Talk:Movement Charter

This page is for discussions related to Movement Charter.   Please remember to: Sign posts using the four tildes (~~~~) Remain civil and polite during discussions. Place new comments below in existing sections or start a new section.   Discussion navigation: For general discussion of the Movement Charter: Talk:Movement Charter For general enquiries to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee: Talk:Movement Charter/Drafting Committee For general dicussion about the Movement Charter ratification vote in June-July 2024: Talk:Movement Charter/Ratification/Voting For specific enquiries to the Charter Electoral Commission, send an e-mail to cecwikimediaorg For other enquiries, send an e-mail to movementcharterwikimediaorg

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 60 days.

Archives

---

• Archive 1: December 2020 - August 2022
• Archive 2: September 2022 - March 2023
• Archive 3: March - September 2023
• Archive 4: September 2023 - March 2024
• Archive 5: March - June 2024

Movement Charter Drafting Committee perspectives

• MCDC members Ciell and Daria Cybulska explain what the Movement Charter is
• MCDC members Anass and Ciell talk about what the Global Council is
• MCDC member Georges talks about what the Hubs are
• Recording of the MCDC open community call on April 4, 2024

The final version of the Wikimedia Movement Charter

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... - Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• I have numerous comments both for and against; I have placed them in a report to my affiliate. If anyone else is interested, that report can be found at Cascadia Wikimedians/Joe Mabel's comments on the proposed Global Charter. - Jmabel (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Jmabel!

  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)

  Thank you for writing the comments, @Jmabel! Jetam2 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION: This is the final version of a draft for a Wikimedia Movement Charter, by the Movement Charter Drafting Committee.

UPDATES:

• Link to the above mentioned Additional materials to support understanding of the Movement Charter content
• As of July 8 2024, the draft has not been approved by the WMF Board of Trustees. See further: Results of Board vote and Resolution of the Board; next steps.
• July 18 2024 - Voting Results 'Individuals' and 'Affiliates'.

--Kevin Bouwens (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

No accountability to community

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

Guided by Movement Values, Principles of Decision-Making ...

but at the end of the passage it still has

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.

“Wikimedia Movement” is defined in the Movement Charter/Glossary due to be updated on 18 June 2024. Update: No substantial update: Special:Diff/27037980.

RXerself (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC). Updated RXerself (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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. - Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That's the thing. I don't get it either. RXerself (talk) 00:58, 14 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)

100% agree on this with @Sm8900. Kevin Bouwens (talk) 08:15, 5 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)

@Kevin Bouwens, yes agreed. that is why the WMF should be retained in that role by itself, in my opinion. Sm8900 (talk) 13:07, 8 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)

CIS-A2K's thoughts on the movement charter

The Wikimedia Movement Charter ("Charter") is a beacon, guiding our endeavour to democratise access to knowledge. This Charter delineates the shared values, principles, and policy framework for all associated with the Wikimedia Movement. It is a democratic, inclusive document that encompasses every participant, entity, project, and space within the movement.

The Charter's commitment to engage with multiple languages is a pivotal stride toward realising its vision of bringing free knowledge to the world. In a multilingual country like India, this commitment holds immense significance. With hundreds of languages and dialects spoken across the country, the potential to generate and share knowledge is vast, and yet, it remains largely untapped.

The Charter supports the creation of content in a multitude of languages, thereby promoting diversity and inclusion. The richness of India's linguistic diversity can thus contribute significantly to the Wikimedia Movement. Moreover, the Charter backs the development of tools and technologies for content translation and localization, which will ensure that language barriers do not inhibit access to knowledge.

However, the question that arises here is: Is this enough? Yes, the Charter engages with multiple languages, but does it delve deep enough into the challenges of doing so, especially in a linguistically diverse context like India? Addressing this issue requires more than just commitment; it necessitates a robust, implementable strategy that includes translation technologies, linguistic research, and community engagement. This could include fostering partnerships with local communities and institutions for language research and content creation, investing in the development of advanced translation and localization tools, and implementing language-focused outreach programs.

