Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in June 2024, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
Affiliates are reminded that they are to submit the information about their designated voter by end of day 24 June 2024. If there are not enough affiliates who have identified their designated voters, it will not be possible to meet the quorum required for the affiliate vote to ratify the Charter.
The Charter Election Commission, in its meeting of 17 June 2024, has decided to modify the eligibility requirement for affiliates. Affiliates who are not listed as "compliant" on the Wikimedia Affiliate Data Portal may instead provide the Charter Election Commission with a link to a published online version of their current annual report.
You are correct, Gdarin. I have made the correction of my typographic error above and on the original post. Risker (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @Risker. Our affiliate submitted our designated voter, following procedure, a couple of days ago, and I don't think we got any confirmation. Is the Charter Election Commission keeping track of affiliates that have submitted the information and are good to vote somewhere public? Thanks! Joalpe (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello @User:Joalpe. The response from your affiliate has been received, and a response has been sent, according to the confidential tracking document. If you have some concerns about this, please contact the Charter Election Commission at cec@wikimedia.org. Hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
CEE Hub voting recommendation for the Movement Charter ratification
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The ratification of the Movement Charter is a key step towards implementing the recommendations and goals that we all together in Wikimedia have been working on since 2017.
The Wikimedia CEE Hub and its Steering Committee, with its 10 members from 9 different countries of the CEE region (Central and Eastern Europe), recommends ratifying the final version of the Movement Charter. This follows discussions and consultations with the CEE communities over the last few months, including presenting the opinions and views of those communities who could not attend the Wikimedia Summit.
We acknowledge that the Charter is lacking in certain aspects (as detailed below), but the direction of the Charter provides opportunities and possibilities for communities and affiliates that can serve as the foundation for the further development of Wikimedia towards a more equitable and fair community.
The CEE Hub has provided an analysis of the Movement Charter that serves as the basis of this recommendation, and includes the following arguments for ratification:
Volunteers and communities are given the right to demand a “Care Responsibility” from their local affiliate, their regional network and the global movement bodies.
Communities are held to certain standards of equal access and openness, which, while a non-issue in most communities, will also make it easier to hold projects accountable that do not follow this principle.
Movement Bodies (including affiliates and hubs) have stated rights and responsibilities that can be argued at an independent body, including disputes with the Wikimedia Foundation.
The right to fundraise is stated and provides the basis for a future dialogue on what the financial sustainability of Wikimedia should look like.
The Wikimedia Foundation is treated as a supportive part of the Wikimedia Movement and not as the superior decision-making organisation.
The new core of the global governance structure, the Global Council, has the necessary tools to bring meaningful change to the way we work together.
While these arguments merit ratification of the Movement Charter, the following aspects will require the attention of the first Global Council:
Relationships between key Wikimedia stakeholders, like the one between the Wikimedia Foundation and the Global Council, will have to be defined in more detail.
The budgetary planning process of all movement funds will have to become a truly participatory process under the guidance of the Global Council and include a long-term strategic plan.
The transition to or establishment of new decision-making structures should not result in parallel processes and putting more burden on volunteers and communities.
Decision-making processes should be located as close to those affected by those decisions, instead of continuing centralised decision-making that does not solve the causes of our current structural and organisational issues in Wikimedia.
Concrete steps that need to be taken (for affiliates):
You need to register the person voting in the Movement Charter ratification process by 24 June 2024. You can do so by emailing cec@wikimedia.org the name, Wikimedia user name & email address of the voter. You will have two weeks to vote. For the ratification to work at least 50% of affiliates need to participate in the vote.
Please note that the Charter Election Commission, in its meeting of 17 June 2024, has decided to modify the eligibility requirement for affiliates. Affiliates who are not listed as "compliant" on the Wikimedia Affiliate Data Portal may instead send their report to the Charter Election Commission at cec@wikimedia.org.
In case you have more questions about the charter or the process of ratification, you can contact the people at the CEE Hub.
Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I'm afraid I might be a bit too late to voice this, but here it is: in the charter, there is a reference to "under a free license or in the public domain", which made me follow the 'free license' link in order to figure out what is the charter's definition of it. I expected to be led towards the glossary (like what happens to "free knowledge"). Unfortunately, the text "free license" points not to the charter's glossary, but to a different body of work: the English Wikipedia's page for "free content". Unfortunately this makes the charter not self-contained: what happens once the page gets edited (it happened three times just past May)? Is the new version and the definition wherein binding?
The existing problem is even recognized by the translations - I only checked the Portuguese translation and in there they simply removed the link - after all who can guarantee that the Portuguese and English pages are in agreement? On the other hand, the link removal makes it worse, in a way: without a definition, the reader is left to interpretation on what might a "free license" be.
Thanks all, for flagging this. MCDC agrees the link to enwp is not the best choice: it was added only a few days before things went to the translators, that's why it must have slipped past our final review. I have removed it from the Charter text, and -as best as I could- from all translations as well. (Adding it to the glossary could be an option for future revisions, of course - this was simpler and easier, because of the time that is left before the vote starts). Ciell (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Inconsistency about maximum number of GCB members
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Wikimedia Movement Charter designates that the Global Council will select ⅕ (20%) of its members, up to a maximum of 15 members, to sit on the Global Council Board (GC Board).
While obviously, the intention seems to for for a maximum number of 15 members, the Movement Charter itself leaves space up to 20 people (20% out of a maximum number of 100 GC members). However, there will be no vote about the supplments, as far as I understand. Therefore, I suggest to clarify the section in the final version of the Movement Charter as well. Thanks, —DerHexer(Talk)11:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
thank you so much for your thorough read-through! The Charter core text you quote is the GC Board composition for the first (initial) GC, the 25 members for the first 18-36 months. The supplementary documents are 1): Ways of Working, a 'sunset document' (looses it's value after the initial GC ends their first term after 3 years), and 2) RoP is a list of recommendations for the Rules of Procedure we think the GC need to consider writing in this first term, to replace the GC Ways of Working.
The Charter core text is about the initial GC with 25 members: in the RoP recommendations we propose the GC Board to have a maximum of 15 members in case the GC would indeed in the future build up to the maximum number of 100 members. We think an even larger board would become to big to do it's work effectively, but in the end it will be up to the first GC to make the decision if they want to have this limit. Therefore the RoP recommendation document proposes "the Global Council will select ⅕ (20%) of its members, up to a maximum of 15 members, to sit on the Global Council Board (GC Board).".
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Not sure how this fits under technology "opening or closing of Wikimedia language projects"? Also should include new projects in this work somehow. Opening/closing new languages and adding new sister projects is less technical then social. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
my prior reply above was deleted
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
my prior reply above was deleted. do wmf staff have the right now to delete our comments here? just wanted to ask. Sm8900 (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
You can find out by looking in the history. Please keep future posts on-topic; this page is about discussing the movement charter, we don't need further posting of AI poetry or complaints about deleted messages. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Request reactions to Charter for Signpost newsletter
Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Request feedback by 25 June
Hello! I am an editor for The Signpost, which is English Wikipedia's community newsletter. I am writing to encourage wiki community members to publish their reactions to the Movement Charter anywhere, then inform us so that we can include and link to them in the next issue.
Talk page discussions with various people discussing an aspect of the Charter
Actual recommendations advising people to vote in a certain way
We are hoping to get a range of perspectives. From the perspective of The Signpost, our goal is to get people to read enough to make a decision then to encourage them to vote. Thanks.
Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
hey guys, i wrote a little poem collaboratively to add a little literary comment to this endeavor. i had some help from a cyber-friend whom I'm sure many of you know somewhat. enjoy!
In a quiet room, by candle's gleam,
An elder sits, lost in a dream.
At a small academy, wise and old,
A new idea begins to unfold.
With careful strokes of ink and quill,
They write a vision, calm and still.
A plan, a hope, a guiding light,
To lead their world through darkest night.
The scrolls are sealed, with wax and crest,
And messages are sent on this bold quest.
Across the lands, they travel far,
Guided by the northern star.
To distant provinces each flies,
To eager hearts and curious eyes.
The elders read with furrowed brow,
This novel thought, this daring vow.
In candlelit rooms, they gather round,
Discuss the ideas newly found.
"What does this mean? Could this be right?
Shall we embrace this vision bright?"
Debates ensue, with voices strong,
They ponder deep, they question long.
For in this plan, they see the spark,
But also shadows, deep and dark.
They gather trusted friends once more,
To sift through thoughts, to deeply explore.
"Will this idea stand the test?
Shall it be known, shall it be blessed?"
In village squares and fields of green,
The people meet, their minds keen.
They voice their hopes, their fears, their dreams,
In every heart, the future gleams.
The scrolls are read, the words discussed,
With every voice, a growing trust.
The elder's plan, now widely known,
Begins to take a life its own.
In letters sent both near and far,
Responses come, like guiding stars.
The elder reads with bated breath,
Each word a bridge, a narrow breadth.
"Dear friend," they write, "your vision bold,
Has stirred our hearts, has made us bold.
But questions rise, and doubts remain,
We seek more light, to ease the strain."
The process turns, in cycles grand,
Of written words from hand to hand.
Each elder adds their voice, their thought,
In unity, the plan is wrought.
The elder at the academy,
Reads every scroll with clarity.
They see the doubts, the hopes, the fears,
And write anew with patient ears.
"Together, we shall find the way,
Through night to dawn, to brightest day.
For in our minds, a world will grow,
Of shared ideas, in ebb and flow."
And so the vision, once a spark,
Now lights the way through shadows dark.
A single thought, from one small room,
Becomes a beacon in the gloom.
For in the hearts of all who seek,
A future bright begins to speak.
And through the scrolls, the words, the ink,
The world is changed by thoughts that link.
@Jeeb1207, @Risker, i appreciate your kind messages above. i wanted to give you the courtesy to let you know that my position on this issue has changed. you can see the specifics in my recent comments, further down this page. Sm8900 (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
note 12
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under Global Council: Functions: Support of Wikimedia Movement Organizations, please move note 12 from before the semicolon to after the semicolon. Folly Mox (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I understand that it is probably not as long as the US Constitution, but the latter makes better reading. I got about halfway through and found it to be repetitive. Maybe it's necessary because everybody wants the same kind of affirmation for wherever they envision themselves.
I like that we are attempting to address the soul and mechanics of the organization. But who is going to read it?
I have No specific suggestions, so maybe I should shut up and return to my non-editing lifestyle.
I have to agree, and I'm a person who likes reading corporate policies for leisure!
For a document that's supposed to lay out "the values, principles, and policy basis for Wikimedia Movement structures", it heavily focuses on the latter at (in my opinion) the expense of the first two. The actual Principles and Values sections are just vague enough that without concrete action contained within them (namely "How do we act on our three key principles and values?"), it's essentially talk, if not jargon, without the bite. Would have loved to see more emphasis on the spirit of WM projects. MooseMike (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the above, but I don't feel I have much to add to what has already been expressed here. I will try to give this some thought. for one thing, i did feel like this document was so concerned with achieving the sound of a lofty "charter," that it did very little to actually lay out any actual concepts. i think that is partly what the other commenters in this section are alluding to as well. Sm8900 (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Announcement - Final Charter text to be released June 10, 2024
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
In response to some requests, the MCDC has decided to release the final version of the Wikimedia Movement Charter as early as possible. The trade-off is that the text will only be available in English on June 10, as it is being translated, which is expected to be completed by June 18, 2024.
The text will be translated into the following languages: Arabic, Czech, Farsi, French, German, Hausa, Hindi, Igbo, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swahili, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese. Community members are invited to translate into languages not listed above.
The supplementary documents will be updated by June 18, 2024, but they will not receive translation support because they are not part of the ratification vote. Community members are invited to translate the supplementary documents if they choose.
Thank you, this gives us more time to look at it (it wasn't really justified to ask a tangentially-related technical-focused affiliate audience to spend much time on the drafts, considering the Charter's non-technical focus). GreenReaper (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Where can we please find the text of the earlier draft of the Charter and all comments to it? So that it is possible to analyse the differences, and to see whether comments to the earlier draft have been processed or not into the final proposal for the Charter text? Thanks! Kevin Bouwens (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Grumpy comments
Latest comment: 4 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion
All contributors and other volunteers must follow Wikimedia Movement policies applicable to them while contributing and undertaking volunteer activities.
