Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Follow-up events/Cluster D

Transition

Global events

Recommendations

Design

FAQ

---

• Ready, steady, go!
• Program
• Questions & Answers
• Discuss the priorities
• Reports
• Friendly Space Policy & Privacy Statement

This page contains raw minutes from the discussion of the initiative cluster D: Hubs, which took place on 30 January 2021. The minutes were cleaned up and merged from across different documents by the Strategy Support Team, and a summary of them can be found in the follow-up events report. The discussion followed a structured template (as shown below), which was also created by the Support Team.

Video summaries from the follow-up event discussions

Summary of room A (session 1): Regional Hubs

Summary of room B+C (session 1): Language Hubs + Thematic / Cross-Cutting Hubs

Summary of room A (session 2): Regional Hubs

Summary of room B (session 2): Language Hubs

Summary of room C (session 2): Thematic / Cross-Cutting Hubs

Lightning talks from the follow-up event

Minority language hub proposal: Wikimedia Norway

ESEAP hub proposal

WikiFranca hub proposal

Thematic hub proposal: Wikimedia Sweden

Key indicator and objectives (WHAT)

What are the objectives of this initiative for the next 18 months?

• Define what hubs are and how they are different from “non-hubs”
• Define hubs relationships with other structures in the Wikimedia movement
• Mapping of existing hub-like structures in the Wikimedia movement along with what they have done well and what challenges they had.
• Good coherence and coordination between groups
• Alignment on the objectives and purpose of the hubs

What will success look like in 18 months?

• Creating hubs for the 10 most talked languages in the world (or a similar number)
• Implementing a number of pilot hubs and evaluating the experiments
• Increased engagement: measured by the ratio of engaged participants to the total population of a region/language
• Engagement with movement peripheries (countries with little, dormant or active communities
• Documenting the knowledge learned: lessons, failures, best practices. It will help others start in the next round.
• To understand / map what the communities want to achieve - sharing resources, best practices and avoiding past mistakes
• Full cooperation from all the communities and affiliates that are part of a regional hub
• Structures, governance, funding, etc. will be different from hub to another - success will be different among the entities
• Continuous communication
• Safe-to-fail environment - the hubs would need to be able also to fail so we can truly experiment.
• Retain the goal of decentralization (for example, no single group should lead all GLAM activities).
• There is an active way to share the learning from hubs - support those who are interested already

What are some anticipated obstacles or barriers to a successful implementation?

• People and communities are reluctant to join the discussions because of the language barrier
  • Risk of giving more momentum to major languages and less to the marginalized ones.
• Competition between existing affiliates to “own” the hubs
  • Going too fast with setting up new structures could create friction with existing ones
  • Risk of manipulation or control of the hubs by smaller groups
• Political and cultural differences in the region
  • Should be discussed early on
  • Can impact transfer of funds
  • English is a relatively common language in the region and support is easy to find in the region
    • It wouldn’t be a hindrance, rather a learning experience - can bring more cooperation into the region
• For some regions working with a US-based entity is a barrier, hence the need for hubs
  • Wikimedia Foundation seems to be a barrier as they take the partnerships that they want and give affiliates the work that they don’t want
• Risk of centralization: any structure can centralize issues and not provide access for everyone.
  • We should not lost the decentralization goal of the hubs
  • Hubs should not only exist to make the movement more structured and have a new centralized entity for work. It rather needs to be a tool to connect the communities in their particular context.
• If a small affiliate gets a mandate for hosting a service for the movement, but they don’t have resources to make sure that the whole movement has access to that service.
• Who is the decision maker? Is it WMF? Will they decide unilateral for our language?
• Lack of purpose and intention – Hubs are only set up for the sake of setting up a hub
• Lack of funding and support
• A hub being too big to represent its target region properly (for example all of Africa as a single hub)
• Lack of accountability for the hubs if they do not act in-line of movement values

Implementation steps (HOW)