While the Charter takes significant steps towards a more equitable knowledge society, there are areas that warrant further attention. A glaring omission is the lack of critical engagement with emerging technologies, specifically Artificial Intelligence (AI). As AI continues to shape our digital landscape, it is imperative for the Wikimedia Movement to critically engage with it, considering both its potential benefits and pitfalls.

The use of AI can revolutionise content creation, translation, and dissemination, but it also brings forth concerns about data privacy, algorithmic biases, and the digital divide. The Charter, in its current form, does not sufficiently address these issues. To make a better Charter, we must incorporate a comprehensive strategy for engaging with AI, one that ensures its use aligns with the Movement's commitment to free, fair, and inclusive knowledge.

The Charter could also enhance its provisions for capacity building, particularly for under-resourced regions or communities. This includes training, funding, and infrastructure support, which are often crucial for democratizing access to knowledge.

While South Asian voices are present in the Wikimedia Movement, their representation is not commensurate with the region's size and diversity. This underrepresentation could lead to the concerns of South Asian wikimedia communities not being adequately heard on global platforms. To address this, the Charter could lay out specific mechanisms for ensuring fair and proportional representation. This might include reserved seats for underrepresented regions on decision-making bodies, or setting up regional councils that can effectively channel the concerns of local communities to the global platform. Furthermore, there's a need to provide support for local communities. Who will be this support provider and how do we facilitate this process in a truly democratic way?

So, do we need a Movement Charter?

Yes, we do. The Charter serves as a guiding document that unifies the Movement's diverse entities under a shared vision. However, its true potential lies in its ability to evolve. To make a better Charter, we must continuously scrutinise its contents, encourage open discussions, and readily adapt to the ever-changing digital landscape. The Movement Charter is a significant milestone in our pursuit of free knowledge. However, it is not the destination. The journey requires us to constantly reflect, adapt, and innovate. In essence, making the Charter better involves an ongoing process of reflection, engagement, and adaptation. It requires openness to feedback, willingness to confront challenging questions, and a commitment to evolve in response to the changing needs of the Wikimedia Movement. By doing so, the Charter can truly embody its vision of bringing free knowledge to the entire world.

- On behalf of CIS-A2K, Pavan (CIS-A2K) (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you on language. English Wikipedia is great, but the glaring problem of the project is the rest of the languages. AI could help solve this, but we need to heavily invest to create a truly multilingual worldwide Movement. We are too heavily focused on governance, but we haven't tackled the most pressing problem.

I agree with you on reserved seats. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sir Kenneth Kho I absolutely agree with you on this: we need to heavily invest to create a truly multilingual worldwide Movement. would you be open to please try the Movement Strategy Forums, as one useful and relevant resoruce? they offer instant translation, which in my opinion can hugely help us to approach this important goal. Sm8900 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is a step forward, but the goal of the forum is to "improve community collaboration on a multilingual platform" (community discussions), and I believe the Google Translate used is sufficient there. However, this is far from addressing the goal of "bringing free knowledge to the world" (writing encyclopedia) pushed by CIS-A2K. Automated tools can help, but quality encyclopedia needs volunteers. English Wikipedia has disproportionately more volunteers, an equitable solution would be to use donors' money to increase manpower for underserved languages. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sir Kenneth Kho: As pointed out above, FOSS is our first fundamental principle. Please take that seriously. Using Google Translate should be avoided, as it defeats the whole point of developing an open knowledge community. Google Translate is an anti-community service: it is not run with FOSS on servers that are managed transparently by an open community. It does not allow people to fork and run the software and use the source data on their own servers using free licences. There already exists https://libretranslate.org as one example of a front-end to the MIT/Expat-licensed Argos backend: Free and Open Source Machine Translation API, entirely self-hosted. Unlike other APIs, it doesn't rely on proprietary providers such as Google or Azure to perform translations. Instead, its translation engine is powered by the open source Argos Translate library. There are quite likely other FOSS translators available, and forks or branches of Argos/libretranslate are quite likely to develop, especially if Wikimedia community members take our first principle seriously rather than yielding to the #TyrannyOfConvenience . Boud (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not endorse Google Translate at all, and although I am not too familiar with FOSS subject matter, I probably agree with you. I was specifically advocating for WMF to hire writers for underserved languages, whom the community may direct. I criticized automated tools as unfit for writing encyclopedia, and only fit for forum discussion which was created recently by WMF. The name of the Forum is Movement Strategy Forums, WMF chose the use of Google Translate there, and I didn't discuss the merits of Google Translate vs automated translation alternatives. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification :). I do recommend that you read up at least the basics of FOSS - no need to become an expert, but at least having an initial impression of where a key part of the underlying power of the Wikimedia community comes from would be useful: software + servers + people are part of a strongly interacting dynamical system. This is not the first time that WMF makes a bad choice or recommendation - after all, that's one of the reasons for creating the Movement Charter and Global Council. Boud (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Results of Board vote and resolution by Board; next steps

