean money then now is the time to say so. Past requests for support have been answered with self help guides. Be specific about what you want. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

39: The Movement Charter should spell out a fair way of allocating resources

Fairness is a value in itself. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

40: The Movement Charter should pave the way for a chapter with a small office in every country

Professional support for communities, for volunteer editors is needed. Accessible support requires local presence, and available in the local languages of the volunteer editors. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

41: The Movement Charter should specify the right for Chapter to raise funds using the Wikipedia and other marks, including banners on Wikipedia pages directed at people residing in their locality

Without funds, Chapters can do very little. Banners on Wikipedia are very effective in raising funds. As Chapters operate locally, they can direct their campaigns to a local audience, in their local languages. This also overcomes the problem for entities in countries that do not allow to receive funds from foreign entities. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

42: The Movement Charter should specify the right for Chapters to determine themselves how to spend the money they raised

Naturally Chapters will be required to donate part of the money they raised to the Global Council, so the Global Council can reallocate resources. Chapters should be free to spend the rest of the money in the way they see fit. Chapters will have to publish annual reports with audited financial statements, to provide for accountability and transparency. Chapters will be primarily accountable to their General Members Meetings. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

43: The Movement must provide adequate administrative support for affiliates small-in-size

Many small-sized affiliates have a hard time with financial reporting and legal compliance, and we have not done enough to support them. (Proposed by Alvonte)

44: The Charter should provide guidelines for creation and functioning of Affiliates, local Chapters

(proposed by Anupamdutta73 (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC))

45: The Movement Charter should recommend a percentage of Wikimedia Movement money to allocate to Wikimedia community organizations

proposed by Blue Rasberry (talk)

46: The Movement Charter should empower independent Wikimedia community evaluation and reporting of Wikimedia Movement finances

proposed by Blue Rasberry (talk)

47: The Movement Charter should send most Wikimedia Movement money into lower and middle income countries

proposed by Blue Rasberry (talk)

48: WMF should allocate funding for administration and operational expenses of Affiliates

WMF should be proactive in supporting affiliates for a period of time until they become sustainable (proposed by Filipinayzd)

49: The Movement Charter should confirm that the donations to the Wikimedia Movement belong to the Wikimedia volunteer community

Blue Rasberry (talk)

Statements on communities, how they work together and how they are accountable to each other

50: The Movement Charter should hold movement actors to account

No power without accountability and transparancy. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

51: The Charter should define the rights and limits of all the stakeholders clearly

There should be clear definition about the roles, responsibilities and limits of all, from unregistered visitor, volunteers (un/registered) to the top post. (proposed by Anupam Dutta)

52: The Movement charter should name some specific key roles and stakeholders so that they can be held accountable in need

(Proposed by Anass Sedrati)

53: The Movement Charter should focus on the relations between the different entities of the Wikiverse

The Movement Charter should avoid duplicating existing norms from projects, especially those applying only to some of them (e. g. encyclopedias). Instead it should focus on the so far mostly unregulated relations between the Wikimedia Foundation and the communities. (proposed by HHill)

54: The Movement Charter should identify formal Communication Channels and a Central Calendar

A formal communication channel & Calendar for announcements & updates on upcoming projects, initiatives, proposals, amendments, training(s), decisions, etc. must be addressed in the Charter to avoid overwhelming communications, duplication & overlapping activities.(proposed by Manavpreet Kaur)

55: The Movement shall give due attention to under-recognized communities

(Proposed by Alvonte)

Statements regarding the setting of expectations for participation and the rights of participants

56: The Movement Charter should empower volunteers

Empowering of volunteers should be enacted in the Movement Charter, and not be a dead word in the mission. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

57: The Movement Charter should specify the rights of the volunteer editors

The time has come to be explicit about the rights of the volunteer editors, to be clear about what it means to be empowered. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

58: The Movement Charter should specify the right to communication in all languages

Translation support is needed in all Wikimedia Movement languages for communication from and to all communities (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

59: The Movement Charter should specify the right to local support for localization of templates and gadgets

Templates and gadgets enhance productivity at the big projects. To become more diverse and inclusive it is necessary to support small wikis with help to localize templates and gadgets. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

60: The Wikimedia Movement should be a social movement for change and improvement of the lives of volunteer editors, and promote their mental health

The Wikimedia Foundation shamelessly exploits the unpaid labor of volunteers, with nothing in return. Many volunteers have become addicted to editing, to the detriment of their lives. The Wikimedia Movement should promote the mental health of all volunteer editors, support them in keeping or regainging direction and balance in their life, and stay or become mentally healthy. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

