Movement Charter/Community Consultations/2023/DCW and Indic-Urdu Community

General Information

• Feedback channels: One on One in-person meetings, Group meetings, Communications on WhatsApp, Meetings on Google Meet.
• Number of participants: 20

Feedback

Global Council

Our community appears to be very strict concerning the decentralisation of the Wikimedia movement. The entire movement’s soul is decentralisation combined with a very little structuring of centralisation. As such, it was found from the conversations that, Global Council does not in its current form (content) appear to be such an entity. Although its purpose has been supported, to help sustain the movement, advising the Wikimedia Foundation, and its help in creating channels for simplifying access to resources. The community supports Global Council’s structure with an advisory board made of the people from: Wikimedia Foundation, Community, and other structures in the movement. However, there exists a problem on representation of the Global South: we do not feel that the structuring helps our movement-wide representation, given the number of affiliates that exists and the “seats reserved”. There should be selection process but it should be way different that what is set for WMF BOT elections. The community also recommends GC to support the Global South in Funds Dissemination and create legal channels that help flow of resources in this region easily. This means, the GC should not stop at just being someone that issues recommendations to the WMF BOT. Other feedback about the draft chapter:

• Centralisation of the movement is not a good idea.
• ...
• ...

Hubs

Our community has certain reservations with regards to hubs, and we believe hubs do not work in our context very well – particularly with regards to their role in the fund’s dissemination in a specific region. The Global South’s political scenario should be considered in this: what makes a regional hub exactly? Since thematic hubs are not allowed to fundraise directly – should Wikimedia national chapters or local movement organisations allowed instead? Urdu-language community is diversified in several countries that have political tensions, and it does not appear that either of the two kinds of hubs work for them in their journey of sustainability. Speaking at an India-level, we believe movement organisations like Centre for Internet and Society should be allowed to fundraise locally instead of bringing complex and practically-broken structures like Hubs to this region. The community does not feel appropriate to comment on the relevance of Hub structure in other parts of the world. However, “the number 2” is two minimal to establish a “hub”, and that Wikimedia affiliates should not be allowed to be members of more than “one hub”. It does not make any sense to our community. The community also seeks alternatives to Fiscal sponsorship in Indian context given the recent changes in the foreign funding laws in the country.

• There should be a limit on how many Hubs an affiliate can join.

Other feedback about the draft chapter:

• Regional Hubs in South Asia have repercussions?
• What is the need of the Hub structure when we have Movement affiliates in existence
• ...

Roles & Responsibilities

• It is suggested that the material be made simpler and that more explanation be added. The purpose of this advice is to improve the document's readability and accessibility, particularly for those who may not be deeply knowledgeable or involved in the movement. Its usability and accessibility to a wider audience should be improved with simplification and more explanations.
• We all are supposed to be responsible for our actions and edits but there should be accountability for the same to get things clear, our community does not have any concerns regarding this chapter.
• ...

Glossary

• Related terms are missing like "Wikimedia Enterprise" and "Hubs".
• More related terms need to be added.
• ...

Miscellaneous feedback

• ...
• ...
• ...

category:Movement Charter community consultation (2023)