The Board has announced the results of its vote on the proposed Movement Charter. The vote was almost unanimous, to decline the proposed Movement Charter,

• Resolution posted at WMF website.
  • Resolution: Draft Movement Charter and next steps
• Appendix to Resolution:
  • Appendix: "Initial pilot outlines for resource distribution, technology advancement, and support of Wikimedia movement organizations".
• Board announcement, here at Meta:
  • Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter

I hope these links are helpful. I would suggest that anyone can discuss these items, at the respective talk pages, or here at this talk page. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

this page url, from the Russia wikipedia, was posted on a group thread on Telegram, as being relevant to this topic.

• https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:Форум/Новости#Голосование_по_ратификации_Устава_Движения_Викимедиа_открыто_–_проголосуйте

--Sm8900 (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Sm8900 for pointing out. --Kevin Bouwens (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting results

For optional translations of the message by the CEC see the page "results of the ratification vote". The message is translated on a volunteer basis, so your preferred language may not be available (yet).

Hello everyone,

After carefully tallying both individual and affiliate votes, the Charter Electoral Commission is pleased to announce the final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter voting.  

As communicated by the Charter Electoral Commission, we reached the quorum for both Affiliate and individual votes by the time the vote closed on July 9, 23:59 UTC. We thank all 2,451 individuals and 129 Affiliate representatives who voted in the ratification process. Your votes and comments are invaluable for the future steps in Movement Strategy.

The final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting held between 25 June and 9 July 2024 are as follows: 

Individual vote:

Out of 2,451 individuals who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 2,446 have been accepted as valid votes. Among these, 1,710 voted “yes”; 623 voted “no”; and 113 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 73.30% voted to approve the Charter (1710/2333), while 26.70% voted to reject the Charter (623/2333).

Affiliates vote:

Out of 129 Affiliates designated voters who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 129 votes are confirmed as valid votes. Among these, 93 voted “yes”; 18 voted “no”; and 18 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 83.78% voted to approve the Charter (93/111), while 16.22% voted to reject the Charter (18/111).

Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation:

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted not to ratify the proposed Charter during their special Board meeting on July 8, 2024. The Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Natalia Tymkiv, shared the result of the vote, the resolution, meeting minutes and proposed next steps.  

With this, the Wikimedia Movement Charter in its current revision is not ratified.

We thank you for your participation in this important moment in our movement’s governance.

The Charter Electoral Commission,

Abhinav619, Borschts, Iwuala Lucy, Tochiprecious, Der-Wir-Ing
Borschts ^Talk 14:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• What a sad and coward outcome. Siebrand (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Siebrand: Briefly and clearly, can you say why you feel this way? Make it obvious. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• What about the comments? An essential part of the voting process was the free text comment field where voters could post comments, and I thought that comments would become public. Any schedule for that or update on the publishing process? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Bluerasberry As I understand, the WMF and CEC are working to make the dump of the vote available asap: a comprehensive summary of the feedback comments will be available before Wikimania. Ciell (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• What exactly is being meant with 'individuals'? Are these the people contributing as volunteers to the Wikimedia projects? When yes, I think it might be fair to use another label for this group, because of their special role in the movement. It would also be good to disclose a (realistic) number of now active contributors, so one gets a feeling for the percentage of people who did vote. Thanks for giving this a thought, Kevin Bouwens (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  The meaning is those who voted as individuals, rather than on behalf of an affiliate or the WMF. As I understand it the threshold was ~2300, and that was 2% so it gives ~115 000 qualified to vote through their individual contributions. GreenReaper (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you from the Movement Charter Drafting Committee

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee has received the results of the Movement Charter ratification process. We thank all who participated in the process of developing the Charter, and in voting on its ratification.

