Movement Charter/Ratification/Voting/Results/Voter comments - affiliates
This page contains comments posted by voters from the 2024 Movement Charter ratification vote. Please do not edit this page directly. |
Out of 129 affiliates designated representatives that cast their vote in the Movement Charter ratification vote, 65 posted their comments.
Comments in languages other than English were translated using machine translation.
In order to help sort out the comments according to a relevant category, the support staff has identified primary and secondary themes for each comments. The themes are:
- General Support — comments that are generally supportive of Movement Charter ratification
- General Oppose — comments that are generally opposed to Movement Charter ratification
- General Neutral — comments that are neutral on the question of Movement Charter ratification
- Principles and Values — comments concerning the Principles and Values section of the Movement Charter
- Contributors, volunteers, and projects — comments concerning the rights, roles, and/or responsibilities of the Wikimedia projects and its volunteer contributors in the Movement Charter
- Affiliates & hubs — comments concerning the rights, roles, and/or responsibilities of the Wikimedia movement affiliates and Hubs in the Movement Charter
- WMF — comments concerning the rights, roles, and/or responsibilities of the Wikimedia Foundation in the Movement Charter
- GC — comments concerning the proposed Global Council in the Movement Charter
- Inter-Actors Relationship — comments concerning the relationship of different actors within the Wikimedia movement in the Movement Charter
- Amendment — comments concerning the process to amend the Movement Charter
- The process — comments concerning the process of developing the Movement Charter by the MCDC
- Ratification — comments concerning the ratification process of the Movement Charter
- Translation, language, readability — comments concerning the language aspects and how the Movement Charter is written
- Miscellaneous — other comments that are not quite fit into other themes.
| id | Primary theme | Secondary theme | Comment (in original language) | Comment (translated into English) | Language |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ratification | Affiliates & hubs | The quorum of 50% forces us to vote in this process. You are using a broken affiliate model for decision-making, where a hobby group of 3 people has the same voting power as an organisation with 115,000 members, 180 employees and representing 80 million people. This needs to stop if you want people to believe that these kind of processes are worth participating in. | en | |
| 2 | General Support | Nos débats ont notamment souligné des insuffisances concernant la parité, mais ce texte est une avancée et nous voulons remercier le MCDC pour son travail. | Our debates have notably highlighted inadequacies regarding parity, but this text is progress and we want to thank the MCDC for its work. | fr | |
| 3 | General Support | Nous validons la charte du Mouvement Wikimedia dans son intégralité. | We validate the Wikimedia Movement charter in its entirety. | fr | |
| 4 | General Support | Principles and Values | Wikimedia Community User Group Niger est heureux d'annoncer notre soutien à la ratification de la Charte du Mouvement Wikimédia 2024. Ce document marque un tournant important pour le mouvement Wikimédia, en promouvant une gouvernance plus équitable, inclusive et représentative des diversités culturelles du monde entier. Nous apprécions particulièrement la reconnaissance de l'importance de l'équité et de l'inclusivité dans la charte. En tant qu'affilié, nous avons souvent été témoins des défis uniques auxquels nos communautés sont confrontées pour accéder et contribuer au savoir libre. Les principes énoncés dans cette charte, notamment l'autonomisation des communautés locales et la création des Hubs régionaux, sont des initiatives que nous soutenons avec enthousiasme. Wikimedia Community User Group Niger est engagé à travailler avec tous les partenaires du mouvement pour concrétiser cette vision. Nous continuerons à promouvoir le savoir libre et à renforcer notre engagement envers les valeurs de transparence, d'inclusivité et de collaboration. | Wikimedia Community User Group Niger is pleased to announce our support for the ratification of the Wikimedia Movement Charter 2024. This document marks an important turning point for the Wikimedia movement, promoting more equitable, inclusive and representative governance of cultural diversities around the world. . We particularly appreciate the recognition of the importance of equity and inclusiveness in the charter. As an affiliate, we have often witnessed the unique challenges our communities face in accessing and contributing to open knowledge. The principles set out in this charter, notably the empowerment of local communities and the creation of regional Hubs, are initiatives that we enthusiastically support. Wikimedia Community User Group Niger is committed to working with all movement partners to realize this vision. We will continue to promote open knowledge and strengthen our commitment to the values of transparency, inclusiveness and collaboration. | fr |
| 5 | General Neutral | The process | Wikimedia Norge is of the opinion that the Movement Charter doesn't fulfil the Movement Strategy Principle of Inclusivity & Participatory Decision-Making. In particular: "Intentional effort must be made to ensure all voices are included and have a clear role in decision-making processes that impact them and our Movement." An important part of this is a top-level decision-making body of movement representatives, i.e. the Global Council. Wikimedia Norge is, however, against setting up an initial Global Council that will be given carte blanche to determine its future composition, governance, and processes. That would put the new council in a similar position to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee - no clear mandate and no movement consensus about desired outcomes. Chances are we would end up with another lengthy process that drains those involved of enthusiasm and resources. And, of course, we would have no guarantee that the Global Council will comply with the mentioned Movement