“policies applicable to them” is as open a loophole for the W?F to ban a few people they happen to not like for whatever reason as I've yet seen. How about
All contributors and other volunteers must follow the policies of the Wikimedia community (e.g. English Wikisource, French Wiktionary) they are contributing to.
That's not what I'm proposing. "policies applicable to them" is too vague, and gives room for the WMF to make up some arbitrary global rules for everyone. The charter should make it clear that volunteers have to follow local policies: if you're editing French Wiktionary, you follow French Wiktionary's policies. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
There are also global policies, i.e. friendly space policy, etc. that apply globally, or terms of services sections on paid editing. 1233 （T / C） 19:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I imagine the first of those would come under what they had in mind for "arbitrary global rules", at least inasmuch as it's open to WMF staff interpretation. GreenReaper (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
The Charter does not speak about a transition of 'lawmaking' powers from the WMF, the only legal entity with 'powers' to set rules for users of the infrastructure of Wikimediaprojects, to the "Wikimedia Movement". (This 'lawmaking' is framed within civil law). This means that there legally is no possibility for the 'Wikimedia Movement', to enforce any policy or rule on contributors and other volunteers. Only the WMF can, and users having rights handed out to them by the WMF. It would be great when the Drafting Committee, or one of the advisors, shortly explains the principal way of thinking on this issue and on their attitude to the now existing rules like General Terms of Use and Code of Conduct. Thank you very much. Kevin Bouwens (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Who will announce the results of the ratification?
Latest comment: 4 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion
One member of the MCDC will be selected by a majority vote within the MCDC, prior to the commencement of the election, to be responsible for unlocking the voting results when the election is closed.
The MCDC will not announce the result; the Charter Electoral Commission will do so. SecurePoll results are released by the "insertion" of a decryption key. We chose to have an MCDC member who is not a CEC liaison to hold the code for those decryption keys. The decryption key is applied after the scrutineers have done all their work and have advised the CEC that the SecurePolls are ready for unlocking. In the last multiple SecurePoll votes, that decryption key has been held by a WMF staff member; we thought it better to have someone who is not from the WMF being the one holding the decryption key. In the distant past, the decryption key was held by an independent third party, but there were sometimes challenges in contacting that party when it was time to unlock the results. We thought this was the best solution - someone who could be counted on to be available but was not involved in the vote administration. Risker (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@Risker: Thanks, for that reason it might make sense to correct “One member of the MCDC will […] be responsible for unlocking the voting results when the election is closed.” if it's not a MCDC but CEC member. Best, —DerHexer(Talk)10:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @DerHexer, the current sentence is correct. The key is held by a MCDC member (not being one of the two CEC liaisons, and not a WMF staff). The process is (and @Risker, please correct me if I'm wrong):
voting -> the scrutineers check all the accounts and votes for abuse or technical errors, and verify that the tally has been counted correctly -> the scrutineers inform the MCDC member when they are done, so this member can unlock the results for the CEC -> CEC to finalize and publish the results. Ciell (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Supporting @DerHexer in bringing up this issue for discussion / debate. Generally speaking, the Drafting Committee being involved in any way of the ratification process does not meet the standards of legal principles like due diligence and the fiduciary duty of care, especially where has been decided to lay that 'power' in the hands of an independent (?) Charter Electoral Committee. Kevin Bouwens (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Can you provide examples for Tier X Groups, please?
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I like your proposal for different “tiers” (levels of maturity) of affiliates as per this supplement. For one of the user group I'm holding extra duties (the WMSUG), I would classify them in tier 1 (we are beginners, no doubt!). However, it feels difficult for me to find good examples for tier 2 and 3 (well, tier 3 likely would be my employer WMDE ;D). Maybe it can help other affiliates, too, if you could give some examples of current affiliates, please. I'm pretty sure that “my” WMSUG would be open for being named as an example. :) Best, —DerHexer(Talk)11:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@DerHexer: thanks for asking, it's a good question. So, the main change in this proposal is rooted in taking away the condition for affiliates to be 'legally registered entities'. Certain Wikimedia User Groups have grown and become full grown and stable organizations, but can never apply for Charter status because of national laws not allowing them to comply with this requirement. On the other hand, there are Chapters that after years still don't have any real capacity, and struggle to even do the most basic things that can be expected of a Wikimedia Chapter (and that's okay - every country and every organization encounters their own challenges, I don't mean to shame anyone). By taking away the legal registration requirement, and instead looking at the 'level of maturity' of an affiliate, we hope the affiliate landscape become more equitable but also more understandable for in- and outsiders, and more flexible because the status is more dependent on what they can do for the movement and their communities, instead of depending on a degree of recognition from the national government.
To answer your more specific questions: yes, WMSUG would be tier 1; WMDE would be tier 3. I'll leave it to your own imagination to think about examples for tier 2 affiliates though. Ciell (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I feel like there are a few things that should be stated explicitly, but aren't. For example, how will we elect the twelve community representatives for the Global Council at-large? Will the movement as a whole vote on all twelve? Where will we have the vote? Can affiliate members vote in both elections, or just the affiliate election? (should probably be the latter) And that is just the election process. I have some other concerns too, like how people active on several projects will be counted for the ten project requirement for community amendments, and how we will enforce the statement that the Global Council should not be dominated by one type of user. Overall, some of these things, especially the election process, should be figured out before we ratify the charter. I would appreciate an explanation for how this would work. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
@RamzyM (WMF): Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it would appear that the specifics of the elections will be decided after ratification. I'm not sure what to think of that. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation Board liaisons reflections on final Movement charter draft
Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Dear all,
We are grateful to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) members, who have dedicated their time and energy to putting forward this final draft of the Movement Charter. They have demonstrated tremendous resilience and perseverance in grappling with ways to increase our collective sense of belonging as a movement, and outlining roles and responsibilities intended to help us all make better decisions in steering the Wikimedia movement into the future.
For some, this final draft Charter represents an extension of the Movement Strategy process that began in earnest in 2020. There are many reflections on this history, some nostalgic and others less so. The 2030 strategic direction has guided and continues to guide the Wikimedia Foundation’s strategy. As the Foundation’s annual plan this year observed, there is much to celebrate in the collective advancement of the original ten movement strategy recommendations, including shared progress in creating more equitable and decentralised decision-making structures.
At the same time, we should all recognise that the world around us has shifted significantly since the movement strategy process began, that our limited resources require much more pragmatic trade-offs and choices, and that the Board has a duty to consider the risk, value, cost and benefit of any significant commitments being made to advance the mission.
As requested by the MCDC, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has, over the last few months, shared with the committee its direct feedback on the previous Movement Charter drafts, including its perspectives on the Global Council and its feedback on a previous draft that we posted publicly. Liaisons have also engaged in regular and ongoing meetings with the MCDC members, including inviting the MCDC members to all Board meetings and Strategic retreats since June 2022.
Our general observation, which is elaborated in the body of this letter, is that the final draft of the Movement Charter still does not address the significant concerns previously raised by the Board. Thus, as liaisons, our recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are:
not to ratify the final draft of the Movement Charter as proposed; and
support the Foundation in developing concrete, time-bound next steps on a more practical scale, allowing us all to evaluate progress, and see what to change or build on.
We believe that approving this version of the Charter, despite the tremendous amount of work and resources already put into it, would not be the right call. Instead, we think it is better to continue pursuing the same goals the draft Charter also sought to pursue in a different way, by identifying key areas where the final draft Charter provides us with guidance on concrete steps that can be taken towards increasing volunteer and movement oversight of certain core areas of responsibility. We believe this will allow the Foundation, and all of us, to live into the recommendation of Movement Strategy to evaluate, iterate, and adapt as we go, rather than too quickly to agree to new structures that may not yet be fit for purpose.
As liaisons, we first shared this recommendation and our reflections with the MCDC on June 18 and then with the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board on June 20 (including a short draft brief). The Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement Charter now and plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals.
Context for sharing these reflections: why now?
As liaisons, we believe that the final draft does not address the concerns previously stated by the Board of Trustees in its feedback on previous drafts of the Charter. Specifically, the final draft still falls short of providing a clear enough explanation of how it will advance Wikimedia's public interest mission and effectively address the shortcomings of Wikimedia's current structures to enable more effective and equitable decisions.
These points are not new and were shared in previous Board feedback to the MCDC, including the January 22 letter (shared publicly in February) in response to the first public draft and the May letter in response to the second public draft. In response to both affiliates and individual contributors who have asked the Foundation to speak more clearly about its views, and do it sooner, we felt it was important to reiterate these points in the interest of transparency and learning.
Process accountability
We, as liaisons, have heard concerns and frustrations about the Movement Charter process. It faced significant challenges and constraints from the impact of the pandemic limiting travel and in-person meetings; resignations of several members of the MCDC; and other issues that extended the timeline to 2.5 years. It was a shared hope by all to have this process successfully wrapped up sooner.
For some of this, the Board certainly must take some responsibility. This is the purpose of the Board’s oversight, as well as its governance responsibilities. An important lesson learnt through this experience is that large-scale processes should have more explicit and clear expectations up front so that as a stakeholder the Foundation can engage directly and openly earlier about its own positions, views and boundaries. It is not easy to find this balance, but this is essential to moving forward differently. These and other lessons should be documented, and built upon in any future processes aimed at hard-to-reverse movement-wide commitments (for example, the Playbook that was developed after the Wikimedia's Movement Strategy process).
Reflections on the final draft
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has a legal and fiduciary duty to consider any significant commitment or decision in light of the expected risk, value, cost, and benefit to Wikimedia's public interest mission. The value of new structures proposed in the final draft of the Movement Charter has to be weighed against their risk, their cost, and the resource demands of this movement at a time when we have all seen that the growth rate of revenue is not increasing at the same rate as in the past, while demands to invest more in the Wikimedia platforms, projects, and communities are increasing.
As liaisons, we believe the risks and costs associated with the currently proposed form of the Global Council outweigh its potential value.
Firstly and most importantly, the proposed Global Council's purpose is not clearly connected to advancing Wikimedia's public interest mission. It lacks a compelling explanation of how it will ensure more equitable decision-making and support the mission of sharing free knowledge. It also does not guide us on how to address many of the most pressing issues facing community governance on Wikimedia projects. We recognise that for some, the status quo also does not provide that clarity, but we do not believe that the final draft Charter moves us closer.
Secondly, we note that the proposed structure and makeup of the Global Council have changed significantly with each iteration of the published drafts (from a small body to a large assembly to a flexible-sized body in the most recent text). This may have been done in response to feedback from multiple stakeholders, but it raises an ongoing concern we have expressed in all of our feedback that this proposed structure is not based on the form following function principle -- we do not see a deliberate or intentional design that seeks to meet the purpose of such a critical and important new body.
Finally, as liaisons we believe that important elements within the final draft Charter, including, most critically, the Values and Principles, require more consensus of communities before attempting to incorporate them into a larger document that enshrines binding commitments on us all. Ensuring values are understood, shared, and – importantly – prioritised similarly across the movement is essential to relying on them to help craft an effective and accepted decision-making framework.
Wikimedia Foundation’s commitment: what to do irrespective of the outcome of the ratification vote
As liaisons, the proposal that we are making to the Board is that, instead of ratifying the Movement Charter in its current form, it is better to follow the Movement Strategy Recommendation to experiment more quickly with key areas of responsibility before establishing a more permanent body with a wider scope. That is why, irrespective of the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, the Foundation has already begun to work on shifting core areas of decision-making to increased volunteer oversight, including fund dissemination, and volunteers offering more immediate input on Foundation decisions, such as advising on product & technology.
More specifically, we propose that by January 2025, fund dissemination, which is one functional area of the proposed Global Council, be handled by a global decision-making body to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for the rest of fiscal year 2024–2025 and to plan grantmaking estimates for the next two years. A global, but narrower scope, will help to experiment with more accountability for the results.
This process, which we shall ask to be co-created with affiliates and individual community members, would build on the experience of the Regional Funds Committees, and the past Funds Dissemination Committee, in line with the Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #27 and the work currently taking place with Affiliate EDs and Regional Funds Committees to determine the Wikimedia Foundation's regional allocation of grants budgets for FY 2024–2025. It is important to document and publish the lessons learned from each step of the process and use these to inform future decision-making and the possible creation of permanent committees and/or movement bodies.