We thank the members of the broad and global Wikimedia community who participated in discussion and voting. Similarly, we thank the affiliates who participated in multiple rounds of review and commentary, as well as in the ratification vote. And last but not least, the liaisons of the Board of Trustees who have been continuously involved with the MCDC and charter drafting process.

Our thanks also goes to the members of the Charter Electoral Commission and the scrutineers, who ensured that the vote was conducted in a fair and inclusive manner:

• Abhinav619
• Borschts
• Iwuala Lucy
• Tochiprecious
• Der-Wir-Ing (CEC Advisor)
• Superpes15 (scrutineer)
• EPIC (scrutineer)
• Yahya (scrutineer)
• Johannnnes89 (scrutineer)

The development of the Movement Charter received significant assistance from external facilitators, interpreters, and from support staff throughout the process. Several of those support staff have moved on to other roles within the Wikimedia community. We note in particular the following, who worked with the MCDC as we finalized the draft and completed the ratification process:

• Kaarel Vaidla
• Nhu Phan
• Ramzy Muliawan
• Natalia Szafran-Kozakowska (communications support)
• Aida Akhmedova (communications support)
• Joe Sutherland (SecurePoll support)
• Nahid Sultan (SecurePoll support)

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee will be reviewing the extensive number of comments received from both affiliates and individual voters in the next few weeks. These comments will be published, with a summary, prior to Wikimania Katowice in early August 2024. Following this review, the MCDC will publish an additional communication suggesting next steps.

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,
Risker (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A Big Hand for all people involved in drafting!

I hope I speak for many, the ones with doubts, with reasons to vote no, yes or neutral, that all people involved in the drafting process deserve a big hand for their work, especially the people who were acting basically on a volunteering base. --Kevin Bouwens (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree agreed! yes, I want to express my sincere gratitude and respect to the entire movement charter drafting commitee. they did a huge amount of work. they truly want to improve the movement and its processes, for the entire community. their work product was truly impressive. i think we can all feel some real gratitude for the huge number of ideas they provided. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Movement Charter voting feedback (unsorted comments) and ratification clarification

Hi everyone,

I’m just following up here, because it has been brought to our attention that not everyone has access to the SecurePoll data dump, and therefore are missing the feedback that was collected through the voting ballots for the recent Movement Charter ratification vote.

Voter feedback

Staff has now listed all comments (65 comments from the affiliates voters and 447 comments from the individual voters) on Meta-wiki. They are displayed in sortable tables, but since this is the raw data, especially the page with comments from individuals, it can take some time to load.

We are also still working on a summary of this feedback that will be published before we come together at Wikimania, yet we know that some of you want to prepare now and not wait for the publication of this piece, so we are publishing the comments first.

Ratification quorum, turnout and threshold (clarification)

After the publication of the results of the affiliate and individual votes, we also noticed some discussion about the participation quorum and the approval threshold of the ratification vote. We’d like to take this opportunity to clarify the process:

• The participation quorum is how many people should cast any sort of vote (yes/no/neutral). After the April 2023 feedback round, we realized, both from comments and from experience in the Universal Code of Conduct votings, a minimum % based on previous single-choice votes made sense. Initially, we were operating from the assumption that the individual voter eligibility pool would be around 60-70K individuals, similar to previous Board elections. However, when we generated the voter list, it came out to be around 117K individuals. Here, a small change made all the difference: in previous elections (that had 60-70K eligible voters), the voting criteria allowed for a duration of 6 months (in the 2022 Board elections, it was Jan 2022 - July 2022) to make 20 edits, whereas the voter criteria for this ratification vote allowed for a duration of 2 years (May 2022 to May 2024) to make 20 edits, deeming more voters to be eligible to vote. To maintain the same number of voters (>2400), we changed the percentage from 4%, to a threshold of 2% of the eligible voter pool.
• The voter turnout was lower than in WMF Board of Trustees elections, because of the topic of the vote (not everyone would have been as familiar with the concept of a Movement Charter, as they are with the bi-annually occurring Board of Trustee elections), and also largely because the extraordinary mechanism of mass-emailing all eligible voters was not used. The choice not to use this tool was a deliberate decision by the MCDC, made early on in the drafting process and in collaboration with WMF's communications department, because while very effective in getting people's attention, mass mailing is considered a rather intrusive method of communication and is only to be used in exceptional circumstances.
• The approval threshold is how many voted in support of ratification. Originally, the ratification methodology placed this as 50%+1, but after feedback from the community, it was increased to 55% (but complemented with the addition of the quorum as described in the first bullet above).