Strategy principle. The Movement Strategy is a guide for change, but it’s not a step-by-step manual. Pressing questions were never answered and agreed upon by the movement as a whole and the WMF, making it difficult, or impossible even, to write a charter. When it comes to roles, responsibilities and powers, the Movement Charter Drafting Committee was given the impossible task of reconciling conflicting views in a text that could be ratified movement-wide. We strongly feel that it is the process that has failed, and not the volunteers and staff that have made an immense effort for the good of this movement. The charter is a Movement Strategy priority, which we fully support, but we consider the current text an unfinished version. Hence the blank vote. We would support efforts to re-design and reboot the process. We agree with the many comments that a lot of time (and money) has been wasted these last months by the WMF Board of Trustees liaisons letting the process run its course and then announcing last-minute that they will not ratify. When was the decision made? A predetermined outcome would have been a breach of trust towards everyone who has contributed to the Movement Charter efforts. Our blank vote is also a protest against wasting further resources by carrying out a meaningless ratification vote. We urge the BoT and its liaisons to embrace change and to take part in a rebooted, collaborative process to work on the Movement Charter and a future Global Council. Our main and shared ambition should be subsidiarity and equity in decision-making. | en | |
| 6 | Translation, language, readability | GC | The translation is too hard to read. This means that only people with high English skills can participate in the discussions. We think that illustrations and other materials are necessary as subtext to the charter. We are afraid that the Global Council will only complicate the way things are decided. We are afraid that the Global Council will also become English-centric. | en | |
| 7 | General Oppose | This is an official statement from Wiki Movimento Brasil regarding the Movement Charter. Our membership voted from June 23 to June 30 and decided to oppose the ratification. While we acknowledge the value in the proposed document, the amazing effort of the Drafting Committee and recognize several points as steps in the right direction, we remain concerned that the current proposal does not adequately address points we have raised about promoting equity and deepening democracy within our movement. Additionally, we believe that the Charter and its ratification procedure have exacerbated tensions among communities, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation. Regardless of the reasons behind this, we do not consider it the appropriate time for a major governance shift. Wiki Movimento Brasil is convinced that we should strengthen participatory processes within our movement and adjust our leadership priorities to creatively address external trends. By empowering our local communities, we are committed to acting in this direction. | en | ||
| 8 | General Oppose | Affiliates & hubs | The Stewards' User Group opposes the ratification of this charter, due primarily to the addition of bureaucratic systems without clear benefit to the communities and over-representation of affiliates and affiliate-related interests. The stewards who participated in the user group discussion were overall opposed to the ratification, though approximately 20% did express some support (or neutrality), saying that the proposal was possibly the best we could get and there may be some benefits for affiliates and regional hubs. | en | |
| 9 | The process | We have concerns regarding the charter in its current form. While we agree, overall, it is an important effort, we have hesitation regarding the amount of volunteer time required to achieve these goals. The document also requires a clear delineation of the problems it is trying to address after which it should indicate how the charter will address them. We just finished a massive global strategy effort. It is time to actualize this strategy. How we do this within a volunteer movement should generally come from below rather then being dictated from above. | en | ||
| 10 | General Support | WMF | Wikimedia Österreich ratified the Charter, as we want to signal our support for the original ideas and recommendations that provided the basis for this document. In our view the Charter can only be a starting point to bring about the much needed and movement-wide agreed change towards more subsidiarity and equity in decision-making. We also want to express our concern regarding the opaque leadership approach of the Wikimedia Foundation, taking on and fast tracking some of the strategy implementation (e.g. the Universal Code of Conduct or Wikimedia Enterprise) while other arguably more central processes such as the Movement Charter did not get the attention they deserved. The timing of the WMF Board’s various feedbacks did not support but rather undermine any chance of success for this process. However, the lack of a coherent plan B or alternative route to achieve equity in decision-making is even more bewildering. Instead of offering an appealing vision for the future or at least a path forward, the suggestion is to revert back to broken systems of the past – a version of the FDC to decide on funds and a clone of AffCom for tech decisions. By doing this, more than just the work on the Movement Charter has been wasted. All the work regarding problematic governance structures and possible better alternatives for the status quo seem to be ignored. It is common knowledge in change management that change happens at the speed of trust – this refusal of the Wikimedia Foundation to abide by the strategic recommendations is in our view a veritable governance crisis and will make future progress and change incredibly difficult, as trust is increasingly eroding. The current governance structure does not have any tools to deal with this crisis and ad hoc self-organisation across communities and affiliates without suitable structures in place is ranging from hard to impossible. So the current system of power and privilege remains intact. It’s a dangerous gamble with our collective future as a movement, where much trust is needed to face the massive external challenges as a strong network of reliable partners. We urge the Wikimedia Foundation to take this crisis seriously. We expect the Wikimedia Foundation to prioritise the re-establishment of trust and confidence among movement stakeholders by designing a negotiation process at eye-level to deal with the open questions from the Movement Charter Process. WIkimedia Österreich is ready to whole-heartedly support such an endeavor, as we did with the Movement Strategy Process in the past. | en | |