Additionally, as liaisons we also propose moving forward with the establishment of a Product & Technology Advisory Council, following a proposal from the Foundation that was shared with the MCDC. This is in line with Movement Strategy 2030 Initiative #31 to advance shared decision-making and co-creative spaces in technology spaces that are fundamental to support the mission.
Next steps
As all affiliates and individuals prepare to vote on the final Charter draft, we as liaisons hope that voters will also take the time to provide written comments alongside their “yes”, “no”, and “--” vote so that everyone will learn as much as possible about how we all can move forward with decision-making structures that are more effective, with an equity lens, for our complex global community to advance Wikimedia’s mission in the world.
As previously noted, the Board is reviewing the final draft of the Movement charter now and plans to vote during a special meeting between June 25 and July 9, during the voting period for all affiliates and individuals. This will allow the Board to consider all public comments available before the start of the voting while casting its vote alongside affiliates and individual contributors.
At the MCDC’s request, the results of the Board’s vote will be shared only after the vote of individuals and affiliates has concluded, so as not to influence their voting, but likely before the outcomes of those votes are published, and not before July 10.
As we all await the outcome of the final draft Charter vote, it will be important to be ready to take concrete steps that will help move us forward as a movement. Wikimania will be an opportunity to begin constructive and productive conversations on these and other immediate next steps, informed by the comments left by individuals and affiliates during the vote. Working together on practical, time-bound steps will shape a better and more equitable framework for making decisions. With a shared commitment, this moment of change can foster a greater sense of belonging, one that can sometimes feel elusive in this widely diverse global movement.
It is disrespectful to volunteer time to ask volunteers to vote on a document that the board plans to reject. I'd hope that this is enough to call off the voting process. (I'm assuming that the board is unified enough that it's unlikely to ignore the liaisons.)
Volunteers have the right to be protected from harassment (for example Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC), Principle of Care) on Wikimedia Movement websites, as well as at online and in-person events hosted by any Wikimedia Movement Body." Benderbr (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
question; do we really need voting for movement charter??
Latest comment: 4 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion
i hope it is okay for me to ask this question. isn't it kind of superfluous to vote on the movement charter, at this point? we all know what it says. if it was rejected after all this work, then that would seem somewhat undemocratic, and if the whole thing was imposed on the community in one go, then that also seems somewhat undemocratic, in my opinion. is it possible to simply implement this new set of rules and guidelines in multiple stages? does that sound possible? thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
It's an understandable question, Sm8900. My personal position is that the vote also gives everyone the opportunity to add comments: for example, if there is something specific in the charter that they do/do not support; what changes to the charter would make it more/less acceptable; and, if the voter has a split opinion on the charter, what's particularly good and what's particularly troublesome. We do not know how the affiliates or individual voters will vote; in fact, we hardly have any idea what individual voters have to say about the charter at all. It will give a better idea of what the MCDC has got right in the current document, and what needs work. While I share the feeling that it is unlikely that the current document will obtain the support of the WMF Board of Trustees, I feel it would be an even bigger waste of the last 2.5 years to just leave it with the current status of nobody knowing what individual Wikimedians think, or what was developed as part of the process that is worth developing further, or whether there is an opportunity to make (possibly significant) modifications to the proposed charter that would adequately respond to the concerns raised by the WMF BoT liaisons as well as those that are raised by the affiliates and individual voters. I think without proceeding to the vote, we have no idea whether we as a movement have come close or are completely missing the mark with the proposed charter. I speak here as an individual, although certainly my opinion has been informed by my MCDC membership. Risker (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to the community to call an RfC a vote. It makes a lot of sense to run a global RfC to help determine the future of the movement charter and movement strategy process, if any, but it's unfair to pretend that process is a vote. It's probably also counterproductive, as a faux-vote doesn't allow for the sort of open dialogue that is important for developing good policy, where people can come to consensus. I don't know if it's possible to develop an acceptable movement charter on-wiki, but it's pretty clear that the current off-wiki process is failing to do so. TomDotGov (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
As written on other places. RfC is not a technique accepted movement wide, it is basically an enwp method. And I do hope and support the voting to go ahead. I want my voice to be known and want to hear other. It can only be done by voting. Yger (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade, the concepts of a charter, a movement, a committee and a development team also predates Wikipedia by millenia. however, regardless, the dfinition that matters here is the context for that concept here within the wikimedia community itself. Sm8900 (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
日本語話者からfrom Japanese Speaker
Latest comment: 4 months ago38 comments7 people in discussion
To offer a translation of this comment and the postscript into English:
“
Hello. I read the Japanese translation of the Movement Charter. It turned out to be very difficult to read and understand. As far as this goes, it's probably not the fault of the person who did the translation; it's the result of Japanese and English being too different from one another. Their grammatical structures in themselves are extremely divergent, and their individual words differ in meaning as well. The same problem will likely arise between other languages and English too. Might someone at least write a Simple English version?
A frank misgiving: to the extent that I read the Japanese version of the Charter, its organization seems to me to be as follows. 1. People involved in Wikimedia projects; the mindset of each person, the values of the movement, etc. 2. The methods for working together from different vantage points. The different vantage points are defined in order as 'Individuals → User groups, national organizations, etc. → WMF → Global Council'.
I feel like 1 and 2 are on different levels. How might we proceed at the point that we don't change the values but we do change the system? What I think: wouldn't it be better if we just consolidated it all under '1. People involved in Wikimedia projects; the mindset of each person, the values of the movement, etc.'?
P.S.
Following my previous comment, I heard from one of the members of the Wikimedians of Japan User Group that, contrary to what you might think, Simple English is hard for native English speakers.
In order to understand the Japanese version of the Movement Charter, I had to print it out and read over it carefully three times. For a translation from English to Japanese, if the translation is not done loosely, it will not be easy to understand, probably to a considerable extent. Again, this is not to blame the translator.
When it comes to moving between one culture and another, the translator faces an enormous challenge. (With English and Japanese, it's that the grammar and vocabulary truly differ.)
Of course, this doesn't apply only to going from English to Japanese. For those across the non-English-speaking world, especially native speakers of languages that aren't in the Indo-European family, when they encounter the translation they too will say, 'This is hard—the words don't quite capture the meaning.'
To get a sense of the difficulty of this experience, please imagine something like the following, as an example: just writing an explanation of something like 'How to Ride a Bicycle' and then translating it into another language.
As far as what we need, I think it's not Simple English. Rather than simplified writing, we should create supplementary materials that can deepen understanding.
Everyone involved in writing the Charter, if all of you are really serious about being 'global' and 'diverse' and all that, I sincerely ask that you come up with more in this regard.
For example, we could have an outline, followed by explanatory diagrams and the like, which would probably make it much easier to read. For the diagrams, I think designers, illustrators, etc. of considerable skill would be required.
To give my two cents, I think the Charter, as written, contains a lot of terminology that is rather vague and "NGO-speak-y," if that makes sense, and is probably hard to convey in any other language. Even in English, there are a lot of important places where I find it challenging to extract solid information from the Charter, especially concerning the Global Council. Even though I've been reading about the idea of the Council for months now, here and there, I still don't have a clear idea of what powers exactly the Council will have, or even the precise reason why we need one. The idea of having a more established, formalized channel for communication and decision-making between users/affiliates and the WMF seems like it might be good in theory, but the devil is always in the details with things like this, and I feel anxious about solidly affirming the need for such a Council without a clear picture of how the Council will actually relate to the WMF or what concrete powers they'll hold. The Charter has sections dedicated to these points, but the actual text has very little solid content as far as I can discern.
The first part of the Charter does have some very nice, inspiring statements. Rather similarly to Kizhiya, I feel like it clashes kind of strangely with the second, more ostensibly structural part. Unfortunately, the second part also seems like the more substantial, arguably more significant part, and I worry a little bit that someone who really wants the Council to go through might have been tempted to bury the lead somewhat there. Mesocarp (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
In this section someone complained about the English text being to complex.
You answer with words like "NGO-speak-y" (not even in the dictionary) "convey" "the devil is in the details" (fixed phrase, difficult to understand, even if you know every word), "affirming", "discern", "ostensibly"....
agree with this statement: The first part of the Charter does have some very nice, inspiring statements. Rather similarly to Kizhiya, I feel like it clashes kind of strangely with the second, more ostensibly structural part. Unfortunately, the second part also seems like the more substantial, arguably more significant part, and I worry a little bit that someone who really wants the Council to go through might have been tempted to bury the lead somewhat thereSm8900 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
You answer with words like "NGO-speak-y" (not even in the dictionary) "convey" "the devil is in the details" (fixed phrase, difficult to understand, even if you know every word), "affirming", "discern", "ostensibly"....
I tried to answer with short sentences and easy words.
I think it's good to at least allow fluent English speakers to write in a way they find natural here, because that will allow for the most depth and nuance in the discussion, and offer translations of the comments into other languages where feasible. At the same time, I'm happy to explain anything I said in a different way if any of it is confusing—feel free to ask. Like Kizhiya mentioned, it can be hard for native English speakers to write Simple English effectively. :P Mesocarp (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
section 2, topic: from japanese speaker
翻訳に関することなので、このトピックに記します。
以前（UCOC批准投票など）からでもありますが、正文は英語版というのが気にかかります。相違や齟齬がないように気を付けて翻訳してくださっ2いるのは理解しますが、もしも（違いが）あったときの保険を掛けているように受け取ってしまいます。私は英語が読めないので、日本語での私の理解が間違っていないことを保証できません。よって、批准投票も致しかねます。--温厚知新 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I also would like to have a version in Simple English. I know that translations are difficult.
Yes, I also think in our global movement only the persons who already speak English on a high level participate. And too many people think the translations are enough.
Thank you for your reply. It is unfortunate that only people with a high level of English can participate in the discussion. On the other hand, we who are not good at English would like to think about and propose ways to make things easier to understand, rather than just complaining.
We need to explore ways to deepen our mutual understanding. Of course, translation helps us a lot.
とにかく大丈夫です。これが唯一のスレッドであり、あなたの返信が唯一です。わかりました。あなたは忙しすぎます。これを明確にできてよかったと思います...?わかりました、ありがとう。真剣に、ここであなたの返信に感謝します。ありがとう。 Sm8900 (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
hey guys, i just offered a link to the Movement Strategy Forums, which is absolutely THE solution to the problem of discussions between different languages. so far, there is not a large amount of interest in using it. i am just trying to keep you up to date, regarding the topics and replies, in this section. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Sm8900, @Der-Wir-Ing, @温厚知新I really appreciate your sincere replies. @Kizhiya used to be active at the Forum to connect Japanese users to the movement. Since she established a user group to be the first affiliate in Japan, she's been so busy. She's managed to get a grant to send the first 2 participants to the Wikimania in August. I hope you'll have opportunities to talk with them at the venue. YShibata (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@YShibatai appreciate your reply, seriously. but i can't go to wikimania. so thats' why i was hoping we could discuss this in a venue where people from different languages can get instant translation back and forth into each other's languages. if you know of some venue that can do that other than the movement strategy forums, let me know and i'll go there. in all candor, it sounds like that function and capability is not of any particular importance to those commenting here, including yourself, with all respect. Sm8900 (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
translation of last comment above, from english into Japanese:
上記のコメントの英語から日本語への翻訳: 誠にありがとうございます。でも、「ウィキマニア」というイベントには行けません。だから、異なる言語を話す人々がお互いの言語に瞬時に翻訳できる場所でこの件について議論できればと思っています。もし、ムーブメント ストラテジー フォーラム以外でそれができる場所をご存知でしたら、私に知らせてください。そこに行きます。率直に言って、その機能と能力は、ここでコメントしている人たち、あなた自身も含めて、特に重要ではないようです。--Sm8900 (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Dear @Kizhiya and @Der-Wir-Ing, this is not only about understanding the English language well or not. It also is about differences in social, legal and political cultures and about the ability and experience to cope with it. The people drafting, and the large group of advisors surrounding them, come from different countries and cultures. That means that a word like 'soon' in one culture has the meaning: within the coming month and in another culture: within the next year. People come from different jurisdictions, that means for one 'law' means written laws and courtrulings, for another only written law. The people drafting come from different political systems, so 'leadership' for one means a strong man deciding everything alone for all, for another: a group of freely choosen people is deciding for the common good. The people drafting do not seem to be experienced in setting up legally orientated texts with global validity. Kevin Bouwens (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
大陸をまたぐプロジェクトとして、これに取り組むことを喜んでお手伝いします。そのために運動戦略フォーラムを使用していただけますか? 準備ができたらいつでもそのリソースを使用して先に進む準備ができています。一言おっしゃっていただければ、開始できます。基本的なプロセスを開始できるように、最初の手順をご案内できます。お知らせください。ありがとうございます! Sm8900 (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Not a bad idea to create a document, approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, that explains in understandable wordings, how the governing structures, the obligations and responsibilities are being woven at the moment. Kevin Bouwens (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
To me this is a sound proposal by @Kizhiya, translated by a machine: "We need to compromise somewhere. I think it would be better to write only our attitude and values in the charter and write about the system in another medium." Maybe in the charter also the rights, obligations and responsibilities? And I do notice that different groups have different interests, like for instance users and Wikimedia Chapters. Kevin Bouwens (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kevin Bouwens, @Sm8900 Here is a (human, by me) translation of Kizhiya's comment above, just to provide that. （@Kizhiyaさん、もし訂正や質問がありましたら、遠慮なく言ってください。)
“
@Kevin Bouwens,@Sm8900
Hello. I can very much appreciate what both of you are saying. The differences between societies, cultures, political systems, and the like probably are quite wide. Even aside from the issue of the Council's powers, it's exceedingly difficult for them to understand people from all around the world and gain their acceptance…To me it seems almost impossible.