It was further agreed upon between the MCDC and CEC, and communicated to the community, that a neutral (–) vote counted as participation, but not towards the approval threshold; a neutral vote would not count in favor of or in opposition to ratification.

Had we, as some proposed, counted the neutral vote anyway, the results of the votes would have been the following:

• Individual vote = 1710 “yes” votes / 2446 total votes = 69.91% approval
• Affiliate vote = 93 “yes” votes / 129 total votes = 72.09% approval

Both of the votes would still pass the approval threshold if we counted the neutral votes in the total.

We hope the information in this email provides additional clarity and context.

On behalf of the MCDC and CEC,

Borschts ^Talk 14:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Movement Charter Drafting Committee: process & ratification reflections

This message, "Movement Charter Drafting Committee: process & ratification reflections", was sent to wikimedia-l, and is available on this page to allow for translations.

Hi everyone,

As we start to wind down our work, we – the Movement Charter Drafting Committee – are grateful for the opportunity to go on this journey with each other and with all of you. You have engaged with us on many platforms and venues – Zoom calls, Meta Talk pages, Telegram messages, and at in-person events across the world. You have shown up in different roles – notably, Advisors and Movement Charter Ambassadors. You dedicated time to reviewing drafts and offering feedback. Most recently, you participated in the ratification process. From the very beginning through to the ratification vote, your comments and suggestions have informed the thousands of hours of discussion we have had as a committee. Thank you.

This is not the last time you will hear from us – we will share out once more before we bid farewell to you as the Movement Charter Drafting Committee – but we want to take this opportunity to offer our reflections ahead of seeing some of you in Poland for the 2024 Wikimania. These reflections will focus on the journey we have been on as a committee and the recent ratification results.

Reflections on the process

When we were convened in November 2021, the Movement Charter Drafting Committee consisted of 15 elected and selected members. Although each of us brought unique experiences from our respective communities, we were in this drafting process together. During the two and a half year process, some members resigned and new members joined us; and our friend and colleague User:Nosebagbear passed away shortly after Wikimania 2023. His contributions to the charter and our committee, as well as to the movement, were invaluable.

Early on, we acknowledged that creating a perfect charter was an impossible task. Instead, we focused on drafting a charter that would be "good enough" to serve the movement effectively in laying out the roles and responsibilities of different movement actors. We also differentiated between a “Movement Charter” and a “charter for the Global Council”, committing to the first one. Recognizing that both the Charter and the Global Council are experiments, we aimed to produce a Movement Charter that was “safe to try”, with the expectation that we would evaluate, iterate, and adapt with learnings over time.

The process of drafting a charter brought together people who have never met before to speak about challenges they faced, and to investigate what could be done to overcome those challenges. Many volunteers were introduced to aspects of movement governance for the first time, and felt motivated to understand better and to share with their community, in the hopes of shaping the future of the movement. The process also surfaced new problems and reiterated existing problems of participation within our movement, and at the same time highlighted the adaptability of individuals, communities, and affiliates to overcome them. The idea behind equity – mentioned in Movement Strategy Recommendation #4 Ensure Equity in Decision-Making – is to adapt the level of support to the needs of individuals in order to enable them to participate at the same level as others. We hope that throughout the charter drafting process, all movement actors felt empowered and supported in participating in these kinds of processes, that they felt that their voice was needed, and was heard. We hope that with the emphasis on convergence and compromise in our conversations and drafts, people learn that some of us need to take a step back to make room for others to step in and step up.