61: The Movement Charter should provide pathways for dealing with oppression

Not all volunteer editors live in free, open and democratic societies. Quite some volunteer editors have to deal with oppression, by government and other forces, on a daily basis. How to deal with this situation has to be specified in the Movement Charter. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

62: The Movement Charter should be inclusive for neurodivergent people

Upto one in seven volunteer editors self disclose to be neurodivergent, have autistic traits. Our movement should be inclusive to them, as it is one of the rare places in society where these people thrive. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

63: The Movement Charter should mention Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)

The Universal Code of Conduct can remain a separate document. The Movement Charter should mention it, and specify the obligation and responsibility of communities and affiliates to enforce the UCoC. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

64: The Movement shall make due effort protecting the well-being of its volunteers

(Proposed by Alvonte)

65: The Movement must provide support for the development of technologies we use by groups or individuals other than the Foundation

(Proposed by Alvonte)

66: The Charter shall not limit the way each affiliate is organized

(Proposed by Alvonte)

67: The Movement charter should clarify the boundaries between volunteering and employment, and protect volunteers from being overused in "non-volunteer" work

(Proposed by Anass Sedrati)

68: The Charter should include no claims to the effect that merely contributing to a Wikimedia project makes a person a member of, or supporter of, any 'movement'

(proposed by -AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

69: The Movement Charter should define who its constituents are

It should include the definition of community. (proposed by Filipinayzd)

70: There should be regulation in joining as well as holding a leadership role in affiliate organizations at a given time

The membership to several affiliate organizations as well as having several affiliate leadership roles at a given time should be limited. (proposed by Filipinayzd)

71: The Membership in the board must also be financially rewarded

Original (Slovak): Členstvo v rade má byť aj nejako finančné ohodnotené (by Dušan Kreheľ)

Is this a MC decision? Surely it's a pure WMF decision as its their literal trustees – I don't think it would be legal for us to determine the status? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Statements regarding the drafting process of the Movement Charter

72: The Movement Charter should be developed in an open, iterative, consultative, participatory and transparent process

Many fear a yes/no ratification in the end. The only way to overcome this fear is to ensure there will be multiple rounds of consulting the communities and affiliates, and ensure feedback has been processed, before ratification. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

73: The Committee may draft specific recommendations alongside of, but not within the Charter

(Proposed by Alvonte)

@Alvonte: Could you clarify this? Is this exclusive (in which case, what would you view as the proposed scope of the MCDC?) or inclusive (something else they can do as well)? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

74: The committee should have a draft ready for movement ratification within 6 months

(Proposed by Qgil-WMF)

75: Meta-Wiki should be the only official place for discussion and decision of the Movement Charter

(Proposed by Qgil-WMF)

76: Movement Charter drafting should be carried out publicly, with as little back-channel communication as possible

(proposed by – Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC))

77: The committee should seek feedback about the Charter also from affiliates' members, donors and readers

(Proposed by Qgil-WMF)

78: The Committee may seek reviews and advices from others, including experts outside of the movement

(Proposed by Alvonte)

79: Ensuring regional diversity in the drafting process is more important than ensuring participation from all projects beyond the Wikipedias

(Proposed by Qgil-WMF)

80: If the drafting and ratification process takes longer than expected, having a Global Council created within a year is more important than having a Charter fully ratified

(Proposed by Qgil-WMF)

81: The Charter may be drafted, proposed and ratified in parts, not necessarily all at once.

(Proposed by Alvonte)

82: The Drafting Committee should prioritise community engagement, drafting iterations, and translations, even if it requires more time to "do it right"

(Proposed by Nosebagbear)

83: The drafting committee should develop the Charter as part of an ongoing conversation with the movement

The committee members should be selected for their background, knowledge and skills, but should understand that the collective wisdom of the movement will always be much greater than the ideas of any individual. (proposed by – Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC))

84: The drafting committee should balance the interests of the large communities with the needs of the small groups

Especially historically excluded groups. Thus should include space in its deliberations to consult with academic experts on representative governance structures. (proposed by – Guettarda (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC))

85: The Drafting Committee should publish monthly reports about recent progress, failures and next steps to take

Should increase transparency and communication (proposed by – user:Der-Wir-Ing)

86: The Drafting Committee should work hard in an efficient way to get a good draft as soon as possible and only then propose the draft

Opposite of the following statement (proposed by – user:Der-Wir-Ing)

87: The Drafting Committee should make soon a rough draft, publish it, get feedback, improve and repeat the process

Almost a duplicate of statement 72 Opposite of the above statement (proposed by – user:Der-Wir-Ing)

88: As part of the drafting process, the Committee should consult with partner organizations from the free knowledge movement

Is it important to consult the opinions of stakeholders who are outside of the core Wikimedia Movement? (proposed by Tarkowski)

89: The drafting process should start with the important negotiations about who makes decisions and how they will be made in the future.