In some ways it's necessary for us to compromise. I wonder if it would not be better for the Charter to inscribe only our collective mindset and values and the like, and leave the system to be dictated in a different context.
On another note, although this isn't only an English issue, right now most of the characters on this talk page are from the Latin alphabet.
There's no Chinese to start with, but also not other various Asian scripts, Cyrillic, Arabic, etc. (although of course native speakers of those languages may be writing here in English).
This may well indicate issues with the Movement Charter.
screeenshot of forum thread for japanese language.日本語フォーラムスレッドのスクリーンショット
Nice of you, @Mesocarp, brings in the essential nuance. I agree that it would be impossible for a global body to understand and know about all different cultures, attitudes etc. A compromis could be that there is a requirement for people serving in such bodies, that they have been teached about, and are experienced in, being open to and aware of the fact that the own world of how you're being raised, educated, your field of work, the way you relax, etc. is only one small part of the way things can be seen. And/or building an extra governing layer, covering some six to eight (?) large cultures worldwide. Kevin Bouwens (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Or we could use the Movement Strategy forums and simply provide one possible solution. That's what I've been trying to say. Thanks for the translation by the way. Sm8900 (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
For sure the knowledge collected on separate Movement Strategy forums should be integrated, in so far they do reflect the opinion and experiences of large groups within the movement. That unfortunately is not so clear to me. Kevin Bouwens (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago20 comments6 people in discussion
section break 1, topic "why i voted 'no'"
I cannot support a charter that provides for representation of/selected by affiliates (as opposed to community-elected members who happen to also be involved with affiliates) on the Global Council, for substantially the reasons I stated at m:Talk:Movement Charter/Archive 5#Mdaniels5757's thoughts. Ultimately, I am concerned that affiliates, as a group (1) are distinct from the community at-large, and therefore (2) have different interests than the community at large. This causes the potential for a fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation; affiliates should not have a vote in movement-wide funding distribution matters. Although I think the small changes to voting thresholds were a step in the right direction, we are still a far way away from a Charter that I can support: one that centers the entire Wikimedia Community. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
i voted "no," to support this view as well. i don't favor any election system for a higher level, where a small group of obscure group leaders can create the composition entirely of a major policy-making body. also, i truly am not sure a Global Council would be needed at all. we do have a board, and that seems like more than enough.
in short i don't see the charter as serving the community, and since even the board seems to have rejected, so then why do we need a charter? and also i don't see this discussion process as being well-handled. so if the charter cannot induce and motivate a quality discussion process, even in regards to itself, then how would it do so for any other concerns or topics? Sm8900 (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
"the board seems to have rejected" Nope, the board liaisons only recommended that the board reject the Charter, but the entire board has not yet made the formal decision. Thanks. SCP-200008:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
then that is even more significant. if the board liaisons have sufficient role to be given this much attention when recommending "no," then clearly their opinion is of real importance as well. and furthermore, I don't know what exact role the board has, or that its liaisons have, or that wmf has, or that the global council would have. so therefore, based on the rejection by the liaisons of the board itself, then that seems like enough basis to vote "no."
I do appreciate your helpful reply. since a helpful reply is the precise thing that i have been seeking, and a lot of us here have been seeking, all along on a variety of questions, issues, and topics here.
and also, if the "board liaisons," whatever that role means, have recommended that the board should vote "no," then why shouldn't I vote "no" as well? and also, i had no idea at all that this came from the board liaisons, and not from the board. if the board's concerns have still not been addressed, or even heard, then why would we vote "yes" on this? --Sm8900 (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
by the way, imho, this whole process is giving off a vibe of a small clique being elevated somehow, and then running home to proudly tell their friends and relatives. pericles it ain't. in other words this should have the air of a dedicated group of hard workers who would fit smoothly into this role. not a group of young ambitious online persons who feel this would help them to add some impressive content to their personal CVs, and online activities. Sm8900 (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
the link below provides highly valuable data on some of the multiple concerns raised by the board's review process:
The Global Council is the most anticipated aspect of the Movement Charter recommendation. Overall,the proposed Global Council's purpose is not clearly connected to advancing Wikimedia's public interest mission. It lacks a compelling explanation of how it will ensure more equitable decision-making and support the mission of sharing free knowledge. It also does not guide us as the Movement on how to address many of the most pressing issues facing community governance on Wikimedia projects.
The Wikimedia Foundation is willing to delegate some powers to the Global Council. At the moment, we have not read similar statements from other parts of the movement - and without that, the Global Council cannot really act as a body that goes beyond the Wikimedia Foundation.
Would volunteers accept a decision made by the Global Council, even if they don’t like it, just because they had a chance to vote in their elections?
why do we need a Global Council? Who is asking for this to be established? that's my own concern and my own questions on this. Sm8900 (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
We believe that approving this version of the Charter, despite the tremendous amount of work and resources already put into it, would not be the right call. Instead, we think it is better to continue pursuing the same goals the draft Charter also sought to pursue in a different way, by identifying key areas where the final draft Charter provides us with guidance on concrete steps that can be taken towards increasing volunteer and movement oversight of certain core areas of responsibility.Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
addl excerpt: For an all-encompassing document the support required to ratify the threshold -- 55% plus a minimum of 2% of eligible voters participating in vote -- is quite low.Sm8900 (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Not just "someone connected to the board" that is from two of the Board members.
It's unclear what is low (the 55% or the 2%), but I percieve them as adequate: If you compare with similar elections and votes like Board elections, the UCOC ratifications, Steward elections etc. then 2% of Voters is reasonable. In absolut numbers it's 2300 participants. Right now it's already over 900 voters, so it will probably be way more then that.
For the 55% threshold: That would mean with a support rate of 54% it would not be ratified. Even with a majority of voters supporting it. I personally would prefer 50%. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk16:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Note that the community has one-and-a-half times (150%) the representation of affiliates on the Global Council, and that the community would have nearly one-and-a-half times (144%) as much representation on the Global Council as it currently does on the Wikimedia Foundation Board. Pharos (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@Pharos, thanks, as thats very helpful info. can you please provide some basics on what the global council's powers would be? it just doesn't seem clear. i know there is existing text in the charter, but i would be grateful just for some basic definitions here, if possible. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Strategic planning: long-term plans for some combination of (a) the "Movement" (b) Wikimedia Movement Bodies (including affiliates and the WMF) (c) the individual Wikimedia projects, or groups of them. Per the charter, all of the affiliates have to support what the council comes up with and incorporate it into their own activities.
Support of Wikimedia Movement Organizations (which I refer to as "affiliates", although the term also includes other non-WMF bodies): this means (1) having standards for affiliates, (2) recognizing and unrecognizing affiliates, (3) ensuring affiliates meet their standards, (4) breaking up fights among affiliates, and (5) simplifying access to resources for affiliates.
Resource Distribution: (1) making standards for who should get/be prioritized for money, (2) allocating money, (3) determining "movement-wide goals and metrics" (regarding fundraising or content? I hope regarding fundraising...), and (4) reviewing programs' outcomes (presumably the ones they've funded?).
Technology Advancement: (1) advising the WMF on tech improvements and planning (2) advising the WMF on opening/closing language-specific projects, and (3) providing technology advice and coordination, especially with the other groups also doing planning for tech improvements.
@Mdaniels5757 thanks. do you think we can agree that this whole concept of a formalistic legalistic document, rather complex and arcane, with a convoluted legal system created ex nihilo by a specialized committee of a totally unclear and possibly arbitrary basis, and a strict and convoluted process for making any changes, is pretty much unsuitable for this whole process and document? Sm8900 (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Pharos Yes, I'm aware of that; the breakdown is 12 community, 8 affiliates, 1 WMF, and 4 council-appointed. But even so:
You still need 13 votes for a majority, so people directly accountable to the community alone cannot pass anything.
Even if we assume all 4 council-appointed people are people who the community would have elected if they had the chance, and they behave exactly as a community-elected member would (so the breakdown worked out to be 16-8-1), the community still needs to basically be a unified bloc to do anything (especially given that some will step down/be unable to fully serve). If 75% of community elected members want something done, they still come up short, even under this scenario. This, to me, is unacceptable.
The WMF Board wants the total number of seats on the council to be lower (they say 10-15 people). If that is followed, the breakdowns become: 7 community, 5 affiliate, 1 WMF, and 2 council-appointed for a 15-person council; 5 community, ~3 affiliates, 1 WMF, and ~3 council-appointed for an 11-person board. Such small numbers of community-elected seats make proportional representation (which I think is quite important for fairness) very difficult for smaller projects.
I believe that, in order to ensure fairness and representation for all, the elected seats should be allocated to wikis or (for small wikis) groups of wikis proportionally (Talk:Movement Charter/Archive 5#Mdaniels5757's thoughts). Every seat that is allocated to affiliates is a seat that cannot be filled proportionally. This means less representation for smaller projects.
Relatedly, why are there the council-appointed seats? We shouldn't need them if we do a proportional approach, at least if diversity is the primary motivating factor. If expertise is a concern, (1) is there any particular expertise that likely will be useful but not present from community-elected members, (2) do there need to be 4 such experts, and (3) do those experts need to be voting members of the whole council as opposed to members of a subcommittee (who can appoint non-council members), or non-voting advisors?
Finally, something I just noticed re-reading this: now there's a global council board of 5 people? I think the WMF board is right, this is much too small. I also question what they are actually supposed to be doing that is not better delegated to (1) council as a whole, (2) (possibly ad hoc) subcommittees, or (3) individual council members:
"[M]aking sure the processes within the Global Council are running according to plans and timelines; [and] coordinating with others where and when necessary": what processes and coordination needs will the Global Council have? Is this, like, making sure grant proposal reviewers review grant proposals assigned to them before the next council meeting? Or responding to emails from prospective affiliates? Or something else entirely? Why does this need to be concentrated in one board instead of spreading this work around to willing volunteers? Relatedly: the board structure would seem to prevent an "I'll do X this month if you'll do X next month" system given the small size of the board; is this justified (especially given the likelihood of burnout if the workload is too high)? And if one council member wants to coordinate with an affiliate on behalf of the council but doesn't want to pester the grant reviewing members or whatever, do they need a board seat or not?
"[E]nsuring that the Global Council is operating and functioning according to its purpose": why is this limited to a board? Shouldn't the entire council be concerned with this? What functions would board members perform in this area that council members could not?