| 11 | Inter-Actors Relationship | GC | It is necessary to define in more detail and more clearly the relations between the main stakeholders in the Movement, especially between the Global Council, the Board of Trustees, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It is necessary to explain the distribution of funds in motion in more detail. It has not yet been defined what resources the Global Council has access to, although the Council has the right to define it. In this sense, joint budget planning needs to be better defined. It is important to pay attention to the transition period and in that context not to burden another volunteer body and waste volunteer capacities. Bypass old practices that were not successful - GS elects committees that later self-organize. | en | |
| 12 | General Support | Potete trovare i vari commenti dei membri dell'affiliato WikiDonne UG sulla pagina Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiDonne#Carta_fondamentale_del_movimento_Wikimedia. | You can find the various comments from the members of the WikiDonne UG affiliate on the Meta page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiDonne#Carta_fundamentale_del_movimento_Wikimedia. | it | |
| 13 | Affiliates & hubs | Not happy with the concept of hubs | en | ||
| 14 | Translation, language, readability | Nous espérons cette charte plus inclusive en termes linguistique et géographique | We hope this charter is more inclusive in linguistic and geographical terms | fr | |
| 15 | WMF | To our understanding, the main function of Wikimedia is to coordinate the development of MediaWiki and related tools to foster the establishment of an ecosystem of free knowledge. In this proposal, the Wikimedia Foundation and a very small group of individuals gain much power, which will kill rather than support the movement. In addition, the role of paid staff as individuals is not adequately described. We are convinced that individuals working for the foundation should gain more power to follow their passion. In the current proposal, this is not adequately stated and it seems that they just execute commands. | en | ||
| 16 | GC | The affiliate members expressed concerns that the Global Council could slow down and complicate decision-making processes by adding an extra bureaucratic layer on top of existing structures as well as leading to inequalities by providing centralized control over the flow of resources. | en | ||
| 17 | General Support | We. fully supports the WMC. | en | ||
| 18 | GC | Clearly against the statement made during Wikimedia Summit 2024: 5. There must be clarity about Global Council Assembly composition and how its representatives are elected in the Charter from the outset. Right now it is quite unclear about the forming process of the Global Council Assembly | en | ||
| 19 | General Support | GC | First of all, Wikimedia CH would like to thank the MCDC for its work and joint efforts in drafting and consolidating the current Movement Charter, which has now been published for ratification. We acknowledge the enormous effort that has gone into this entire process and see it as a significant step forward, aligning with the Movement Strategy priority following the recommendation “Ensure Equity in Decision-making”. We recognise that the present document can only be a first step in the right direction, as it remains quite general and not specific enough in some areas - many of the more concrete elements from earlier versions have been omitted. Nonetheless, we wish to support it by ratifying the current document. We believe that it is a crucial step in the right direction, and withdrawing our confidence now would, in our opinion, send the wrong signal. We are at a critical juncture in our movement, considering the various challenges we face globally - not only economically, but also technologically, environmentally, and more. We believe that only together, as a strong movement, can we continue building “(…) a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.” (Jimmy Wales). That being said, we would like to emphasize the need for particular attention to be paid to the selection criteria and processes regarding: •The Global Council Board members •The activities and membership of the Global Council committees Specifically, it must be clearly defined how and under what circumstances mandates can be terminated and what measures will be taken if a particular member is found to lack good intentions. Additionally, we are concerned that the Global Council may not be equipped to address the aforementioned challenges effectively, particularly given its role in overseeing the movement's technological direction. Innovation allows no second chances; missed opportunities are gone forever. Therefore, we emphasize the importance of the Global Council Board Members possessing also the necessary hard skills. These members must have the technical expertise to understand modern societal inputs and translate them into actionable strategies. While honesty and good intentions are important, technical proficiency is crucial for effectiveness. The Council must be able to address the movement’s technical and other challenges effectively while maintaining transparency and diversity. We also recommend establishing explicit guidelines on how the Council will be held accountable. Effective checks and balances are essential to maintain confidence in the system and to prevent or penalise unethical behavior. Furthermore, we reiterate the importance of complete transparency and timely submission of documents to foster an atmosphere of trust, which is crucial for successful collaboration. Given the significant power the Global Council will hold, clarity and transparency are vital, as is ensuring it has the necessary expertise to wield this power effectively. Finally, let us conclude that decision-making processes in our opinion, should be located as close to those affected by decisions, instead of continuing with a centralised decision-making model that does not solve the causes of our current structural and organisational issues within the Wikimedia movement. Once again, thank you for your efforts. We look forward to the outcome of this process. | en | |
