ESEAP Conference 2022/Report/Analysis of the Community Engagement Survey for the Hub Sessions
Prepared by Movement Strategy and Governance team, Wikimedia Foundation
Executive Summary edit
In the East, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific (ESEAP) region of the Wikimedia movement, there has been an informal regional collaborative - the ESEAP Regional Cooperation - long in existence. Prior to the ESEAP Conference 2022, a community engagement survey was conducted to support the ongoing discussion of this regional cooperation. Below are the key results and findings from this survey.
Reaching a common understanding of the definition of ESEAP has been treated as crucial to identify the key stakeholders and the geographical scope of this regional collaboration, and has therefore been included as a part of the survey. There is a general consensus that countries in East Asia and Southeast Asia should be covered in this definition, which corresponds to the initial composition of this informal collaboration back in 2014. Views of the inclusion of the Pacific vary, with cultural differences being the prominent reason.
Regarding different actors in the Wikimedia movement, ESEAP affiliates are widely accepted as the stakeholders to drive the cooperation forward, where project-based communities and their members from both language and non-language projects were mentioned by some. In addition, active individuals and longtime contributors were also identified, as well as the Wikimedia Foundation. Views on external stakeholders vary.
Respondents think the regional cooperation should aim for the following:
- Providing free and accessible information on all knowledge
- Providing technical and operational services
- Covering the language diversity needs in ESEAP
- Connecting and bridging knowledge gaps
- Sharing ideas and expertise
- Strengthening communication within the region between different stakeholders
- Fostering close collaboration on ESEAP-related issues
- Capacity building and supporting the growth of the region, including supporting less-funded and less-organized communities, and those without affiliates.
The priority areas for collaboration within the region identified were “Resourcing facilitation (both financial and human resources)”, “Representing ESEAP in global discussions”, “Skill development across the region”, “Regional partnerships development” and “Regional events and activities”.
The respondents viewed existing challenges relating to different aspects. Language barriers, English-dominant, and cultural differences are the communication and coordination challenges, and also limited information from underrepresented groups. Timezone incompatibility, various sizes of groups, heavy reliance on volunteers, and a tendency to be insular were the engagement and behavior challenges identified. On finance, administration and logistics, lack of resources and support was a shared sentiment. There are also legal and governance challenges, including a lack of an agreed governance structure, an active core team and bylaws internally, diverse legal frameworks in the region, and lacking legal entities in engaging with external stakeholders.
To solve the above-mentioned challenges, on principle levels, respondents asked for the autonomy of the ESEAP community in decision-making, having a hub to be an active receiver of members’ requests for assistance, and focusing on positive connections to address cultural differences. There were wishes to establish a representative steering committee to support the drafting of the structure of an inclusive hub, including infrastructure to support communication and engagement across the region. Furthermore, to address capacity limitations, there were requests for having its own staff, and there were also asks for continuous financial support from Wikimedia Foundation. Some respondents see challenges in five years changing or unclear, the reasons being the lack of clarity on the decision-making structure, the centralization of resources and decision-making with Wikimedia Foundation, and priorities set by Foundation teams.
On reaching a consensus on the goal and strategies of the regional cooperation, some focused on the format, suggesting the formation of a leadership group for a limited timeframe, making ESEAP 2022 Conference a place for decision-making, establishing a decision-making system and holding meetings and consultations. Some on the other end focused on the essence and content of the consensus, including the goals and strategies of the region, and the functions and roles of the ESEAP Hub. Some commented on procedures and steps, and timing on reaching the consensus respectively, with Global Council being seen as a factor. Respondents mentioned the importance of equitable participation, regardless of their languages or style of expression, and asked for further discussions via various channels, with decisions to be agreed on Meta.