Our biggest challenges in drafting a charter involved stakeholder engagement and expectations management. Our movement is diverse, in size and in complexity. Our opinions are diverse, often spanning one side of the spectrum to the other. Our engagement styles are diverse: some are vocal, while others prefer to observe first. Some can engage us on any and all platforms, while others only want to speak face-to-face. We identified three main stakeholder groups: the individual contributors, the affiliates, and the WMF Board of Trustees, and their expectations towards us varied. The individual contributors wanted to solidify their rights to contribute and edit on projects, while being protected and not being hampered by bureaucracy; the affiliates wanted to expand the governance umbrella and decentralize power; and the Board wanted more incremental and concrete proposals for change. Even within each group, the perspectives were varied – was the charter to be a 2-page document that served as a high-level compass for governance or was the charter to be a 40-page detailed roadmap to navigate decision-making processes that took into consideration subsidiarity, self-organization, and organic collaboration?

The outcome of all these challenging questions was presented to you when we published our final text for the Movement Charter on June 10, 2024. This Charter has become a charter that describes current processes unchallenged; suggests new processes and ideas; and proposes improvements for the future where we thought certain topics were beyond our mandate or needed a more solid basis, rooted in a more extensive and targeted process to be validated.

Reflections on the ratification results

After we published the final text, we ran a ratification vote on the Charter. Thank you to all those who came out to vote – affiliates and individual contributors alike. We were pleasantly surprised by your overwhelming support. Thank you to the WMF Board of Trustees for your honesty and openness. We sympathize that it was not an easy decision to make.

Reading the comments and feedback that came from the vote, this is our takeaway: you support the idea of having a Movement Charter and a Global Council, but there are concerns with the proposed text. We would like to respond to two of the recurring feedback points that we have heard about the Global Council (more than 20% of all comments concerned this topic).

Purpose of the Global Council
We were often asked what the purpose of the Global Council is and what problem it is trying to solve; we were also told that form should follow function. However, the text of Recommendation #4: Ensure Equity in Decision Making does not provide sufficient information on what type of decisions should be made by the Global Council. And without agreement amongst and between the MCDC, the WMF Board, and the other stakeholders, it proved impossible to decide what the purpose and scope of the Global Council should be. We heeded the Board liaisons’ suggestion from February 2024 to align the Global Council’s responsibilities in areas where there is a potential for greater volunteer leadership in decision-making, specifically adding grant-making and technical strategy at their request, while working with the legal department to avoid anything that would constrain the WMF from exercising its fiduciary duty. Despite extensive efforts, reconciling the differing visions proved challenging, and the proposed compromise did not meet everyone's expectations.

Set-up of the Global Council
As the form of the GC should follow its function, outlining the set-up of the Global Council was even more of a challenge because this function was not agreed upon by the stakeholders. As such, we carefully explored the possibilities to find a balance between a big enough body that could be representative of the global movement and a small enough council that could be functional and agile. We heard from many of you about the pros and cons of each model; we ourselves had repeated conversations about the size and set-up of the Global Council. Here, we noted suggestions by different stakeholders, including the Board liaisons, to start small and expand over time. Those feedback taken together is how we ended up with the Global Council and the Global Council Board, totaling 25 members to start, with the potential to grow up to 100 members over time, if approved by all stakeholders, including the WMF Board. This was also done to minimize cost, and the process would have benefited from a thorough cost analysis of different scenarios and the ability to take advantage of existing infrastructure - for example, the repurposing of resources used to support current committees, or the possibility of the Wikimedia Summit gathering evolving to become less affiliate-centric.

MCDC next steps

While we are disappointed by the final result of the ratification vote, we know this is not the end of the conversation. At the time of publishing, we are on our way to Wikimania, where we hope to continue discussing with you about what’s next, not just for the Movement Charter and the Global Council, but for the Movement Strategy and the movement broadly. And after Wikimania, we will be sharing our final communication as the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, which will cover our recommendations for moving forward, including our thoughts on the three proposed pilots coming from the Board of Trustees’ ratification vote.