| 20 | General Support | If the Charter, as presented, is not perfect, we believe it will enable Wikimedia to achieve its goals of inclusivity, transparency, and representativeness. It aligns with Vision 2030, which specified that intentional efforts must be made to ensure that all voices are included and have a clear role in decision-making processes that affect them and our Movement. We also believe that this charter is similar to the governance charters of other global organizations of similar scale (such as UNICEF, OXFAM, or the UN, for example). | en | ||
| 21 | General Support | We wholeheartedly thank the MCDC for all their work to create this Charter and for integrating the feedback provided by the many different stakeholders. The Charter is a good first step and lays out a reasonable path to arrive at equity in decision making. See our statement for more context on our vote: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Wikimedia_Deutschland%E2%80%99s_Appeal_to_the_WMF_Board_of_Trustees | en | ||
| 22 | Translation, language, readability | Необходимо привести переводы устава на различные языки к нормам этих языков, а также к реалиям, установившимся в языковых сообществах, не отходя при этом от основной идеи и духа устава. | It is necessary to bring translations of the charter into various languages to the norms of these languages, as well as to the realities established in linguistic communities, without deviating from the main idea and spirit of the charter. | ru | |
| 23 | General Support | Amendment | We support in principle adopting a charter empowering a global council, in recognition of the global and volunteer character of the Wikimedia movement. However, we expect the need for possibly substantial amendments to address community concerns. To that end, we encourage easing the process of amendment to make the charter more of a living document for at least an initial period. | en | |
| 24 | General Oppose | GC | The current draft of the Movement Charter doesn't meet the needs of the Wikipedia Movement and the principles contained in it are far from the realities that currently exist in the Movement. There is also no basic explanation in the charter about what the Global Council will be like or how it will function. This whole process looks like a new layer of bureaucracy in the Movement, which does not help the development of Wikimedia, but blocks it. | en | |
| 25 | General Support | The process | Wikimedia Netherlands has voted to approve the Movement Charter. We would like to thank the MCDC and believe that the current charter is the best that was feasible under the circumstances. Our movement still has a long way to go before decision-making on important topics is done in a fair and equal manner through a decision-making body such as the Global Council. The current charter is an important step in this development. We hope that an iterative process will enable the next steps in the coming years. We urge direct and results-oriented negotiations between WMF and other parties, and not an extension of the MCDC's mandate. | en | |
| 26 | Inter-Actors Relationship | GC | The following aspects will require the attention of the first Global Council: * Relationships between key Wikimedia stakeholders, like the one between the Wikimedia Foundation and the Global Council, will have to be defined in more detail * The budgetary planning process of all movement funds will have to become a truly participatory process under the guidance of the Global Council and include a long-term strategic plan * The transition to or establishment of new decision-making structures should not result in parallel processes and putting more burden on volunteers and communities * Decision-making processes should be located as close to those affected by those decisions, instead of continuing centralised decision-making that doesn’t solve the causes of our current structural and organisational issues in Wikimedia | en | |
| 27 | General Support | Deoband Community Wikimedia User Group (DCW) supports the ratification of the Movement Charter, however, with certain reservations, keeping in mind the regional needs of larger South Asia. The recommendations are available at the following link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Events/India_Strategy_Meet#Report | en | ||
| 28 | General Oppose | The proposed Movement Charter fails to adequately address the needs and concerns of diverse linguistic communities, especially Turkic Wikimedians. Its lack of inclusive representation and equitable decision-making processes undermines the very principles it aims to uphold. | en | ||
| 29 | GC | Though Members of Wikimedia Bangladesh agrees most part of the charter, but it's members feels that the formation and functions need to be more clear before they ratify the Movement Charter. Member's feels that the resources needed for a large scale Global Council might not be justified and process of decision making might prove overly bureaucratic. | en | ||
| 30 | GC | Our view is that the Charter is a fatally flawed document, but with a fair amount of good content in it that should be salvaged. We are particularly concerned about setting up a new and potentially powerful Global Council structure without either, on the one hand, providing for the material conditions for its success (a paid staff of its own responsible to the Council rather than the Foundation) or, on the other hand, limiting its ability to entrench itself (maximum length of terms without calling new elections; clear procedures remove someone for lack of confidence or even for malfeasance). We are also particularly concerned that there seems to be no provision to prevent the council from becoming overwhelmingly male, nor from having even blatant conflicts of interest. We think it is important that a document like this should start out by being much clearer what problems it is trying to solve and what it is trying to achieve. We feel that the most important changes that are needed in the Wikimedia movement are to make the movement more democratic and more diverse, while maintaining or increasing the quality and value of the content we create. None of this seems to have be stated in the document, and only the first of these (increased democracy) seems even to have been considered. | en | ||