On ensuring equity in decision-making in ESEAP, proposals include ensuring representatives from different countries, affiliates, and active participants in committees, as well as developing a representative profile in guiding appointments or nominations. There were also proposals focusing on structures, including having an ESEAP Regional Council or a similar sub-regional structure, a steering committee, establishing a systematic way of decision-making, and having staff support in facilitating conversations. Respondents were also keen on having activities such as regular meetings, in-person activities, consultations, and training.
Regarding ESEAP Regional Cooperation to help achieve equitable regional representation in global decision-making or participation, proposals focused on the roles of the ESEAP Regional Cooperation - to act as a bridge between different stakeholders, to facilitate meetings and identify participants, and to ensure good performance of the region. There was also an emphasis on regular gatherings and meetings in suitable time zones and days. The respondents also called for actions from others, including ensuring adequate quota allocated to ESEAP for global-level participation, as well as conducting audits of all standing Wikimedia committees to determine if equitable geographical distribution is necessary.
Among the suggestions for the Hub sessions, some touched on the structures and needs of the Hub, relations with other stakeholders, representation, and what should the Hub focus on in its operation. The proposals along with their reasons were presented at the beginning of the Hub sessions, for participants to take into for their discussion.
Background edit
Regional and Thematic Hubs is a Movement Strategy initiative under the recommendation Ensure Equity in Decision-Making. Hub was also an area identified as a high priority on the agenda of the ESEAP Conference 2022 for strategic discussion. Acknowledging the need of the ESEAP regional cooperation to move from an informal collaboration group to a more formal structure aligned with the Movement Strategy recommendation, the Movement Strategy and Governance (MSG) Team of the Wikimedia Foundation expressed wishes to support the ESEAP community in further advancing its Hub governance discussion and achieving the next milestone. After consultation with the organizing team of the Conference, the MSG team submitted a session proposal. Following the session approval, Kaarel Vaidla, Vivien Chang, and Ramzy Muliawan of the MSG team together with two individuals designated by the organizing team - Johnny Alegre (User:Buszmail) and Rachmat Wahidi (User:Rachmat (WMID)) - formed a temporary group to support the Hub sessions of the Conference (Hereafter refer as the Hub workshop team).
To ensure everyone in the region has a chance to share their perspectives regarding the expectations of the ESEAP Regional Cooperation and how to move forward prior to the discussions at the Conference, the Hub workshop team designed and conducted a community engagement survey. Prior to finalizing the survey questions, the survey was reviewed by the organizing team of the Conference as well as with inputs from Mehrdad Pourzaki of the Movement Communications team of the Wikimedia Foundation.
This survey was conducted between 9 and 14 November 2022, with English as the survey language. It was announced on meta and distributed through the ESEAP mailing list and the main ESEAP social media channels, with potential further distributions in local community spaces. 66 (sixty-six) submissions were received. After removing submissions that were duplicates and/or did not answer any substantial question, 25 (twenty-five) usable submissions were identified and included in this survey analysis. The survey results served as a reference point to support the ESEAP Hub sessions at the Conference as well as the work the ESEAP Regional Cooperation has been doing throughout the years in this area.
There were limitations of this survey analysis, due to factors including the language of the survey and the scale of participation. The Hub workshop team was aware that the number of responses was not able to represent all views in the region. Despite these limitations, submissions from various ESEAP community members provided diverse viewpoints that were valuable for continuous discussions.
Feedback Categorization edit
The survey collected some personal information and the questions were divided into five main sections:
- What is ESEAP? (Questions 1, 2, and 3)
- Collaboration Areas Identification (Questions 4 and 5)
- Challenges of ESEAP Regional Cooperation and Moving Forward (Questions 6 and 7)
- Consensus and Decision Making (Questions 8, 9, 10 and 11)
- Suggestions for the Hub Sessions at ESEAP Conference 2022 (Questions 12 and 13)
Survey Participant Demographics edit
- Among the 25 usable submissions, the majority identified themselves as having an affiliation, with 20% of respondents without affiliations. Among those with affiliations, the survey got the most submissions from Wikimedia Australia (20%), Wikimedia Indonesia (12%), as well as from Wikimedia Taiwan, PhilWiki Community, and Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New Zealand (8% each). It is worth noting that there were individuals identifying themselves as affiliated with ESEAP (8%), which is outside of the current recognizing models of affiliations. There were individuals who identified themselves with two affiliations, therefore the above percentages were reflecting the self-identifications of the respondents.