@Mdaniels5757 i agree with all of your points above. and basically in my opinion, burnout is pretty much inevitable and is built into this system. especially since supposedly this global counci and movement charter will be created pretty much ex nihilo, and will be considered mostly non-changeable once it is supposedly "ratified," so that pretty much the entire burden of defining this global council's role and carrying its mission, will rest upon just a few individuals at the core of this council.
and additionally, in my opinion, the role of the board is totally unclear and doesn't seem to bear any relation to the whole system as originally conceived. imho it sounds like there were problems emerging with how the global council might work, so the global council board is meant to mitigate the perceived problems, before there is any general community consensus to weigh in on the actual practical workings and practical effects of this whole new system. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
My vote will be no, because I find the vote it self very problematic. While I like the attention that this "vote" provides, and that the charter provides a central place to work on overarching issues. BUT I find the "vote" problematic because it does not provide an introspective in what we are voting out. Just asking if we support it, does not say anything about if we (can) support its implications. Sure I support a process and guidline for an improved collaboration and work, but as long as I dont know what options we are "voting" on, meaning limiting or shuting out, not to say discriminate, by supporting this, this option will not garner my support. At the moment it is more like a inquiry not a vote.
Maybe a charter that has to be re-confirmed yearly or any other year, and is voted on by voting on each section/para with different versions next to each other (pre-determined by a working group processes) to vote on.
Last but not least: installing a higher body isnt necessary and very difficult to implement in a way that doesnt at some point ursup the grass-root character of our movement.Nsae Comp (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Proposed charter violates German rulings on human rights
Latest comment: 4 months ago11 comments5 people in discussion
Please hop onto WikiProject Voting Systems to learn why this charter has some very big problems. (And in general, this is a good reason why community input is a good idea—WikiProjects like this have a lot of information to offer, and WikiProject Voting Systems has proposed all of the voting systems used by Wikipedia so far).
Let's take one example: the current draft proposal for the Wikimedia Movement Charter is so poorly-written it's accidentally in violation of human rights law according to Germany's Federal Constitutional Court. The proposal is littered with clauses requiring a turnout quorum:
with a minimum of 2% of eligible voters participating in the vote
The issue with this is it makes some voters' ballots less than worthless. Specifically, if you turn out to oppose a proposal that otherwise would have fallen below 2% of the vote, this can cause the proposition to pass.
This isn't a hypothetical. In 2016, a Dutch referendum with an anemic 32% turnout was declared binding after passing the theoretical threshold at 30%. In other words, if the pro-referendum side had done a better job, and managed to convince 3% of Dutch voters to move from opposed to neutral, leading them to stay home. Then, the proposal would have fallen just below the 30% turnout threshold, and the referendum would have failed.
As a ruling by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court put it:
An electoral system that allows for an increase in votes to lead to a loss of seats, or for a party to achieve more seats overall if it receives fewer votes, leads to arbitrary results. It makes a mockery of the ideal of democratic competition for support from the electorate. [... it violates] the principle of equality of the vote, [...] because it enables such negative vote weights.
Obviously, when Wikipedia does it, that's not as serious as when a country does it. That said, if the Germans are complaining about your human rights violations, you may need to take a step back and reflect on what procedures led you to this point, and whether they might be flawed. Given this is the first thing I picked up on an initial reading, I'm sure there's more issues.
I'm not German, nor even European, and even I find the implication that Germans in 2024 would be any less likely to raise concerns about human rights violations than anyone else to be pretty offensive. Risker (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Lots of things that made it to television back in the 1970s would be considered wildly inappropriate today. I remember the blonde jokes, the gay jokes, the jokes advocating domestic abuse, the sexist and racist jokes. This reference belongs in the past, and I'd appreciate it if you removed it. Risker (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
That's not what the link says at all. It says that Cleese made a song in 2006 in relation to the World Cup, using the line "Don't mention the war". Nothing about the German government paying anyone to remake that episode, and there's no indication on that page that the episode was remade. The episode itself has been edited to remove some of the more offensive or inappropriate lines for when it is played during "family viewing time" in the UK. Risker (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
user closed basically proposes instead of the current miniumum participation rule (2% of eligible voters) a minimum support rule. Compare for example with the CU policy that demands in CU-elections a support of at least 25 votes, not a participation of 25 users. (CheckUser_policy#Appointing_local_CheckUsers). I agree with that. Minimum support would have been better, but I don't percieve the participation quota as big problem. But everyone has to make their own opinion about that. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk21:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
A minimum support of 1% of eligible voters, as 1% is the minimum amount needed to win a vote with the participation of 2% of eligible voters. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago8 comments5 people in discussion
As a lowly volunteer plebe, I don't know much about the politics of the sections on rights, responsibilities, and governance that people are discussing. However, I thought the first section on principles and values was well stated and reflected my understanding of the public ethos of Wikimedia sites. I found it to be inspiring. Biogeographist (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with this. I think if that was all we were voting on it would easily pass, although I'm not sure how much concrete effect it would have beyond an affirmation of our shared ideals. That might still be nice, though— the first section of the U.N. Charter has become something of a political touchstone around the world for its high ideals, of course. Mesocarp (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@Biogeographist the problem is that the whole charter is written in corporatese, and doesn't refer to any of the many existing venues and established deliberative procedures. Sm8900 (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I stopped reading the rest of it, but I didn't have any problem in understanding the first section on principles and values. I'm not saying that it couldn't be improved, but as someone who came to it with no prior knowledge of the Wikimedia Movement, I found it inspiring. Biogeographist (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The 'Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles' is a document from over 10 years ago, that is unfortunately no longer in effect. Wikimedia Foundation board members were specifically opposed to including many of these values in the charter. Pharos (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Pharos, that is something everyone should know. It looks like we urgently need an article at Wikipedia about the Movement Charter, with history, context etc. Kevin Bouwens (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago23 comments5 people in discussion
Do we need a Global Council? At this point none of the grassroots discussion has occurred that we should have seen if this concept had any actual foundation with what ordinary editors want. i would like to suggest that as one small source of bemusement on this topic. Sm8900 (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The (rather vague) impression I've gotten at this point, both from the text of the proposed Charter and in other random discussions about this elsewhere, is that there are people involved in drafting the Charter that want to give users and affiliates from underserved parts of the world more of a seat at the table in some sense where the WMF is concerned, and they came up with the idea of the Global Council as a way to facilitate that. I'm purposefully phrasing that in a kind of nonspecific way, because I still have yet to come across much specific discussion of how this would actually work, and I'm not entirely sure that narrative is accurate either.
But in any case, I think like, in a very abstract sense, of course that's a great goal and I imagine few Wikimedians would oppose it on principle. However, for any kind of council to really do that in any kind of concrete, meaningful way, a way that would truly allow the WMF to better fulfill its mission of spreading free knowledge worldwide and so on, I think it would need a very carefully-designed structure and setting. I don't feel all that confident that the Global Council, as currently proposed, would end up having that in the end, and what little structure is proposed for it here gives me doubts. Like, would it really be "global" with only 25–100 members? How is that possible? There's something like 200 countries in the world, and many have a population in the millions. Surely it would have to be larger, right?
I'm not sure it's the right approach to ask people to approve such a Council now and then work out the details later. The details seriously matter. It sounds like it's been a long, frustrating, difficult process to even get here, but I think that's inevitable with how ambitious this idea is, and trying to get this particular charter voted in now just to have some kind of concrete progress seems to me like it would invite unintended consequences, even if in might feel nice in the moment. There are few organizations in the world of any kind that truly deserve to be called "global," I think, and those that do exist are often beset by infighting and have trouble agreeing on much—clearly it's a very difficult undertaking to form an effective organization like that, and it's something that really needs to be approached with diligent care.
Even on this page, you can see some of the difficulties. For example, the Charter, as currently written, is in a rather jargony form of English that can be challenging to translate effectively into other languages. Consequently, some people that either don't speak English or aren't very comfortable in English have found the Charter hard to make sense of, even in translation. Those sound like people who might feel a bit underserved by the rather English-centric WMF, maybe—so there probably should have been more people like that involved in drafting the Charter, right? Centering English like this might not be the best move if the goal is really to be more "global". But, then, there are over 7000 known languages spoken in the world today—so who gets a seat at the table? How can we possibly make that fair?
If I was going to approve the formation of a Global Council, I would want to be confident that its design really addressed these kinds of issues. I don't think that, just on principle, an organization like that would invitably help the WMF to be more attentive to overlooked parts of the world, even if it's supposed to—it could just as well end up distracting from that, depending on its composition and role. I think it would only make sense to approve at this kind of vague, high level if it was really obvious that it would inevitably help no matter what its composition and role ended up being, but it's just not that kind of thing. Mesocarp (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
@Mesocarp, if the global council was really meant as an active dynamic pipeline for new ideas and empowerment, then there would have been active efforts already, to move ahead with those ideas, in my opinon.
also, my real concern on this is that if this is voted into being, then those serving as the global council can decide they need to be a major governmental body, even if the community never intended for that to happen.
if this had simply been implelemented little by little without a vote, then their role could have evolved naturally. so therefore I feel that firstly this process of voting for approval for this is superfluous. and also it might give the illusion of awarding the global council some major legislative powers.
one problem in my opinion is that the mcdc think there is an obvious justification for the Global Council as a counterweight for the wmf . so there has been little communication about how it would actually work. so because of that, I feel we really need to put the brakes on this idea. Sm8900 (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Here is a video call from the page shown below. for me, this video raises a lot of questions, and doesn't provide the answers we need. and even if it did provide the answers, then it should have been displayed to the community much more prominently.
I agree that the lack of concrete details on a good few things (especially the elections) is quite concerning. The idea is good, but it needs some more work in this regard before I would be comfortable ratifying it. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, at least once—in practice they could meet more often, but it's hard to predict how that would end up working. (Thanks for the videos, by the way, those are interesting.) I imagine there could also be lots of informal discussion between members of the Council outside of those meetings. How this would all work out ultimately would have a large bearing on what it would actually be like to be the Council and how it would make decisions and so on, so this is just one more place where I feel like it's rather unwise to leave so much unspecified at this stage.
I think, as others have pointed out here, at least at this stage it doesn't seem clear to me how much actual say the Council would have over WMF decisions—I'm getting the impression at least that it would function in an essentially advisory role, more than a really "legislative" one, although of course that too seems rather murky right now. In any case, though, I think in terms of them being a valuable counterweight to the larger WMF, it's not really clear to me that that would happen either; unless it's really hammered out how much power they would have within the WMF, the larger organization could easily ignore their decisions and they might not end up having much practical effect at all. If we're going to endorse the formation of a council like that, it would be kind of sad if it then fizzled out for lack of impact.
I think, in theory, the idea of a body like this which is more directly accountable to the larger community than the WMF is seems to me like it could be positive, although I don't think it would necessarily be. I don't have particularly strong complaints at this time about how the WMF has proceeded, generally speaking, but anything could happen in the future, and if nothing else it might be good to have power at the WMF be a little less centralized. Also, of course it's true that the WMF is headquartered in the U.S. and is rather English-centric and so on, so it could be good to have a body of people from around the world to help keep its focus from getting too narrow. It's just, in order to really achieve this in the way it's spelled out in the Charter, I think its structure, role, responsibilities, and powers would need to be very carefully designed, far beyond what the Charter currently specifies, which I guess I've said repeatedly by now.
Naturally the Council could prove to have a malign degree of influence over the various Wikimedia projects somehow. That said, I'm honestly more worried about it either becoming an energy-draining distraction or just not accomplishing what it's supposed to accomplish and fading away. The goals for the Council are really ambitious and lofty and hard to achieve. The people on the drafting committee seem to mean very well by their efforts, it's just that even the best of intentions don't always lead to the results you would want in the end. Mesocarp (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
yup. Agree . at this point the movement charter just seems sort of like fan fiction to me; earnest, well-meaning, propelled by one enhtusiast's vision of what might be kind of new and interesting, but not actually much related to practical reality, even within its own universe, or to any of the real-world problems we are trying to face. Sm8900 (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
you said: Well, at least once—in practice they could meet more often, but it's hard to predict how that would end up working. ... I imagine there could also be lots of informal discussion between members of the Council outside of those meetings.
ok, but that's one problem, that no one really knows, at this point. to draw another anaology, at this point this seems more like a bunch of hobbyists who set up a model railroad in their basement, and meet at the local IHOP to have their own private obscure discussions, rather than any sort of actual effort to actually relate to the larger community.
as the videos make clear, the proto-global council members themselves do not really know what to expect. they meet for videos, and try to make clear sounding points, which can keep the process in conformity with what the rest of us might expect in the abstract. there's little collaboration or creative ideas going on here, in my opinion. Sm8900 (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
here is a screenshot of the 26-minute video above. this illustrates the problem, the proposed goals for the "global council" might or might not be ok. but why are we being asked to ratify them as one of the top governing bodies? who would advocate for this? what are we being asked to agree to? what would be the agenda and the policies of this new body which will have immediate authority, with very little discussion previously for the community as a whole? and also, this will be the council for the whole movement? the whole thing? ALL of the foriegn wikipedias?? that's a whole lot of stuff!!