| 31 | General Support | GC | Although we vote for the ratification of the Movement Charter, we see its frailty and flaws. We are particularly concerned about the design of the Global Council and the underdefinition of its powers, as well as its size and potential maintenance costs. In addition, the text of the Charter is incomprehensible to the community, and its provisions require extensive interpretive clarification. However, we hope that ratification will accelerate the process of needed changes in the Movement, declare our willingness to work on them, and hope that affiliates will be an important stakeholder in the process. | en | |
| 32 | General Support | Even though the current charter is imperfect, we feel that there should be a broader representation and involvement of the community in all the decision-making processes of our movement, even in those processes that currently are only in the hands of the board. | en | ||
| 33 | General Support | We expect the Charter to have a positive impact and allow more decision making for the community. In the event the Charter does not pass, we support an additional round of revision. | en | ||
| 34 | GC | Contributors, volunteers, projects | We believe that in the Charter there should be some statements regarding (Wikimedia Foundation's) very clear support for cummunities - languages (like Kurdish) that are excluded, not supported by states and oppressed. This Charter should not be aimed at continuing certain unjust tendencies that have continued until now. | en | |
| 35 | General Neutral | Inter-Actors Relationship | Wikimedia Australia (WMAU) and the WMAU Board would like to acknowledge and give thanks to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) for their hard work over many years to produce the current Movement Charter and the Supplementary Documents. WMAU strongly supports the need for a Movement Charter as a Movement Strategy priority and appreciates the huge contribution the MCDC have made towards achieving this. WMAU strongly endorses the aims of the Movement Strategy to increase diversity and equity in representation and inclusive decision-making across the global Wikimedia community. Current centralisation of power in the Wikimedia Foundation and the 12 WMF Board of Trustees Members is not representative or equitable, and is no longer appropriate for a global public interest platform. Despite the significant time and effort already invested in the Charter process, the WMAU Board does not believe this is reason enough to ratify the proposed model as is. Although the Movement Charter is moving in the right direction, the WMAU Board is concerned that the model as proposed leaves open too much potential for unintended consequences. WMAU’s chief concerns are that the proposed model: - is complex and bureaucratic - does not provide appropriate mechanisms for review, evaluation and iteration - does not provide adequate mechanisms for oversight and ensuring transparency and accountability - does not make it clear how diversity, inclusion and representation will be achieved - does not adequately communicate the separation of responsibilities between the Global Council, Global Council Board, the Wikimedia Foundation and the WMF Board of Trustees, resulting in a lack of clarity in relation to the operation of the Global Council and the Global Council Board. As a result the WMAU Board feel they cannot vote yes in good conscience. It is for these reasons the WMAU Committee has opted to abstain by making a blank vote. We did not come to this decision lightly. We discussed the proposed model at length within the Board and with our Chapter membership at a public meeting. In reaching this decision, the WMAU Board wants to make it clear that we and the Chapter remain committed to supporting and promoting diversity, inclusion and representation in the Wikimedia community, and we support ongoing moves towards more equitable and inclusive decision-making with respect to all Wikimedia Movement Organisations. We support a renewed effort to improve the current Charter. To that end, we recommend the MCDC consider separating ratification of the Principles and the parts of the Charter outlining the roles of existing Movement Bodies from the far more ambitious proposal to set up a Global Council and Global Council Board. The WMAU Board endorses the Charter Principles and Values and welcomes the clarity the Charter provides on the roles of various Movement Bodies. Our concerns relate to the need for more consideration of the constitution, representation, resourcing, voting, transparency, accountability and amendment processes of the Global Council and the Global Council Board. In particular, we are extremely concerned that the model is deliberately difficult to amend, with unclear review or evaluation processes. This is a major issue given the complexity of the structure that is being proposed. As others have noted, this directly contradicts the Recommendation of the Movement Strategy #10 ‘Evaluate, iterate, and adapt’. We would like to see a model that is more adaptable and open to oversight, evaluation and review to reduce the risks associated with introducing a complex and bureaucratic new layer of governance such as the Global Council. Beyond the proposed Charter itself, the WMAU Board wishes to flag concerns with the ratification process as well. Legitimate questions can be raised as to the role of the WMF Board of Trustees in the ratification process. Specifically, we note that the voting arrangement effectively gives the WMF Board of Trustees a veto over the passage of the Charter. Regardless of how that is wielded, it undermines the legitimacy of the spirit of community based decision-making the Charter seeks to enact. We are also concerned that the ‘Board Liaisons Reflections’ published on Friday 21 June 