- By country/territory of residence, the survey got the most submissions from Wikimedians residing in Australia, Indonesia and the Philippines (20% each).
- Of Wikimedia projects identified as participants’ Home wiki, the survey got the most submissions from English Wikipedia (24%), Indonesian Wikipedia (16%), Central Bikol Wikipedia (12%) and Wikimedia Commons (12%). It should be noted that there were respondents who identified two instead of one wiki as their Home wiki; therefore the above percentages were reflecting the self-identifications of the respondents.
- Of Wikimedia projects identified as participants’ active projects, the survey got the most submissions from Wikidata (48%), Wikimedia Commons (40%), Indonesian Wikipedia (20%), and English Wikipedia (20%). It should be noted that there were respondents who identified more than one wiki as their active project; therefore the above percentages were reflecting the self-identifications of the respondents.
- From those who disclosed their gender data, 68% of submissions identified as men and 16% identified as women; among these, 4% of the individuals also used non-binary pronouns. 16% did not state their gender.
Section 1: “What is ESEAP?” edit
1. What is the regional geographical scope of ESEAP? Does the country list on Meta cover well the scope? If not, what else is missing? edit
The majority of respondents (60%) shared the sentiment that the current list of countries and territories as stated in the Meta page of ESEAP Hub covers well the geographical scope of ESEAP. There is a general agreement that the countries in East Asia and Southeast Asia should be covered in this definition. However, 24% of respondents mentioned that countries in the Pacific Islands were missing from this list. On the other hand, there was also the view expressed to limit the scope. The explanation was that “In 2017, two participants from Australia attended the meeting of ESEA Wikimedians which eventually led to the inclusion of the broad Pacific region. The regional cooperation should go back to its original scope covering the East and Southeast Asian communities.”
There were also views proposing to remove certain countries specifically from this definition:
- China, for reasons that it could “overwhelm the community”;
- Russia, for reasons that it is “served by Central and Eastern Europe”;
- Australia and New Zealand, for historical reasons that the original East and Southeast Asia cooperation did not include these countries. It was also pointed out that there are some cultural differences in communication style that may not fit well with East Asia and Southeast Asia.
On the other hand, there were also suggestions to add further countries to the list, such as:
- Mongolia, mentioning that the list included countries with radically different cultures and languages and only united by geography. The comment argued that Mongolia should be included in the case that China is included.
- India, without clear reasons explained. The respondent said, “I sometimes think India should be included too, but it does make sense that some sort of boundary must be drawn.”
2. What do you think the ESEAP Regional Cooperation should aim to be? edit
There was a wide variety of goals mentioned for the ESEAP Regional Cooperation. It was suggested that the ESEAP Regional Cooperation should aim for the following:
- Providing an accessible and free encyclopedia which contains information on all branches of knowledge, and in as many ESEAP languages as possible. There were also comments focusing on having the ESEAP Regional Cooperation providing services for communities and affiliates, including regular technical and operational assistance. Regional conferences were also identified to be provided by this collaboration.
- Connecting and bridging knowledge gaps, as well as differences of language diversity of every ESEAP country. It was also commented that there should be increased communication within the region in order to achieve closer cooperation and being aware of situations of each member. Uniting cultures to strengthen the connections between affiliates and connecting with other Chapters were also pointed out. There were also wishes expressed for community members in the region to cooperate and collaborate with each other in building ESEAP covered and related knowledge.
- Ensuring free flow of information among its members and removing obstacles on this matter. In addition, ensuring capacity building and members having autonomy in running outreach activities and campaigns was also mentioned.