• Map out existing and successful regional groups
  • Hubs is no longer an idea - it is either happening experientially or informally
  • Conduct research on what existing “hub-like” entities that are already in the movement: what they do well and what are the challenges they are having (for example, political differences and ways to overcome them).
  • Support these existing structures to hold staff members and later figure out how to expand among the members of the cooperation, share resources.
• Identify the needs of the community
  • Define the affiliates interested in the different models and themes of the hubs.
  • Proactively reach out to marginalized communities that may need hubs.
  • Identify capacity needs for each community.
  • The purpose of a hub in NA might be very different from ESEAP based on needs and different capacities.
  • Ensure the needs are resolved at the lowest possible level, while defining  what functions need support on a “higher level”, i.e. hub level.
  • Hubs should be as flexible as possible and as contextualized as possible.
  • Establish rules to ensure equal representation and communication among larger/smaller affiliates.
• Define what affiliates can provide to the community, regarding their contexts, current capacities
  • Hubs must be clearly defined as something different from existing structures
  • Prioritise the topics and areas for thematic hubs - an indicator would be no of studies and level of acceptance of the end result in our movement
• Define the “hubs” model
• We will likely end up with different hub concepts and functions, e.g. a Capacity Building hub, which wouldn’t need to be affiliated, rather readily provide the needed support.
• There could be an association between existing affiliates (e.g. Europe) where the structures already exist and there isn’t need to duplicate structures or create bureaucracy.
• Consider different options for the affiliate status and process:
  • Some groups would like the hubs to have an affiliate status recognized by the AffComm and supported by the Foundation through a clear application process or step to set up a hub.
    • Some groups are in a waiting mode for a hub formation process.
  • Other groups would like hubs to be informal structures and more of an umbrella for affiliates and not create additional hierarchy.
    • Possible issues with trademark and funding without official status.
    • Hubs need to be loose, organic, community specific and connect existing groups rather than replace/interfere with them.
• Define relationship to other structures
  • Define how the hubs will be related to existing affiliates.
    • Hubs should be more of umbrella organizations and create connections between the affiliates.
  • Define how the hubs will coordinate with the Interim Global Council and the Global Council
    • The roles and responsibilities of hubs will be decided by the Movement Charter.
  • Define what would be the role of the Wikimedia Foundation in running the hubs.
• Decentralization: Balance out global themes (in thematic hubs) with working in context and avoiding unnecessary competition.
  • Hubs shouldn’t just exist to make the movement more structured and centralized around particular entities in “hub form”, but to be a tool for empowering the local communities depending on their local context.
  • All of these hub activities/minutes have to be properly documented for everyone to see back anytime.
• Determine a clear purpose and objectives for the hubs with an “added value”
  • To work towards the future (like Movement Strategy), rather than solely “improving” on what we have today.
  • To make it easier to coordinate between the affiliates and regions on a peer level. (for example, to bridge & geographical differences and to support knowledge sharing).
  • To include underrepresented communities.
  • To share the resources and best practices.
  • To connect with cultural institutions or governments.
• Set up functioning guidelines
  • Define the roles and responsibilities
  • Define a funding policy
    • The structure is important, especially for financial distribution, like an incorporated model (select a neutral location)
  • Define how would affiliates reach agreements
• Use the first 18 months as a pilot period.
  • Connect pilot experiments together to ensure the exchange of knowledge.
  • Pilots should emerge from existing collaborations and not be imposed.
• There is trust and confidence to let the hub concept emerge. We don’t have to get it perfect from the beginning.

People (WHO)

Who would like to take part  in this initiative’s working group?

• Active community members expressing their interest, and already starting this work
• Existing regional collaborations or affiliate networks
  • Wikimedia Indonesia is committed to take the ESEAP concept forward
  • There is interest in the CEE region as well
  • Informal groups in the US / North America with monthly calls and WikiCon North America -- these countries didn’t really fit the chapter model originally and people are interested to define and develop this.
• The Wikimedia Foundation for support
• Wikimedia Deutschland is interested in contributing to and investing in implementation
• There are a few things to consider for a functional hub. There are primary and secondary influencers.
  • Primary: Volunteers, activity, scope, engagement, capacity.
  • Secondary: Funding for activities, office space, meet up space,  tools, iterative evaluation practices and documentation.
• Close coordination with the Interim Global Council by liaising , so the implementation is resilient and the concepts are connected.
• Profile:
  • Leadership skills are needed, especially in the ESEAP region with so many different cultures and contexts
  • Knowledge and understanding of the different cultures in the region AND the whole Wikimedia movement
  • The presence of the Wikimedia Foundation is essential so the connection remains strong.
• Include people who are already working in a “semi-hub” model. We need to use the skills and expertise that is already around us.
  • There is a real danger in missing people who are not yet here. We need to accommodate and resource that so we are not overloading the same people all the time
• Groups within the open movement with aligned goals (Open Knowledge, Creative Commons, OSMap, FSF, Framasoft)
• Movement partners (Wiki Education, GLAM)

Who is/are interested in having additional responsibilities to coordinate this working group?

• Regional initiatives already in place.

Resources

• Funding 1-3 pilot hubs, possibly in the form of “seed funding”
• Support for capacity building and sharing knowledge
• Legal support for hub governance and ensuring equity
• Functioning staff - start with one at first, then expand per need
  • Can be a facilitator, based on needs of the group
  • Evaluation & Success Measurement experts
  • A constant facilitator to engage with communications with members (affiliates, communities). He/she can be the travelling salesperson to pitch the idea (like a regional charter, strategic direction, priorities)
• There is a need of at least 1 staff member to ensure that the regional work can move forward.
• Provide global / regional support for communities who are struggling with establishing GLAM or education connections or need to develop their capacities to do the work.

Sources

• Notes from room A (session 1): Regional Hubs.
• Notes from room B+C (session 1): Language Hubs + Thematic / Cross-Cutting Hubs.
• Notes from room A (session 2): Regional Hubs.
• Notes from room B (session 2): Language Hubs.
• Notes from room C (session 2): Thematic / Cross-Cutting Hubs.