2024 had a negative impact on the Charter ratification process. Whether intended or not, the Board Liaisons unduly influenced community discussion of the Charter (and likely how votes were cast) by publicly stating their recommendation that the WMF Board of Trustees not ratify the Charter because the release of that recommendation could reasonably be read as an announcement of how the WMF Board of Trustees intended to vote (whether their vote followed the recommendation or not does not matter). This action was counter to the MCDC’s request that the WMF Board of Trustee’s vote not be shared until after the vote of individuals and affiliates had concluded to avoid influencing the voting. Unfortunately, the release of the Board Liaisons' recommendation has been widely construed as a deliberate attempt to influence the vote. Whether that was the intention, it has been both the effect and the perception. WMAU looks forward to working together with the different stakeholders on next steps in the ongoing journey towards better governance and decision-making for the global Wikimedia community. Wikimedia Australia Board. | en | |
| 36 | General Neutral | We believe the Charter is an important step in the right direction. Some of us are also concerned with the quality of the current draft and fear that it raises more new questions than responds to existing ones. Hence we're casting a blank vote. | en | ||
| 37 | General Support | GC | Consejo Global: En su versión final, la Carta describe un Consejo Global capaz de crecer, adaptarse y desarrollar su capacidad con el tiempo según sea necesario. Garantizará decisiones equitativas sobre estrategia, afiliación y asignación de recursos. Por lo tanto, la Carta establece un camino razonable hacia la equidad y la calidad en la toma de decisiones. Sin embargo, aún queda mucho trabajo por hacer. La Carta es producto de un compromiso, omitiendo o trasladando a documentos complementarios muchos de los elementos más concretos de versiones anteriores, basándose en los comentarios del WMF. Aunque muchos afiliados ven esto de manera crítica, consideran la carta como un siguiente paso razonable hacia la equidad. Es suficiente por ahora y lo suficientemente seguro como para intentarlo. La ratificación de la Carta es necesaria para asegurar el futuro de los proyectos Wikimedia. La Carta ilumina el futuro, imaginando un movimiento equitativo, fuerte, resiliente, diverso, unido en solidaridad y capaz de tomar buenas decisiones juntos. Si esta luz se apaga, si no se ratifica, fracasaremos en nuestra misión de proporcionar conocimiento gratuito al mundo. Las personas se unen a movimientos para empoderarse mutuamente, cambiar el mundo y, en el proceso, tomar decisiones juntos. Este es un momento crucial en la historia de nuestro movimiento, donde podemos decidir juntos transformarnos y ser fieles a nuestra misión. | Global Council: In its final version, the Charter describes a Global Council capable of growing, adapting and developing its capacity over time as necessary. It will ensure equitable decisions on strategy, membership and resource allocation. Therefore, the Charter establishes a reasonable path towards equity and quality in decision-making. However, there is still much work to be done. The Charter is the product of a compromise, omitting or transferring to complementary documents many of the more specific elements of previous versions, based on the comments of the WMF. Although many members view this critically, they view the letter as a reasonable next step toward equity. It's enough for now and safe enough to try. Ratification of the Charter is necessary to ensure the future of Wikimedia projects. The Charter illuminates the future, imagining a movement that is equitable, strong, resilient, diverse, united in solidarity and capable of making good decisions together. If this light goes out, if it is not ratified, we will fail in our mission to provide free knowledge to the world. People join movements to empower each other, change the world, and, in the process, make decisions together. This is a crucial moment in the history of our movement, where we can decide together to transform and be faithful to our mission. | es |
| 38 | General Support | Principles and Values | The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a great step forward! It formalizes the movement's commitment to inclusion, safety, and knowledge for all. The proposal for diversifying the resource distribution is a great step to reach out marginalized communities around the world. | en | |
| 39 | General Support | GC | Wikimedia UK supports the ratification of the Movement Charter, and thanks the Drafting Committee for all their work to get the Charter to this point. We also recognise the significant time, energy and (in some cases) financial resources invested by many individuals and organisations across the movement to support the creation of the Charter. The Charter sets out a codified set of values and principles which broadly align to Wikimedia UK’s own views, particularly on inclusivity and equity. We believe that a Movement Charter–with broad support from across the community–is an important step in terms of decentralisation and subsidiarity; and that an effective Global Council would allow for quicker and more responsive decision making. In turn, we believe that good governance of the Wikimedia movement at a global and local level would ultimately benefit readers and editors of Wikimedia’s open knowledge projects. Wikimedia UK is voting to ratify the Charter in recognition that this is a step towards delivering key principles in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy. However, we would welcome further iterations and improvements to the text and supplementary documents. In particular, we would like to see more clarity on the composition and selection processes for the Global Council, in order to ensure adequate community representation and to guard against replicating existing structural issues. Whether or not the proposed Charter is ratified as it currently stands, Wikimedia UK is committed to working constructively with volunteers, our fellow affiliates, the Wikimedia Foundation and other movement partners to help shape the future of our movement and projects. | en | |