- Supporting, aiding, and helping the growth of the movement in the ESEAP region. It was also envisioned that the ESEAP Regional Cooperation will support all countries in the region without their own Wikimedia affiliate to develop the Wikimedia movement and create the local organization. Another comment focused on countries in the region that lack Wikimedians to be supported. Furthermore, a response pointed out that more-organized and better-funded communities should support less-funded and less-organized ones.
- Enabling, allowing, and encouraging the needs of communities without affiliates to be heard in the global movement. There was also an expectation that the ESEAP Regional cooperation would enable greater equity in the movement committees and activities as well as access to discussions. Communities able to grow as they see fit as well as having cross-cultural collaboration and multilingual projects were also mentioned.
- Removing colonial structures through enabling equity in decision making.
- Exchanging and sharing ideas on key issues in the region, as well as on resources and expertise.
In relation to the Wikimedia Foundation specifically, respondents mentioned the ESEAP Regional Cooperation should aim for:
- Creating a dedicated support structure for the region, to obtain direct assistance and technical support from the Foundation.
- Promoting the hiring of ESEAP-based employees by the Foundation to engage with the region further.
- Aiding in the decentralization of Foundation activities, which in the respondent’s view heavily focused on North America and Europe.
3. In your view, who are the relevant stakeholders of the ESEAP Regional Cooperation? edit
From the responses, the affiliates in ESEAP were widely accepted (60%) as the stakeholders to bring and drive the ESEAP Regional Cooperation forward; some mentioned all the affiliates in the region, with some mentioned a few affiliates specifically - namely Wikimedia Australia, Wikimedia Indonesia, and Wikimedia Taiwan were mentioned. The three user groups in the Philippines, despite not all being Wikimedia affiliates, were also mentioned by one respondent.
Project-based communities and their members were also mentioned by quite some respondents (32%); some responses explicitly mentioned that the communities include languages spoken in ESEAP as well as other non-language projects such as Wikidata and Commons. Similarly, active individuals and contributors were also mentioned by some (36%); one response noted Butch Bustria for his longtime contribution to ESEAP Regional Cooperation. A few responses also identified Wikimedia Foundation being a relevant stakeholder (16%).
There were different views regarding who else to be considered as relevant stakeholders. The below is an overview of the ones got mentioned:
- GLAM organizations
- Education sector, including universities, schools and research units.
- NGOs
- Leaders or key contacts of other regions and non-regional/thematic groups who use Hubs to facilitate contacts in ESEAP
- Indigenous knowledge holders
- Citizens in ESEAP
There were also responses focusing on who are not relevant stakeholders, the balance between stakeholders, and the unclear areas. The below were the ones mentioned:
- Ones in other geographical regions that did not provide direct benefit to ESEAP
- No country should have more say than any other, as well as individuals
- Whether Wikipedia Asian Month is an ESEAP project
Section 2: Identifying Areas for Collaboration edit
4. What would you like the ESEAP Regional Cooperation to achieve further? What do you identify as potential ESEAP Regional Cooperation areas? edit
5. From previous discussions in ESEAP, there have been areas of ESEAP Regional Cooperation identified. Which are the priorities in your view? edit
Among the areas surfacing from previous ESEAP regional discussions, the top priority area identified for collaboration within the ESEAP region by the most respondents from this survey was “Resourcing facilitation (both financial and human resources)” (20%), with “Representing ESEAP in global discussions”, “Skill development across the region”, and “Regional partnerships development” as the followings (16% respectively).
As for the second priority, most respondents selected “Skill development across the region” (32%) and “Regional events and activities” (28%), with “Resourcing facilitation (both financial and human resources)” as the following (12%).
Regarding the third priority, “Regional events and activities” was the one that stood out (20%).