With kind regards,
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee

Anass Sedrati, Anne Clin, Ciell, Daria Cybulska, Georges Fodouop, Jorge Vargas, Manavpreet Kaur, Michał Buczyński, Pepe Flores, Richard Knipel, Runa Bhattacharjee; 05:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• This is a very thoughtful reflection on the process, and I agree with everything noted here - particularly that the Global Council proposal could benefit from a clearer consensus around what is needed and how it will accomplish that. I hope that as these conversations continue, we can move towards a clearly defined problem (such as a lack of meaningful community and affiliate control over movement decision-making), which will help clarify the role that the GC could serve in addressing that problem.

That said, I think this statement almost downplays the level of support that the Movement Charter recieved from the community and affiliates. I voted against, but 70% of my peers voted for - this cannot be ignored, and I truly hope that the Board remembers that they are supposed to represent the community when considering their next steps. It is clear that there is widespread support for both a charter in general and the Global Council. While they may not feel that this version was the right version, this effort cannot be simply ignored or replaced by more WMF-selected committees to encourage community involvement in governance. We need meaningful change in how decisions are made across our movement, and who is ultimately responsible for them.

My thanks to the drafting committee. You had years of difficult work, not made any easier by loud mouths here and there (couldn't be me ;-). I think the level of support received for this version is a testiment to how well you have bridged together various interests and perspectives. Let's all work towards 80% support and board approval for the next version, even if the MCDC isn't leading that work. – Ajraddatz (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree I want to second @Ajraddatz, on their gratitude to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. this has been a long and arduous process. your efforts were truly admirable, and entailed huge amounts of work to refine ideas, to hear from the community, and to work with multiple stakeholders. I want to offer my sincere gratitude and respect for all your work, Sm8900 (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Report back from Wikimania session "Well, the Movement Charter"

Thursday, August 8 there was a session held at Wikimania focusing on the Movement Charter, considering the current situation, and collecting proposals from participants for next steps. It was a conversational session, yet we also took light notes, which we are now posting here as a report back to inform further conversations. Thank you User:NPhan_(WMF) for note-taking support!

• You can find the Etherpad notes here.
• Here is the list of proposals generated by session participants:

➼Do nothing

➼Resource allocation needs to be isolated from WMF

➼The parties (individual contributors, affiliates, WMF) need to talk to each other

➼Piecemeal approval and implementation of parts of the Charter, while discussing the parts that are disagreed on

➼Quick rounds / iterations of negotiations (WMF CEO and Board should be involved) -- honest convos about where everyone's lines are (what are our constraints? what are

➼Radically expand our definition of "community" to include every single person who contributes to the movement, like the donors, readers, partners, etc. -- not just the "white men"

➼We should strive to be inclusive, but that doesn't need we need 10000+ people drafting the charter. Analogy: everyone should have an equal opportunity to contribute and decide on the menu, but there are only a handful who will cook the food

➼Start discussing the WHY questions next, like why do we need a WMF? Why do we need organizations?

➼Draft the charter like a Wikipedia article, once the enabling constraints are clear and agreed upon (reference to [1]

Looking forward to untangling the current situation together and getting to constructive next steps! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Amazing. why was a session held at Wikimania? Who says there is any room here, for friendly, collaborative, non-hierarchical discussions here, in a friendly collaborative fashion, as a community? and if there is, then why oh why aren't we using the one set of forums which was specifically established for building a process like that, semi-permanently? Sm8900 (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Recommendations for next steps from the MCDC, and Farewell

This message, "Recommendations for next steps from the MCDC, and Farewell", was sent to wikimedia-l, and is also available on this page to allow for translations.

Hi everyone,

This is our last communication as the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. The committee will dissolve today, August 30, 2024. We will take this opportunity to share our recommendations for the next steps concerning the Movement Charter work.

We want to start our recommendations for next steps by encouraging everyone to keep working on Recommendation #4 Ensure Equity in Decision-Making; we don’t need a “Movement Charter Drafting Committee” for this. It was clear in our conversations at Wikimania that you are passionate about governance and strategy, and you desire to move forward together. Simultaneously, we encourage the Wikimedia Foundation to take a more participatory and collaborative approach to Recommendation #4. The project contributors and the affiliates are two stakeholders in the movement; the Wikimedia Foundation is another. We need all three stakeholders to interdependently work together as equals to create a more equitable movement.