(proposed by Nicole Ebber (WMDE))+

90: The process should include strong, innovative methods of participatory policy development.

(proposed by Nicole Ebber (WMDE))

Statements regarding the ratification of the Movement Charter

91: The Movement Charter should be ratified by all constituents: volunteer editors, communities, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation

Volunteer editors, communities, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation will all be constituents of the Movement Charter. They should ratify the agreement in the end, before it takes effect. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven) Duplicate of statement 92. @Nosebagbear: and @Ad Huikeshoven: agree to merge both statements, and to merge the votes for these two statements.

92: The Movement Charter should ensure ratification has confirmation from all core groups, including: editors, projects, affiliates, Board of Trustees

(Proposed by Nosebagbear) Duplicate of statement 91. @Nosebagbear: and @Ad Huikeshoven: agree to merge both statements, and to merge the votes for these two statements.

93: Communities should be given the space to implement the Movement Charter in a manner suitable to their own local context

With the passage of the Movement Charter, communities should be given the space and leeway to implement the Movement Charter in a manner suitable to their own local context. This means that while communities must ultimately implement the Movement Charter, it may do so in a way that is grounded in local social and cultural realities. (proposed by Sky Harbor)

• This question's assumptions about the Charter are sufficiently far from mine that I don't know what it means. What would it mean for the communities to be implementing the Charter? --Yair rand (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • My impression of the Movement Charter is that there will be a process for implementing it movement-wide, similar to how we've implemented movement-wide policy changes in the past (e.g. the updated copyright policy back in the late 2000s). Any procedure for having communities ratify the Movement Charter, if this does happen, will need to take into account local context. Something this fundamental can't simply be imposed from the top down; we need communities to be as invested in the document as possible, and that means making sure they're invested in the process by grounding in-community discussions on the Movement Charter to what's appropriate to their local context, especially when we get to the point when we have a tangible document and we have to sell the merits to them. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Statements regarding the Movement Charter itself

94: The Movement Charter should be amendable

Our movement wil evolve over time. To reflect future changes, amendments to the charter should be possible. (proposed by Ad Huikeshoven)

95: The Charter should be a relatively short text focusing on values and principles, leaving the implementation details to policies created by the Global Council

(Proposed by Qgil-WMF)

96: The language of the Movement Charter should be simple

The language of the Charter must be such that it should be understood by any lay person. (proposed by Anupam Dutta)

97: The Movement Charter should be written in simple English with translations

Glossary can be included in the index. (proposed by Filipinayzd)

98: The Movement charter should be detailed and not be a high level document that will allow different interpretations of one thing and its opposite

(Proposed by Anass Sedrati)

99: The Charter shall be as concise as possibly

This might be obvious, as the charter is expected to function as a constitution, but should be laid out. (Proposed by Alvonte)

100: The Charter shall focus on high-level ideas, not implementations

(Proposed by Alvonte)

101: The Movement Charter as a "Resource Document"

The Movement Charter must be drafted in a way where it acts as a reference document for usual movement practices & best approaches. (proposed by Manavpreet Kaur)

102: The Movement Charter must be elaborate but not very specific making it easy to adopt

One of the challenges of working with a broad overview or generic information is its vulnerability to misinterpretation. While we should focus on providing elaborate but relevant information, we should make sure not to dive into specificities to avoid making it hard to adopt. (proposed by Manavpreet Kaur)

103: Special focus on language & translations of the Movement Charter

The language should be simple facilitating its translation & review by communities. There should be provision for translations review as well. (proposed by Manavpreet Kaur)

104: The Movement Charter must follow "Decentralization in focus & review"

The future of movement directions & its goals shouldn't be based on selective projects & language(s). The review & focus must follow diversity in projects, community priorities & statistics from different projects of impact. (proposed by Manavpreet Kaur)

105: The movement charter should have clear guidelines on scope, budget, timeline, success markers, risks & resources

The movement charter must address all these important sections for a well observed review of pace, growth & implementation.(proposed by Manavpreet Kaur)

106: The Movement Charter should have information on Oversight, OKRs, and Roles & Responsibilities

The details on scope of work, observing bodies and Roles & responsibilities of the parties involved should be provided. (proposed by Manavpreet Kaur)

OKR? --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 13:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Objectives and key results. Risker (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

107: The Movement Charter should have guidelines on meetings, reviews & approvals

The process of general body or Annual meetings, Process of appeals & their review along with the details on approval process & announcements must be provided. (proposed by Manavpreet Kaur)

108: The Movement Charter should be written in a gender neutral language

The Movement Charter should be written in a gender-neutral language, to (proposed by Ciell)