@Mesocarp you asked this question: it doesn't seem clear to me how much actual say the Council would have over WMF decisions—I'm getting the impression at least that it would function in an essentially advisory role, more than a really "legislative" one.
i have to disagree with your assessment on this. it is true that none of this seemed clear to me either at all on this, before this item. please view the screenshot. they will not be an advisory role at all. this seems to indicate full governance powers, according to this excerpt. Sm8900 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
here is a noteworthy screenshot from the 48-minute call, showing the Global Council Board. so would this be the actual effective group in the council? just 5 to 15 people? and also... again, the Global Council only meets once per year???!!! what the heck?
screeenshot of april video call, showing global council board structure
gosh, do you suppose we can get the Global Council Board to issue some generic statements for the annual Global Council meeting, welcoming them, and thanking them for their service? and do you suppose we could get the Global Council Board members to make some friendly and chatty messages to some of the delegates, to make them feel like the annual meeting once every twelve months really really does have an impact?
and also could the Board members deign to send a comment or two every three or four months, letting us know they really really value community input? 'cause that would be so nice of them!! all kidding aside, what are we really creating with this "Global Council Board"? another board that is even less accountable than the wmf board? I'm sorry, but i do see some legitimate concerns here. Sm8900 (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, this just took me a while to get to—please don't think anything of the delay. The reason I said "essentially advisory" is because of points like this above from Nemo in "Half measures and next steps": I don't get some of the comments about the lack of accountability for the Global Council. It would just be another body of the WMF, subject to the board (which could abolish it any time, as it did with the FDC). At the moment, the Charter doesn't really specify how the Board would take or implement the suggestions or rulings of the Council; unless some solid (legal?) agreements are made to the contrary, it seems to me that the Board would de facto be free to ignore whatever the Council decided on if they wanted. Like, that may not be anyone's intention right now, but if there comes to be a serious disagreement between the Council and the larger WMF, it seems to me that the larger organization would hold all the practical power, whatever people might be saying at this stage.
This is part of why it seems so important to me to actually lay out now what powers the Council would have in procedural terms and how its decisions might be enforced. Otherwise, it seems to me that they would end up being essentially advisory, even if at this stage they're meant in the abstract to be something more than that. For a body like this to actually serve its purpose, it's important to consider what will happen in cases of serious conflict between it and other stakeholders in the organization, not only the ideal picture of how they might operate. Mesocarp (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
As a side note, when I say "the Board" there, I mean the WMF Board, not the proposed GC Board referred to in that slide. Mesocarp (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Mesocarp for amplyfying my thoughts in such well chosen wordings :). Maybe it's interesting for you to read the above comment of @Nemo bis: Half measures and next steps and my reaction. What the MCDC seems aiming for, what you also mention, is an organnisation with a so called two-tier board structure (see (Dual Board at en:wikipedia), a legal concept that does exist in continental Europe but does not exist in the US. Typically one of the cultural differences we did discuss earlier, differences are there but no one seems to be aware, causing mountains of misunderstanding. Kevin Bouwens (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for a late response to the earlier ping by Sm8900 - while the ping was noted in a timely manner, it was a bit difficult to parse what the question is actually about. I am providing a contextual response to the thread and then you can ask further clarification / specification questions, if needed.
Mandate of the Global Council - based on the current text of the Movement Charter it will vary according to the function. While in resource distribution matters it is on the level of accountable, i.e. decision-maker, on the field of product & technology it is described on the level of consulted, i.e. advisory. (Referring to the levels of en:Responsibility_assignment_matrix here)
Meetings of the Global Council - this is the level of detail not really to be defined by the Movement Charter itself, rather described in the Rules of Procedure of the Global Council, which ought to be determined by the Council itself. In the Supplementary Documentation there is a suggestion for Rules of Procedure of the Global Council made by the MCDC, on which we can build on.
Wikimedia Deutschland’s Appeal to the WMF Board of Trustees
Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The Wikimedia Movement Charter has been published and it is time for stakeholders to decide about ratification. Wikimedia Deutschland’s Supervisory Board on June 22nd decided to ratify the Charter.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees liaisons to the MCDC have already announced that they will recommend to their Board not to vote in favor of the Charter. If the Board follows that advice, the Wikimedia Movement Charter will fail to be ratified, based on the ratification process designed by the MCDC.
We, the WMDE Board, ask the WMF BoT to not stand in the way of assuring the future of our movement and urge them to ratify the Movement Charter.
Here is why:
1/ The Wikimedia Movement Needs a Voice
The world is changing and so is the Wikimedia Movement. If our internal ways of working and our culture reflect and perpetuate the inequities of the world, we will not be successful in our mission.
With the strategic direction, movement stakeholders including the WMF had resolved to grow globally, and to take responsibility to be the infrastructure of free knowledge. The Wikimedia Movement Charter before us now is the culmination of seven years of participatory strategic work by hundreds of engaged movement stakeholders, in dozens of meetings and workshops, spending thousands of hours in time and millions in donor funds.
To implement the Wikimedia Movement Strategy Recommendations it is crucial that our movement has equitable governance so it can adapt to our changing world, taking into account the voices and realise the wisdom of all our stakeholders.
The WMF currently has the decision making power on resources, technology, strategy and policy. Previous attempts at allowing “input” from communities, such as the Funds Dissemination Committee, have not led to a more equitable governance of the movement.
It is time for the Wikimedia movement to evolve. The current structure concentrates all power in the hands of the 12 members of the BoT who are formally accountable to nobody (other than US non-profit laws). Since its inception 21 years ago the vast majority of BoT seats has always been in the hands of people from North America and Europe and attempts to change that have failed. The addition of a representative body to balance power better is rational, reasonable and also the standard in international civil society confederations considering the power and influence of the Wikimedia projects. Therefore the Global Council has become an even more appropriate reform step to reach Wikimedia Movement's purpose in the world, including the WMF’s public interest mission.
2/ The Charter is a Good First Step
In its final version the Charter outlines a Global Council enabled to grow, adapt and build its capacity over time and as needed. It will assure equitable decisions on strategy, affiliation and resource allocation. The Charter thus lays out a reasonable path to arrive at equity and quality in decision making. Of course, a lot of work still remains to be done.
The Charter is clearly a product of compromise. It omits (or moves to supplementary documents) many of the more concrete elements from earlier versions, based on the feedback of the WMF. Many affiliates see this critically, yet they view the charter as a reasonable next step towards equity. It is good enough for now, safe enough to try.
The ratification of the Charter is needed to assure the Wikimedia projects’ future. The charter shines a light into the future, imagining an equitable movement that is also strong, resilient, diverse, united in solidarity, and that makes good decisions together. Should that light be turned off, should it fail to be ratified, we will fail in our mission to provide free knowledge for the world.
People join movements to empower each other, to change the world, and in the process make decisions about their path together. This is a crucial time in our movement’s history, at which we can jointly decide to transform and be true to our mission.
We urge the WMF BoT to not stand in the way of assuring the future of our movement and to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter.
Wikimedia Österreich seconds WMDE's statement and we would like to add some thoughts from our perspective:
Wikimedia Österreich ratified the Charter, as we want to signal our support for the original ideas and recommendations that provided the basis for this document. In our view the Charter can only be a starting point to bring about the much needed and movement-wide agreed change towards more subsidiarity and equity in decision-making.
We also want to express our concern regarding the opaque leadership approach of the Wikimedia Foundation, taking on and fast tracking some of the strategy implementation (e.g. the Universal Code of Conduct or Wikimedia Enterprise) while other arguably more central processes such as the Movement Charter did not get the attention they deserved. The timing of the WMF Board’s various feedbacks did not support but rather undermine any chance of success for this process. However, the lack of a coherent plan B or alternative route to achieve equity in decision-making is even more bewildering. Instead of offering an appealing vision for the future or at least a path forward, the suggestion is to revert back to broken systems of the past – a version of the FDC to decide on funds and a clone of AffCom for tech decisions. By doing this, more than just the work on the Movement Charter has been wasted. All the work regarding problematic governance structures and possible better alternatives for the status quo seem to be ignored.
It is common knowledge in change management that change happens at the speed of trust – this refusal of the Wikimedia Foundation to abide by the strategic recommendations is in our view a veritable governance crisis and will make future progress and change incredibly difficult, as trust is increasingly eroding. The current governance structure does not have any tools to deal with this crisis and ad hoc self-organisation across communities and affiliates without suitable structures in place is ranging from hard to impossible. So the current system of power and privilege remains intact. It’s a dangerous gamble with our collective future as a movement, where much trust is needed to face the massive external challenges as a strong network of reliable partners.
We urge the Wikimedia Foundation to take this crisis seriously. We expect the Wikimedia Foundation to prioritise the re-establishment of trust and confidence among movement stakeholders by designing a negotiation process at eye-level to deal with the open questions from the Movement Charter Process. WIkimedia Österreich is ready to whole-heartedly support such an endeavor, as we did with the Movement Strategy Process in the past. CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Dear Ms Wiegand, @Lyzzy, with much respect for the work of Wikimedia Germany and having taken notice of the opinions and reasoning stated above, I'd politely like to bring to your attention, that looking to the Charter through legal spectacles, the text in this exact form could bring a new liability that would make it not good enough and safe enough to try for the volunteers. That is because under 'Rights' has been stated: "Wikimedia project communities have editorial control of the content in their individual Wikimedia projects. The framework of global policies, including the Terms of Use for the Wikimedia project websites, establishes this editorial control."
Under Dutch law this possibly could create a legal entity (the project community) that might be sueable, establishing a so called joint and several liability (in Dutch:hoofdelijke aansprakelijkheid) for their leaders or the people governing (possibly the Bureaucrats). Having editorial control furthermore could bring a legal liability for single members of a project community for the work of others.
The status quo is, that the Foundation holds the individual editor responsible for her/his own actions, contributions and edits, so a single user can be hold liable by others only for his/her own edits and changes. See the WMF Terms of Use: "editorial control is in the hands of you and your fellow users who create and manage the content." and: "Please be aware that you are legally responsible for all of your contributions, edits, and reuse of Wikimedia content under the laws of the United States of America and other applicable laws (which may include laws where you or the subject of your contributions are located)." The communities do not bear editorial responsibility, as is written in the Charter, with the possible legal flipside of a shared liability.
Now that in The Dutch language edition a longterm member of the policing team recently did lay down his moderatorfunction, "due to recent hostilities and harassment, (...) coupled with the community's apparent loss of its self-regulating capabilities", there's a serious chance that in this Wikipedia edition it could come to the publishing of misinformation over a longer period of time. Under the text of the Charter, one of the members of the projectcommunity could be hold liable, no matter whether he or she did publish or edit the content. The Charter should not open the door to this kind of scenarios.
Mind that the requirements for transparency and accountability do apply for several "Wikimedia Movement Organisations", like "Wikimedia Chapters", "Wikimedia Thematic Organizations", "Wikimedia User Groups" and "Wikimedia Hubs" but they do not seem to apply for the Project Communities. One of the effects is, that within the critical and broad field of policing, accusation, prosecution, figting misinformation, judging, execution and so on, by community moderators, bureaucrats, stewards, arbcomms etc. there are no universal guiding principles and rules, and there is no duty to explain decisionmaking by providing publicly accessible reports. It seems that all people working in this field can not be hold accountable in any way when using the Charter as the Wikimedia Movement Constitution. When this analyses is correct, this would be a major flaw.
UPDATE: Mind that a provision is missing that gives volunteers the right to be represented in strategy development, resource allocation, decision making etc., and that European Chapters recently did establish a new official Wikimedia Movement organisation where volunteers have been explicitly excluded from membership (see statutes [Europe], article 5).
Last but not least, in discussing the structure of a new Global Council with other communitymembers, the insight came up that a so called 'two-tier Board system' (Dual Board) could be a sound structure for a new legal entity where volunteers and Wikimedia Movement Organisations from all over the world do have a voice in strategy development and governing decisions. This system however is not available in all jurisdictions, it is possible for legal entities established for instance in Germany and the Netherlands, but not in the US.