These priorities may cover the following areas according to the answers shared by the respondents, regarding what they would like the ESEAP Regional Cooperation to achieve further:
Resourcing facilitation (both financial and human resources) edit
- administrative, legal, financial, governance advice and support
- engagement with the Wikimedia Foundation
- grants review and administration
- a help desk for the region
- a support group which provides consulting services to new or potential affiliates
- translation support for regional languages
Skill development across the region edit
- advanced skills and leadership training as well as simple user training
- cross-community knowledge and skill sharing and exchange, including ideas and solutions
- cross-country cooperation to support community building and activating activities
- developing strong editing communities and new affiliates
Representing ESEAP in global discussions edit
- representation in global movement bodies
- having representatives that can represent the views of editors in the whole region in global policy discussions, but not just views of their own.
Regional partnerships development edit
- committees composed of each local chapter and user group
- cross-country content collaboration on biodiversity knowledge, history, data gathering and sharing, as well as digitization of public domain printed content, film and audio.
- regional projects and cooperation
Regional events and activities edit
- language and local meetups
- online events and campaigns
- regional conferences, including regular Wikimania/Wikimedia Summit-like conferences and thematic ones focusing on language, education, culture, science, or technology.
- regional content projects, competitions and contests
In addition, there were also details mentioned for the below areas:
Common public policy efforts edit
- advocacy and policy for ESEAP, both internally in the Wikimedia movement and externally with partners, governments, and NGOs.
Ensure institutional memory of collaboration edit
- communication from the communities that are not yet well represented; Wikimedia Korea and Myanmar Wikimedia Community User group were the two examples quoted.
Apart from the above, there was also a response focusing on what Hub should not be:
- Hub is to not be treated as a regional affiliate but only as a venue for collaborations.
Section 3: Challenges and Steps Forward edit
6. What do you see as the existing challenge(s) for the ESEAP Regional Cooperation at the moment? What do you think would be helpful to address them? edit
Existing challenges identified from the survey for the ESEAP Regional Cooperation are linked to a few different aspects, including communication and coordination, engagement and behaviors, finance, administration and logistics, as well as legal and governance. Various solutions on principle level and implementation level were proposed. Below is an overview of the responses.
Communication and Coordination edit
- Language diversity within the region and English being used as the default language for meetings leads to language barriers.
- ESEAP Regional Cooperation is dominated by English-speaking and first-world countries, namely Australia and New Zealand.
- Lack of information and communication from underrepresented countries and communities.
- Cultural differences and lack of common interests; no effective activities which can work well for all countries in the region.
- Lack of good understanding of different countries, cultures and their wikis.
- How to properly appreciate individual members' problems and how to address them communally.
Engagement and Behaviors edit
- Timezone incompatibility with most of the movement.
- Very different sizes of groups and different levels of engagement within the movement; lack of experience within the movement or with global collaborations.
- Reliance on volunteers already heavily committed in local and/or global communities.
- Wikimedians in ESEAP have a tendency to be insular.
Finance, Administration and Logistics edit
- Lack of resources and administrative support.
- The global pandemic and wide geographical coverage make in-person meetings challenging.
- Different population sizes.
Legal and Governance edit
- Internally within the Wikimedia Movement:
- lack of governance and agreed structure of the ESEAP Regional Cooperation.
- lack of an active core team and workable bylaws.
- Non-stakeholders (such as individuals from Europe and European thematic user groups) dominate geographical hub discussion.
- relatively little participation of representatives from ESEAP in the global movement.
- Externally within the ESEAP region:
- Diversity of legal framework of individual countries.
- lack of legal entity in engaging with governments and GLAM organizations.
There were some potential solutions proposed for these existing challenges:
On principle level:
- Ensuring the ESEAP community is autonomous in making its own decisions; those who are not directly affected or benefiting from the structure should not be given priority in importance.
- Hub to be an active receiver of members' requests for assistance in various levels of the undertaking.
- Focusing on the positive connections to address the cultural differences.
- Calling out or not supporting activities that are against the code of conduct and values of the movement.