| 40 | General Support | The Charter is good but need some little fixes. Again, this is a starter document and once the GC begins to meet, they should regulate how hubs are formed etc... | en | ||
| 41 | Contributors, volunteers, projects | हमारा समुदाय चाहता है कि घोषणापत्र के अनुरूप सभी निकाय समावेशी हों तथा एकाधिकारवाद को न स्थापित होने दें। इन निकायों पर विकिपीडिया को बनाने वाले संपादक स्वयंसेवकों का जितना अधिक नियंत्रण हो उतना बेहतर है। | Our community wants that all bodies should be inclusive as per the manifesto and should not allow totalitarianism to be established. The more control the editor volunteers who create Wikipedia have over these bodies, the better. | hi | |
| 42 | The process | From the Wikimedia Colombia chapter, we consider that the community should be at the center of the movement and that their efforts regarding the building of the Wikimedia Movement Charter are very significant. Additionally, it is important to guarantee early and full participation of communities from the global south, as this is essential for ensuring a democratic and inclusive process. | en | ||
| 43 | General Neutral | The process | At Wikimedia Chile, we value the long process made for hundreds of volunteers and movement members during the drafting process. In particular, we appreciate the dedication of those Committee members to discuss this project with all the movement's volunteers, affiliates, and participants to implement one of the strategies we aim for as a movement. However, for our chapter, it was not enough. The Wikimedia Movement Charter highlights essential values and principles that align with the vision of free and open knowledge. Firstly, emphasizing factual and verifiable information is crucial for maintaining the integrity of Wikimedia projects. Secondly, the principles of self-organization and collaboration encourage grassroots participation, fostering a more inclusive and dynamic community. Lastly, the commitment to safety and accountability is commendable, ensuring the well-being and security of all participants. However, the Charter presents several weaknesses that need to be addressed, which implies significant concerns that prevent us from fully supporting it. The document needs more ambition to support a global movement's relevance, falling short of providing a robust framework for future growth and innovation. In particular, the lack of recognition of the role of affiliates as key elements for the global and territorial articulation of Wikimedia projects and the provisions for reducing conflict and promoting harmony could be more specific, potentially leading to inconsistent implementation across different communities and increasing global inequalities of knowledge, that threats our shared mission. Additionally, the Charter needs to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in a different realm to avoid leaving room for potential overreach and undermining community autonomy. Finally, the resource distribution guidelines must be sufficiently detailed, risking inequities and inefficiencies in supporting under-resourced contributors.For WMCL, The resulting charter was unable to fulfill our expectations, and the Charter needs to be more ambitious in supporting the relevance of a global movement and clear enough to correct issues related to the overpowering of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. After a careful discussion with our members and executive team, we abstain from this vote, urging for a different approach that deals more with the changes in the legal aspects of representation, equity, and power distribution on the Wikimedia Foundation, with a comprehensive and detailed revision of it, based on the learnings and highlights of the Charter, to address these critical concerns and better align with the movement's goals. -- En Wikimedia Chile valoramos el largo proceso realizado por cientos de voluntarios y miembros del movimiento durante el proceso de redacción. En particular, agradecemos la dedicación de los miembros del Comité para discutir este proyecto con todos los voluntarios, afiliados y participantes del movimiento para implementar una de las estrategias a las que apuntamos como movimiento. Sin embargo, para nuestro capítulo, no fue suficiente. La Carta del Movimiento Wikimedia destaca valores y principios esenciales que se alinean con la visión del conocimiento libre y abierto. En primer lugar, el énfasis en la información factual y verificable es crucial para mantener la integridad de los proyectos Wikimedia. En segundo lugar, los principios de autoorganización y colaboración fomentan la participación de base, promoviendo una comunidad más inclusiva y dinámica. Por último, el compromiso con la seguridad y la responsabilidad es encomiable, ya que garantiza el bienestar y la seguridad de todos los participantes. Sin embargo, la Carta presenta varios puntos débiles que deben abordarse, lo que implica importantes preocupaciones que nos impiden apoyarla plenamente. El documento necesita más ambición para apoyar la relevancia de un movimiento global, quedándose corto a la hora de proporcionar un marco sólido para el crecimiento y la innovación futuros. En particular, la falta de reconocimiento del papel de los afiliados como elementos clave para la articulación global y territorial de los proyectos Wikimedia y las disposiciones para reducir el conflicto y promover la armonía podrían ser más específicas, lo que podría conducir a una aplicación incoherente entre las diferentes comunidades y aumentar las desigualdades globales de conocimiento, que amenaza nuestra misión compartida. Además, la Carta debe definir claramente las funciones y responsabilidades del Patronato de la Fundación Wikimedia en un ámbito diferente para evitar dejar espacio a posibles extralimitaciones y socavar la autonomía de la comunidad. Por último, las directrices de distribución de recursos deben ser lo suficientemente detalladas, ya que se corre el riesgo de que se produzcan desigualdades e ineficiencias a la hora de apoyar a los colaboradores con pocos recursos.Para la WMCL, La Carta resultante no pudo cumplir nuestras expectativas, y la Carta debe ser más ambiciosa a la hora de apoyar la relevancia de un movimiento global y lo suficientemente clara como para corregir los problemas relacionados con la prepotencia del Patronato de la Fundación Wikimedia. Después de una cuidadosa discusión con nuestros miembros y el equipo ejecutivo, nos abstenemos en esta votación, instando a un enfoque diferente que se ocupe más de los cambios en los aspectos legales de la representación, la equidad y la distribución del poder en la Fundación Wikimedia, con una revisión exhaustiva y detallada de la misma, basada en los aprendizajes y aspectos más destacados de la Carta, para abordar estas preocupaciones críticas y alinearse mejor con los objetivos del movimiento. | en | |