Regarding the three pilots from the Board’s resolution appendix

In the WMF Board’s resolution on 8 July 2024, they included three WMF-led pilot proposals that mirrored three of the functions that were assigned to the Global Council in the final text. We are encouraged by this alignment, and we view the proposal to test the functions in time-bound experiments to be a step in the right direction. However, we implore the Board to be bold and brave, and engage with and directly involve the movement to co-create and design together – affiliates and project contributors alike – in order to take these experiments forward. It is contrary to the principles of equity & empowerment and inclusivity & participation decision-making for WMF to be the sole decision-maker on how these pilots are conducted and if they are successful.

A core function of the proposed Global Council – future strategic planning for the wider movement – is not addressed by the three pilots. This should not be left behind in our changing world, and would be an appropriate field for community-led collaborations. As such, we recommend and encourage another pilot to be initiated by any interested stakeholders to fill this strategic gap.

Additional recommendations

We are pleased by the update from Maryana reaffirming WMF’s commitment to a charter for the movement. However, for any subsequent process to draft a Movement Charter or set up a new governance structure to succeed in the future, we believe the following things need to be resolved:

• With the WMF Board Governance Committee stepping in to support the path forward for a charter, we recommend that WMF clearly share their ideas for a movement charter – what is the purpose of a charter? Who would it serve? What should it look like?
• The initial idea of a Global Council was put forward already about 20 years ago, yet so far, there has not been a clear alignment across the movement to take this idea to action. Before the MCDC started their work, there had not been a movement-wide effort to align on what problem in our movement governance this additional structure would solve. We therefore recommend that all stakeholders – project contributors, affiliates, and WMF – clearly share whether or not they support the creation of a new governance structure and the addition of a new body like a Global Council. And if yes, their vision of it – what are the problems and needs this new body would address? Only after we have alignment can we take the next steps of deciding on its structure, responsibilities and composition.
• We recommend a review and an update to the Board liaison model to provide more clarity on what the role and responsibilities of liaisons are, how they interact with the committee they’re on, and what effectiveness looks like. This should be addressed for both committees with a limited mandate (e.g. MCDC) and committees with a continuing purpose (e.g. Affiliations Committee).
• We heard from the Board liaisons that the movement values needed to be validated by the entire Wikimedia Movement through a separate process. We therefore recommend that the WMF initiates or explicitly endorses a movement-wide process to validate the Wikimedia movement’s values.

Farewell

As we say farewell to you as the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, we want to leave you with this: the process of drafting a charter for, with and by the Wikimedia Movement has been an exhilarating journey. At times, we were overwhelmed by the intensity of interactions with the movement. From time to time, it felt like the feedback loops were never concluded and different stakeholders kept trying to intervene and give their feedback. Yet, this was probably the manifestation of the devotion in our movement to get things right together. Our committee was a microcosm of the larger movement: we represented different experiences and beliefs, we discussed and debated different approaches and proposals, and in the end, we made compromises to try to meet in the middle. We have learned a lot as individuals and as a committee, and we hope you too have learned something new during this process. Thank you again for your engagement and support during these past few years.

For the last time,
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee

Anass Sedrati, Anne Clin, Ciell, Daria Cybulska, George Fodouop, Jorge Vargas, Manavpreet Kaur, Michał Buczyński, Pepe Flores, Richard Knipel, Runa Bhattacharjee.

Thank you

I am catching up relatively late to this longer exchange, but I've read over your years of documentation, updates and hard look at all governance related questions concerning the broader movement. I am sure I speak for many when I express my appreciation and admiration for all the MCDC volunteers. Shushugah (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

thank you Movement Charter Drafting Committee! your work has been an exemplary example for others to follow!! your workload was immense, and the ideas you generated were prodigious!! anyone who may have differing opinions on these goals, would be glad to meet the very high bar you have set, in how to generate ideas, collect data, balance views, and to serve the community proudly and with integrity, excellence and determination!! bravo indeed!! I am proud to be a colleague of yours in my own small way, in our community. thank you, and happy editing to all of you!! Sm8900 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)