On implementation level:
- Establishing a representative steering committee that is supported to draft a way of working as an inclusive hub, including infrastructure to support communication and engagement across the region.
- Having its own staff to address the issue of the limited capacity of volunteers taking on coordination work.
- Having continuous financial support from Wikimedia Foundation with further progress.
- Having a mailing list in the English language for communication purposes.
- Starting new activities.
- Equity in participation for all ESEAP communities.
- Assisting with translation and transcription software.
7. Following question 6, do you see any differences in main challenges and ways to address them in the next five years? If so, what are the differences and what would be helpful to address them? edit
The views regarding whether the challenges would remain or change in the next five years were quite different; some argued the challenges would remain and some thought they would change, and there were also answers mentioning it depends on the situation. For potential future challenges, solutions on principle levels and implementation levels have been proposed. There were also responses focusing on the needs and opportunities.
Those who mentioned the challenges would remain argued that:
- If the scope of ESEAP remains wide, the challenges would remain.
- If communities or volunteers don't see ESEAP Hub as being helpful and powerful, the hub will be a useless experiment in politics.
- Time zones and diversity of languages are challenges difficult to solve.
Those who mentioned the challenges would change argued that:
- Centralization of resources and decision-making in the wider movement with the Wikimedia Foundation could be a challenge.
- If there's no global pandemic and the price of oil goes down, there will be an improvement in cooperation.
- There will be a new generation which is tech-savvy and involved in social media much more than the previous generation. This condition will lead us to shift to be more involved in creating audiovisual content rather than text-based to attract newcomers to join our movement.
- Policy and human rights, security issues will also affect us and potentially be directly challenging for ESEAP Regional Cooperation.
Some mentioned that it depends on the situation or they were unsure, the reasons being:
- More information is needed regarding the decision-making structure.
- It is upon the political will of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department and Movement Strategy and Governance Team which voices they prioritize most.
There were also some solutions proposed for these potential future challenges:
On principle level:
- “Ensure Equity in Decision-making" and "Coordinate Across Stakeholders" recommendations are vital.
- Sensitivity, creativity and readiness to resolve problems will make a difference in managing this Regional Cooperation.
- Expanding the capacity across ESEAP.
- Developing strategic directions.
- Encouraging two-way conversations to eliminate misunderstandings or being unaware of the current issues in the movement.
On implementation level:
- Establishing the Global Council.
- Having an ESEAP coordinator supported by the Wikimedia Foundation to help with continuity and coordination rather than relying on volunteer time.
- Better training to ensure translations are being improved over time.
- A legal entity that does not subject volunteers to laws of another jurisdiction, to prevent putting volunteers at risk.
- Implementing bigger projects and collaborations; more cross-country events and virtual events.
- Offering exchange programs, in which affiliates can exchange their members for projects or community activities.
Some comments focused on the needs, including:
- Need for ongoing skills both on Wiki and in management.
- The Wikimedia Foundation to understand the region being outdated in technical training, low organizational capacity, and representation on key volunteer committees.
- The Wikimedia Foundation acknowledges the differences in financial resources and plan investment more equitably.
- All Wikimedia Foundation employees take time zone issues into consideration when planning.
A comment focused on opportunities:
- possibilities of Abstract Wikipedia to address the language barrier, as well as the general depiction of languages and lexemes in Wikidata for increasing outreach and aiding translation and cross-language collaboration.
Section 4: Consensus and decision making edit
8. How should the consensus be reached in defining the goal and strategies of ESEAP Regional Cooperation - moving from an informal group to a more formal structure aligned with the hub piloting guidelines? edit
The proposals of how to move forward in reaching a consensus focused on a few different aspects. Some focused on the format/venues of reaching consensus, while some focused on the essence and content of the consensus, procedures and steps, and timing of reaching the consensus respectively. There was also a respondent questioning that there seems to be a preconception that members of ESEAP want to get to a consensus.