For this reasons the polite proposal is, to organise with your powerful, well equiped and relatively rich Chapter an overall expert audit of the Charter and whether the goals and purposes set (in the Movement Strategy 2030), can be reached with this text. All against the background of existing WMF Guidelines, Policies and Bylaws and within the context of the now existing civil law structure of the global Wikimedia organisation. It would be great when the outcomes of such an audit could be shared with the Drafting Committee, their advisors, other Chapters, affiliates, stakeholders and volunteers in the Wikimedia Movement.
Thanks for your attention and your engagement, kind regards, Kevin Bouwens (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Kevin Bouwens (talk) (with support of some others) 15:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
After reading the Charter and the different analysis and conclusions, here some points that, I believe, could be taken into account :
- The Charter should mention that the main way to contribute to the Wikimedia Movement is online (even if certain activities are made IRL). The purpose of the Movement is sharing free knowledge, but it's mainly sharing free knowledge online, and this shapes globally that special way the people of this Movement participate in projects and decision-making and how they interact.
- The Charter should be more precise about gender integration in the online sharing of free knowledge. Gender equality is Goal 5 of the Sustainable Development Goals defined by the United Nations.
"Women and girls represent half of the world’s population and therefore also half of its potential. But gender inequality persists everywhere and stagnates social progress."
The Wikimedia contributing community has not reached since now (nearly 1/4 of a Century), a satisfying level of gender integration and so, the Global Council should precise which engagement it will take concerning it (Goal 4 is Quality Education and we achieve it).
Meetings of the Global Council : The Global Council should be an online Council. Up to 100 participants is not a problem as long as people communicate via online shared documents and/or video calls.
IRL meeting : only once a year, the Global Council should meet IRL at the Wikimania (make from the Wikimania the beating heart of the Movement. Costs for meetings will be part of the Wikimania budget).
Affiliates : Precise by which mechanism the Affiliates will not be "judge and jury" by allocating funds for themselves or for other entities which may compete and reduce their own part of funds. Also precise how the Global Council can freely make strategic decisions and draw new priorities if these potentially affect the means or the existence of Affiliates.
Active members of the Community : Define the "community" of volunteers as the group of active members. Rights to vote are mainly linked to the degree of participation (volume of edits, frequency, recent activity).
So, yes, "all contributors and other volunteers have the right to take breaks in or cease participation as and when they deem appropriate", but they must know that they loose their rights to be part of the "voting" community.
Representation of the Users (Readers): The Wikimedia projects are mainly online projects to share free knowledge for the public. Like in any organization, Users should be represented somewhere. Precise how (Committee of Users).
Representation of the Friends of Wikipedia : Many people love Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects. They are modest donors but they are a lot. They have no time or no skills to edit, or they stopped editing but are still positive about Wikipedia, and they would be glad not only to give a little money but also to support the projects and to knwow more about them. Let's give them a place, they are our ambassadors and we can learn a lot from them, they are friendly and can advocate for us in the society. Friends of Wikipedia should be represented somewhere. Precise how (Collective "Friends of Wikipedia"). Waltercolor (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree with all these points. Would like to point out that according to the Wikimedia Foundation General Terms of Use, 'users' are not only the readers. Users are people consuming content (readers) as well as people active in contributing, editing, adding, coding, patrolling, maintaining etc. I do strongly support a more understandable use of terms by the Foundation. Kevin Bouwens (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with these comments on gender, and I'm surprised there aren't more about gender generally. The charter as written doesn't (yet) say anything! I admire the work done so far and know it's hard, but what you have now is a blank canvas. Make it shorter and more specific/prescriptive. Fortunaa (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Half measures and next steps
Latest comment: 4 months ago14 comments5 people in discussion
I don't get some of the comments about the lack of accountability for the Global Council. It would just be another body of the WMF, subject to the board (which could abolish it any time, as it did with the FDC).
I do agree that the decisions would suffer from a lack of accountability, because there are just so many circular dependencies in the charter. Some of these dependencies are explicit, for example the sanctions for movement organizations include "Withdrawal of right to use trademarks (in accordance with the trademark holder)". (Already with Legal+BoT+AffCom it's a mess, but it can always get worse.) Other dependencies are less obvious.
If we really wanted a body independent from the WMF to be in charge of some things currently done by the WMF, I think we really need a separate non-profit, with clearly and legally defined boundaries. We've now had some experience with Tides Foundation (a good idea with not so great implementation) and the Wikimedia LLC. In the past I've proposed a Wikimedia Trust to be in charge of all Wikimedia trademarks, which would then be licensed to the WMF: such an arrangement could start with minimal organizational changes and then grow gradually.
To implement specific parts of the proposed charter, you may need much less than a "demerger" of the WMF. Accreditation could be delegated to a separate org, on a geographical basis (like the hubs) or on a tier basis; this org could have a very long-term exclusive sub-licenseable license to the trademarks (or only some of them). To decide on fundraising, you'd need to split the "commercial" management of the Wikipedia trademark out of the WMF and then outsource it back to the WMF. The new orgs could have different legal structures, possibly even membership-based. They could have long-term legal agreements with the WMF on how to handle disputes, so that the WMF board wouldn't need to be the court of last resort for everything.
Alternatively, if we really wanted to implement the current proposal, I suspect a major rewrite of the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws would be needed, including possibly a move to another jurisdiction where the desired structure is supported. (A small executive council sounds like a supervisory board above of the board of trustees, famously supported in a Dutch Stichting. A 100-member council sounds more like some assembly of delegates/members.) I would love a sort of new constitutional process for the WMF but I don't see much appetite for it.
So in short, the time for half measures is over. The drafting committee did the best they could with the hand they were dealt. This exercise has been very useful, including the current discussion and vote, whatever the outcome is. The WMF board now needs to be bold and decide the next steps. Nemo20:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you on this: I do agree that the decisions would suffer from a lack of accountability, because there are just so many circular dependencies in the charter. Some of these dependencies are explicit, for example the sanctions for movement organizations include "Withdrawal of right to use trademarks (in accordance with the trademark holder)". (Already with Legal+BoT+AffCom it's a mess, but it can always get worse.) Other dependencies are less obvious.Sm8900 (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The assumption of @Nemo bis, that the new Global Council would be part of the WMF makes totally sense, but does not follow from the Movement Charter. As I did understand, a group of stakeholders aim to establish a new governing body apart from the WMF, in which they have more to say. I'm not sure whether main voices behind this transformation, the rumour goes that to be the German Chapter, are aware they aim for a legal structure that is usual in Europe, especially Germany, but not in the US. Giving Wikimedia community- or Wikimedia Chapter representatives the right of co-determination within the structure of the US based Wikimedia Foundation, or another US based Foundation, means giving them a seat on a so called one-tier board, which would provide them with directional power. The idea of looking for another jurisdiction that offers the possibility for a legal entity with a so called two-tier board structure (Dual Board), to my opinion is tantalising but would mean a huge transformation. Nevertheless, maybe a small team of (intelligent) (open minded) (creative) (high-brow) (....) legal and governing specialists from different continents and cultures, guided by the WMF Board of Trustees, could give that a thought. The two-tier board system originates from Germany, where also the largest Wikimedia Chapter happens to be based, with around 100.000 members. Is that maybe a coincidence that could offer a chance? Kevin Bouwens (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The draft has been written by various people with different ideas. Whoever proposed to transfer certain powers from the WMF board to the Global Council probably understood that this requires the incorporation of a separate entity co-equal to the WMF, but evidently there was no agreement to state this clearly so they just kicked the can down the road. The WMF board has already said no, so it's not going to happen. If we really wanted to explore such an option, the WMF board would need to endorse exploring it, WMF legal would need to conduct a review of the legal options available, etc. Nemo19:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Sure, @Nemo bis, the writers of the draft in the spotlights, all volunteers, will have different ideas. However did someone with a lot of experience explain, that in the background much support has been given by the German Chapter. So I think that might be a reason why volunteers plea for more influence by the Chapters. Yes, ofcourse the WMF Board has to agree on this, but the drafters and their advisors do not seem te be fully aware of the legal and corporate structure, it's possibilities and boundaries. It's a US civil law structure, based on general agreements between the WMF and all users of the infrastructures the WMF provides. The Chapters and usergroups have separate individual civil law contracts with WMF. Establishing a new entity in Germany (working name WMF Europe) with governing and directional powers based on a two-tier system, ofcourse also has to be backed by the WMF. Now that WMF legal probably does not have in-house expertise on contintal law, the idea is to let a small high-brow group of specialists, among them specialists in German corporate law and EU law, make an inventarisation of pros and contras, "guided by the WMF Board of Trustees". There could be benefits too in the field of EU regulations and having more geografical and cultural closeness to EU governing bodies (recently for the coming five years a German has been chosen as President of the EU Commission). FYI: @Der-Wir-Ing, @Johannnes89. Keep up, Kevin Bouwens (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Der-Wir-Ing FYI = For Your Interest - Thought you might be interested, or you could give a sound opinion, on the idea of establishing a legal entity with a two-tier structure in Germany. Kevin Bouwens (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
This foundation is new to me, @EliCarrera, where does it have to be classified in terms of the Charter? A Hub? Do volunteers have a voice in decisionmaking? You're right, the tasks of this foundation do not have to be integrated in a new entity with a two-tier board structure. | UPDATE: from the statutes can be learned that volunteers are explicitly excluded from membership of Wikimedia Europe. So volunteers, working in good faith, with a whish for multilevel protection and having a voice in strategy development and decisionmaking, might need another type of organisation. --Kevin Bouwens (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Kevin Bouwens: WMEU is affiliated with the WMF, possibly as a regional hub (someone else can answer that better). Volunteers that are part of the affiliates that form WMEU, have a voice in strategy and decision-making through their affiliate. It's a standard system of representation. Unfortunately, in the charter discussions, "volunteers" is sometimes limited to mean only "individuals that haven't organised in any way and represent only themselves". Is that part of the explanation why discussing representation in top-level organs, such as a global council, is proving difficult? EliCarrera (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes @EliCarrera, it certainly could make discussing representation in top-level organs difficult, when the Chapters in general support this 'standard system of representation'. Three short remarks, hope you have time or are willing to review or discuss them in the Chapter Ecosystem.
1. Volunteers must become member of a Chapter, but most volunteers in the Dutch language edition see the Chapter and the WMF as a kind of elite group 'high above' that one better should oppose, including the rules given. I guess maybe 40 volunteers are a member of Wikimedia Nederland, meetings are being attended by around 60 people, staff and board included.
2. When volunteers only have a voice through representation by Chapters they're a member of, only the interests mentioned in the statutes or bylaws of the Chapter can and will be represented. These will often not be in line with the interests of the individual volunteer. For instance it is not a statutory goal of Wikimedia Nederland, to give volunteers a voice in strategy development, resource allocation and decision making; to practically support individual volunteers or volunteers on a Wikimedia Project as a group or to protect them in any way on the digital working floor. Wikimedia Nederland did not adopt the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines as they are, nor do they promote them on the working floors where it is a heavy weight interest for volunteering contributors and moderators to know these rules, to know they're binding and to understand them.
3. The specific interests of volunteers, as persons that bear responsibility for the content, individually or as a group, can per definition not be represented by the Chapters. The Chapters do explicitly exclude legal liability for the content, for policing and judging on Wikimedia Projects. So who will represent the heavy weight interest volunteers have who do contribute to Wikimedia Projects, to work in a fair policing, prosecuting, judging and executing system; to know there is a sound system in place where desinformative work by other volunteers will be flagged, and getting protection by the Chapter or WMF for possible legal claims against content they did edit in good faith, or others did edit?
Dear @Kevin Bouwens I guess we have had different experiences.
1. WMEU members can be all types of affiliates, not just chapters. If you prefer to voice your opinions as an individual, maybe Wikimedia Europe and Friends is an option.
2. I don't know how all chapters operate, but in the one I'm with (Wikimedia Norge) bylaws, strategy and annual plans are decided upon by the General Assembly, where all members (volunteers) have an equal say. They decide how their and this movement's interests are best promoted, which is what we bring to the table in WMEU (and elsewhere).
3. Let's distinguish between representation in a) WMEU, b) movement decision-making bodies, c) on self-governing (to some extent) project language versions, and d) in legal claims against individuals. If what we're discussing is a) and b), I disagree that affiliates in general can't represent volunteers.
Usergroups: Well, that's one of the affiliate types that volunteers can start or join, if they wish to organise. EliCarrera (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a@EliCarrera for diving into this a bit deeper. It helps efficiently to identify questions and work on them.
1. Yes, the statutes mention that members must be recognised as Affiliates within the Wikimedia Movement. Point is that volunteering editors/contributors should be separately recognised as stakeholders for there specific roles and tasks on the working floors, apart from the general purpose of WMF and Chapters, for the given reason of colliding interests. In the Movement Strategy the two are described as different groups: Affiliates and Communities (see f.i. the Movement Strategy Recommendations "Evaluate, Iterate, Adapt")).
2. At Wikimedia Nederland members also have a say, like in Norway, but this is 'per definition' limited to the statutory purposes of a Chapter. Therefor I think some of the main interests of volunteers who work in good faith on content, policing, judging, fighting vandalism, misinformation etc., can not be voiced through a Chapter because these tasks are not been covered by the statutes and bylaws of WMF & Chapters. The WMF Terms put it this way:
"We host an incredible quantity of educational and informational content, all of which is contributed and made possible by users like yourself. Generally we do not contribute, monitor, or delete content (with rare exceptions, such as under policies like these Terms of Use, for legal compliance, or when faced with urgent threats of serious harm). This means that editorial control is in the hands of you and your fellow users who create and manage the content.
The community – the network of users who are constantly building and using the Projects and/or their websites (hereby referred to as "Project Websites") – is the principal means through which the goals of the mission are achieved. The community contributes to and helps govern our Projects and Project Websites."
This makes clear how the WMF (legally) distinguishes between a 'we' and a 'you' (where the WMF 'you' from my point of view is part of a 'we'). I think that everything that fits in the field of the WMF 'you' can per definition not be advocated by and through WMF and the Chapters. In these fields both WMF and Chapters do explicitly exclude responsibility and liability. It is in all areas that have to do with responsibilities and tasks in the WMF 'you' area, that volunteers can not articulate their interests through the Chapters. This is somewhat abstract thinking, I hope the idea is set out somewhat understandably.
3. What I'm trying to raise awareness for, is that having a voice in strategy development, decision making and resources allocation within the fields described in the WMF Terms as belonging to 'you' (the contributors) including the heavy obligations of policing and fighting desinformation, can principally and structurally not be advocated through the WMF and the Chapters. I think only pure usergroups could. WMF and the Chapters can only advocate the areas covered by the statutory purposes and goals. As for Wikimedia Europe: I've quicqly scanned through the headings of the 30 newest articles on the website and did not find a plea in the name of contributors, for specific community-member interests. And Wikimedia Europe is asking the European Council and Parliament to respect fundamental rights for 'Wikipedia' and its journalists, that the WMF or WE do not offer contributors (see this article). When you however think it is principally possible for WE to advocate these specific rights, it truelly would be great when this could change. In the field c you distinguish, many volunteers do not primarly have the common goals and purposes in mind, advocated by WMF and the Chapters. In the field d I see it of utter importance that a policy will be developed that ensures legal aid and support without charge, to good faith editors (e.g. people that follow the WMF rules).
4. Now that the Charter makes not only the individual volunteer responsible and liable for their own edits, contributions, actions and deeds (like the WMF Terms do), but makes the communities as a whole responsible for the content as a whole, which brings huge legal risks for the single volunteer in good faith, a discours should be initiated to find a way for advocating and protecting the specific interests of volunteers not covered by the statutory purposes of the Chapters. It might be a wise possibility, to form a new legal entity to serve as a rooforganisation for these interests. But this should be given some elaborate thoughts .... Kind regards, Kevin Bouwens (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The final version of the Wikimedia Movement Charter
Latest comment: 4 months ago7 comments7 people in discussion
Thank you for thorough work in producing this excellent text for the proposed charter. I find it stronger and more solid than I had hoped for and look forward to a successful ratification and implementation Yger (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed this is an improvement. I am sad to see a carve out for affiliate seats on the Global Council. Members of affiliates are already members of the community; 8 seats reserved for double representation of people involved in certain activities does not sound ideal to me. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz Absolutely. Quite frankly, only that reason alone is enough to wish this text gets rejected in the coming vote. Another one is the Charter making the Wikimedia community policies subject to it, but not those of Affiliates and the WMF, which is quite unacceptable. And undefined, vague terms such as "community leadership". And the WMF getting a special place out and at the same level as the Global Council. And... - DarwinAhoy!10:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Per requests we are now publishing the core text two weeks earlier than in our initial timeline, and this does mean that all accompanying materials are not yet ready. WMF staff is helping us (MCDC) to create additional information materials, as for instance to answer the "what is changing?" question, but we really do need the extra time to produce these. They should become available before the voting commences. Ciell (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago15 comments7 people in discussion
I wrote before on the charter being the doorway to abuse here.
Section "Governance"
Although it has been revised, the 10 June 2024 version still does not have explicit and assertive mandate of Wikimedia Movement Bodies to the community. The wording delegates that via
The decision-maker in a Wikimedia Movement Organization is an organization’s board or a similar body and is accountable to the group that such board or similar body represents—for example, its membership body.
Notice that although there is no mention of the word "only" in the second quote but there is no "also". This separation of where the mandate of accountability to community with accountability "to the group" and the addition of "its membership body" (regardless of "for example") is dangerous. It can very well be interpreted that since the accountability to the community is elsewhere, and accountability to the closed membership body—which as I mentioned in my previous post that it can be cliques or behind money barrier—is here in the same passage, the movement body then is only accountable to the membership body. Abusers use semantics.
"Care Responsibility" and "Principles of Decision-Making"
It remains to be seen how these two would be, supposed to be released in 18 June 2024.
Update: No substantial update on Care Responsibility: Special:Diff/27037980. The same contradicting clauses still stand in Principles of Decision Making: Special:Diff/26971985.
"Wikimedia Movement Principles and Values" section "Accountability"
I don't know whether I missed this one on my last post. This one says:
The Wikimedia Movement holds itself accountable through community leadership as represented within Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia Movement Bodies.
It is unclear what "community leadership" here means, is it "leadership by community" (the community leads) or "leadership in community" (the leaders in the community). If it is the second, if you are a plain old contributor with no advanced rights, it doesn't seem you will get to talk.
To me that just represents the truth - the community cannot hold a third-party to account, only its own membership. The most that can be done for many is for the WMF to limit or revoke their affiliation and maybe claw back grant money if provided for by a contract. GreenReaper (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this is true. The community has the ability to choose how it spends its time, and not supplying that time to the movement is a way to hold bodies accountable. It might make sense to make that explicit. TomDotGov (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
What would be a "Wikipedia project" leadership? The librarians/administrators? They do not have that role, AFAIK. - DarwinAhoy!11:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
What has been written down on the third citation does not fit in any legal principle I know. 'Accountability' is a concept ruled by different law(s) worldwide. It partly depends on the legal format you choose for foundation of the organisation, and the jurisdiction of it's headquarters, what rules are reigning. The official Wikimedia Chapters that do exist now, can be hold accountable by the Foundation, because their members did choose to sign a civil law contract with the Foundation in which that has been arranged. As a general principle, the leadership can be hold accountable by a group defined by law or by the foundation charter and bylaws, in general one can not be hold oneself accountable through leadership. A question for clarification: have there been discussions, and is there a kind of consensus, that organisational bodies within the Movement can be hold responsible and accountable by 'the communities'? And how do the individual contributors relate to the communities? Will the communities become legal entities? FYI @RXerself, @GreenReaper, @TomDotGov, @DarwIn, Kevin Bouwens (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Currently standing consensus perhaps is the Accountability section in the Guiding Principles of WMF adopted by Trustees in 2013. This is technically required to be also adhered by affiliates through their requirements: chapters, thematic orgs., user groups. The community sense I meant is that individual contributors. The way I see the charter for now is that there are ways for a movement body to dismiss questions from individual contributors for no reason just by quoting the charter. RXerself (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Right, thanks for clarification, @RXerself and thanks for pointing out, you have my support. And what I see is that the phrase "Rights - Wikimedia project communities have editorial control of the content in their individual Wikimedia projects. The framework of global policies, including the Terms of Use for the Wikimedia project websites, establishes this editorial control." could create legal liability for the communities as a whole, and for their single members for the work of others (according to contintal law principles). Kind regards, Kevin Bouwens (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The fact that we don't have a surplus of data on questions like this, and clear and vibrant continual exchange to help clarify this by the drafters is what I find somewhat problematic, along with other things. Sm8900 (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
This is not a legal change in any way from the status quo. It's not at all about the librarians/administrators, but about the autonomy of the projects and their editors. Note that this language was developed specifically with legal input from the Wikimedia Foundation itself, and the staff responsible for community safety, just to ensure this. Pharos (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Changes in status quo ?
Analysed in a legal way, the final draft for a Movement Charter in parts confirms the status quo, but at certain points it would or could change the status quo when this exact text would come into legal effect. As recently stated by a member of the Drafting Committee (see this video in Dutch, from 06:05) and following an analyses by a volunteering editor educated and experienced in (continental) legal matters. Please @Pharos or others, can you explain more elaborate what brings you to the conclusion that this draft for a Movement Charter would not bring changes in the status quo when approved? First of all the status quo will change because there will be a new entity with directional powers, the Global Council. Second, the status quo will change because the communities will have editorial control and they will have a role in leadership, with the flipside of legal and/or governing liability and/or accountability for the communities as a whole. The status quo now is, that the Foundation as the owner of all rights and responsibilites holds the individual editor responsible for her/his own actions, contributions and edits, not the communities as a whole. So only the single user can at the moment be hold liable by others and only for his/her own edits, changes and other actions. The WMF excludes itself from liability for the content on its projects, as do the Chapters. Please read the now valid Terms of Use, an update from 2011, composed after more than 120 days of extensive movement discussions (see: Geoff Brigham, Terms of use, 31 December 2011):"editorial control is in the hands of you and your fellow users who create and manage the content." and: "Please be aware that you are legally responsible for all of your contributions, edits, and reuse of Wikimedia content under the laws of the United States of America and other applicable laws (which may include laws where you or the subject of your contributions are located).". Third, with this exact text of the Charter, once in effect, communities will have the obligation to make their governing tasks transparent, which means that in the future one can use the Charter as a base to claim the right to have a "look over the shoulder", like movement members and third parties.
The status quo in a legal sense is, that the Foundation is the one and only legal entity with the (civil law) powers to decide about rights, obligations and responsibilities. Without (explicit or implicit) permission of the WMF, a project and their editors, policing and judging officers, can legally not decide on anything - they do not have any legal autonomy. The WMF has used its autonomy to give the community the right to contribute to and help govern WMF Projects and Project Websites. And the community also is given the right to undertake the critical function of creating and enforcing policies for the specific Project editions, all after extensive consultation of communitymembers. To do this, the WMF did use civil law instruments, like their General Terms of Use. These rights, roles, tasks and responsibilities have to be understood as subordinate to the autonomous rights and responsibilities of the WMF. Thus must decentralised rulings fit within the official Guidelines and Policies of the WMF: "You, the user, are welcome to join as a contributor, editor, or author, but you should follow the policies that govern each of the independent Project editions, including the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC), which apply to all Project editions." (WMF Terms of Use).
So, communities can in practice do as they like, and people working in governing, policing and judging roles can have the feeling they are autonomous, but when what they do is not in line with the WMF Guidelines and Policies, and would or could bring damage to the WMF public mission, the WMF theoretically has the right and the power to execute an 'Office Action' or undertake something else, like withdrawing (special) userrights etc., to protect their Projects and the good standing of the Foundation. The Foundation will ofcourse not do that out of the blue and certainly will strive for other ways to find a solution. But this is the legal situation. Thanks for your attention, Kevin Bouwens (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Slowly my thoughts are evolving, @Sm8900, but the direction is not yet clear :). Now mainly thinking about how all this work and all knowledge gathered by the MCDC could be used in an effective way. Keep up! Kevin Bouwens (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, the intended meaning is certainly "leadership by community", this clause is not at all about librarians/administrators. Pharos (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree I agree with @TomDotGov. Sm8900 (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Strong oppose Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