Format/Venues of reaching consensus edit
- Form a leadership group to take ESEAP forward from the Conference for a limited time.
- Making the ESEAP 2022 Conference a place for decision-making.
- Establishing a decision-making system, which can be formed in the form of an organization-designated representative system, community selection system or election system, as long as it can fully represent the opinions of various communities and have a substantial influence on existing affiliates.
- Hold meetings and consultations.
The essence of the consensus that needs to be reached edit
- Discussing and reconsidering any goals and strategies of ESEAP.
- Clear consensus on what are the functions of the ESEAP Hub, its values, purpose and benefits.
- To let everybody understand clearly the problems in order to reach the goal and strategies of ESEAP Regional Cooperation.
- Democratic principles to guide in attaining the goals.
- Hub not being another Affiliate group with members, but only a venue for collaborations.
Steps for reaching the consensus edit
- First achieve consensus on whether formality and alignment are required/desired, followed by recognising the guidelines if ESEAP seeks to access hub piloting funding. Afterwards, inviting interest/nominations for a representative drafting group. Later on, inviting interest/nominations for an organizing team based on guidelines drafted for a staggered term.
- First let the conference attendees voice out their situations and inherent problems freely and in an easy, friendly atmosphere. From the inputs, the group can sense the pressing needs and underlying problems of the majority of the members, and should be sensitive also to some unique problems of the minority.
- First through discussion with the community, at the ESEAP Conference and ongoing. Continuing through a steering group that helps to coordinate the discussion, and then employing someone to provide administration, help with the community coordination and facilitate the discussions.
Timing of when consensus should be reached edit
- Moving to a more formal structure should be deferred and modelled after the structure of the Global Council, whatever form that may be.
Relevant question/view edit
- There is a preconception that members of ESEAP want to get to a consensus; there are communities interested in editing but not engaging in the community organization as there's no perception that it affects them.
9. There is a potential that the upcoming ESEAP 2022 conference would become a decision-making point for some of the elements. If you are not attending the conference, what are the needed steps to include your perspectives for any decision-making process? edit
Proposals included the following for those who did not attend the ESEAP 2022 Conference:
- Having discussion and decision agreed on Meta.
- Everyone in the community should be given a platform to participate - without limiting their participation due to language barriers and styles of expressing themselves in discussions due to different cultures.
- Any decision made at the conference should be shared with the wider community either at the end of the conference or soon afterwards, and feedback mechanisms and further discussion would occur via various channels.
- Gather opinions from the local communities before the ESEAP conference by the Wikimedia Foundation or other senior community members.
- Having a form to submit any perspective from people who won't attend the conference.
- Holding online meetings.
- The attendees share any decision-making process back with their communities and ask for feedback from others.
10. How can ESEAP Regional Cooperation connect and help ensure equity in decision-making in the region? edit
For ensuring equity in decision-making, the responses touched on aspects including representation, structures, and activities of the ESEAP Regional Cooperation.
Representation edit
- Developing a representative profile of the region to be used in guiding appointments/nominations, to ensure a spread of country, language, culture, gender and project members.
- Ensuring representatives from each country in the ESEAP region.
- Ensuring committees with representatives from different affiliates.
- Ensuring decisions are responsive to the needs of both bigger groups and smaller groups.
- Allowing the voices of each ESEAP active person and organization to be heard.
Structures edit
- Establishing something similar to the Global Council, such as having an ESEAP Regional Council.
- Making a sub-regional structure to limit the scope in order to achieve the recommendation ”Ensure equity in decision making".
- Through a steering committee, a consultation committee, and communication systems.
- Having staff support, and through staff who have the role to facilitate conversations and decision-making.
- Having a diverse structure of not necessarily leadership but decision-making and collaboration.
- Decisions are made with a systematic way of decision-making, and equity can be achieved by examining the ways of composition and operation of the system.
Activities edit
- Regular online meetings, gatherings, and in-person activities, and can involve the attendance of some of the leadership groups.
- Providing organizers training on the whole infrastructure of Wikimedia Foundation, hubs, affiliates, communications channels, and preferred engagement methods.
- Opening discussions with community members.
- Regular consultations.
11. How can ESEAP Regional Cooperation connect and help ensure equitable regional representation in global decision-making or participation? edit
The responses included those focusing on the roles of the ESEAP Regional Cooperation and activities it should carry out or maintain, as well as some mentioned actions that should be considered by other stakeholders.
Roles of the ESEAP Regional Cooperation edit
- Acting as a bridge between local affiliates/groups/individuals and the global movement and Global Council, including spearheading translations, communicating discussions, and other similar coordinating tasks.
- Facilitating meetings and identifying participants who have the capacity to be part of those processes.
- Ensuring the performance of ESEAP is good so that the thoughts shared would naturally be valued and there would be better balance when it comes to views of ESEAP in global operation.
- Ensuring no misrepresentations.
Activities to carry out/maintain edit
- Online meetings and regular gatherings, and should be in suitable time zones and on appropriate days that allow for cultural needs.
Relevant questions edit
- How is the hub administered?
- Who is on the organizing group for the hub, and their commitment to this change?
- What does the capacity of each affiliate look like?
Call for action to other stakeholders edit
- Taking time zones and visas into consideration when planning activities to ensure well representation.
- Ensuring that there is automatic and adequate representation from ESEAP; a permanent allotment of participation to be granted to the group at the global level.
- Conducting an audit of all Wikimedia standing committees such as arbitration committees, language committees, affiliation committees and Movement Charter Drafting Committee to determine if an equitable geographical distribution is necessary.
Section 5: Suggestions for the Hub workshop session edit
12. What are the areas that you think should definitely be discussed in the Hub sessions in ESEAP Conference 2022? edit
13. Following question 12, why should these areas be discussed in the Hub sessions in ESEAP Conference 2022? edit
Suggestions for the Hub workshop sessions touched on the structures and needs of the Hub, relations with other stakeholders, representation, and what should the Hub focus on in its operation. The respondents also shared their reasons for these proposals.
Structures and needs of the hub edit
- Format and governance
- Goals
- Who to draft plans and monitor
- A steering group, a leadership group
- Bylaw
- Resources needed and where/when could the group apply for support
Reasons:
- There are different pictures of how an ESEAP hub could work; utilizing the opportunity to build a shared picture.
- Continuation from the existing discussions and ongoing discussions on the hub in the region.
- The above is important for setting up the hub.
- The charter is the basis for people to imagine the way of operation, the composition of power, and the allocation of resources; discussing this will also help to advance the organization in the future.
- Unless the leadership group is expanded in a balanced way it is not viable to continue.
Relations with other stakeholders edit
- Relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation.
- Timeline relating to the ongoing work (Movement Charter, Global Council)
- The need for other communication systems or not.
Reasons:
- The above is important for setting up the hub.
- The outcome of the ongoing work with the Movement Charter and the setting up of the Global Council will definitely affect the ESEAP Hub. Work on formalizing the ESEAP Hub should work in harmony with the work happening elsewhere and not in isolation.
Representation edit
- Listen closely to the small language groups.
- Scope and targets of the regional cooperation in terms of participation in regional projects and policies of representation of the region for its voice to be heard.
Reasons:
- Small groups often are subject to the sparse availability of good and adequate sources as reference materials.
- The region is under/misrepresented.
Focuses of the operation edit
- Cultural, Social, and languages in ESEAP.
- Cross-cooperation and team building.
- Outreach to countries with no affiliates.
- Discussions about subregions (East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific).
Reasons:
- For inclusion of all members.
- Important to the development of the region.
- Those areas could be so important if we related to our Wikimedia projects.
- To ensure all countries are represented in ESEAP.