| 44 | General Support | (Same as my comment on individual vote) Deal breaker with some of the result from summit. But I do support the charter to continue, maybe it will need a second chance for ratification, many thanks for the MCDC. | en | ||
| 45 | General Support | The affiliate supports and it is agreeing on the points which were discussed by Indian community representatives discussed during the strategic meeting, Chandigarh https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CIS-A2K/Events/India_Strategy_Meet | en | ||
| 46 | General Neutral | Inter-Actors Relationship | In solidarity with other affiliates and community members who are committed to equity and knowledge justice in the Wikimedia movement just as we are at Whose Knowledge?, we believe in distributed governance and participatory design, and affirm that the Movement Charter is an important step in that direction. We want to acknowledge the enormous labour of everyone (especially that of volunteers) that has gone into the charter as it stands. However, we have decided to abstain from voting, because we feel uncomfortable with the current situation that creates a binary “take it or leave it” kind of decision. It appears as though power dynamics are once again playing out (mostly amongst privileged movement actors), while smaller (mostly Global Majority) user groups, chapters and communities are forced to make an oversimplified choice between the status quo (voting no) and an unclear design for meaningful equity in decision making (voting yes). We want to express our support for the Movement Charter process, but without clarity and a transition plan rooted in experimentation, iteration and learning, our preference is to abstain for now. We will be sharing a longer set of reflections on Meta shortly. | en | |
| 47 | GC | GC | WMLGBT+ has concerns that the current draft of the Movement Charter needs urgent amendment before it should go into force and we are concerned both that the Charter will be difficult to amend but that core features are held in supplementary documents that could be amended with little oversight. The Global Council is poorly defined, with scope and membership having changed wildly throughout drafting, and ED&I protections need bolstering—especially in a Movement where the most frequently engaged contributors in policy and strategy are a poor representation of the global population, with little history of protecting minorities. Given the complete lack of functioning on-wiki processes for handling abuse of minorities, the incomplete and unrepresentative U4C electees do not provide hope. Affiliates vary greatly in size and capacity for Movement strategy discussions. That said, this Charter is slightly better than no Charter so we reluctantly endorse, in the hope of further improvement. | en | |
| 48 | Amendment | Some of our members voted against the charter due to concerns about the difficulties in making future amendments. Additionally, they felt that the charter prioritizes production over improving the user experience on Wikimedia projects. | en | ||
| 49 | General Support | Wikimedia México reconoce el esfuerzo de todas las personas que participaron en la redacción, los diálogos, acuerdos previos y todas las contribuciones de buena parte de la comunidad para lograr este documento. Para llegar a una versión final de la carta, se invirtieron miles de horas de tiempo, así como las capacidades de muchas personas. Reconocemos que la carta no es perfecta, pues tiene algunos aspectos muy genéricos o demasiado abiertos que son consecuencia del enorme reto de concentrar los deseos y necesidades de una comunidad internacional en un sólo documento. Sin embargo, la apertura de la carta, a su vez, permite una representación de la diversidad de nuestro movimiento. Creemos importante que la carta podrá transformar positivamente una redistribución de las responsabilidades, y una paulatina descentralización del movimiento, permitiendo que muchas voces subrepresentadas hasta ahora, tengan mayor injerencia y participación en la toma de decisiones. Aunque sea un reto para el movimiento tener un Consejo Global, creemos que aprobar esta carta significa tener la posibilidad de afianzar un mecanismo de gobernanza más representativo y que pueda revitalizar uno de los valores clave del movimiento Wikimedia: reunir la suma del conocimiento humano. | Wikimedia México recognizes the efforts of all the people who participated in the writing, the dialogues, previous agreements and all the contributions of a large part of the community to achieve this document. To arrive at a final version of the letter, thousands of hours of time were invested, as well as the skills of many people. We recognize that the charter is not perfect, as it has some very generic or too open aspects that are a consequence of the enormous challenge of concentrating the wishes and needs of an international community in a single document. However, the openness of the letter, in turn, allows for a representation of the diversity of our movement. We believe it is important that the letter can positively transform a redistribution of responsibilities, and a gradual decentralization of the movement, allowing many voices that have been underrepresented until now to have greater influence and participation in decision-making. Although it is a challenge for the movement to have a Global Council, we believe that approving this charter means having the possibility of strengthening a more representative governance mechanism that can revitalize one of the key values of the Wikimedia movement: bringing together the sum of human knowledge. | es | |
| 50 | General Support | The Wikimaps User Group vote is based on 16 votes in an anonymous ballot. 8 votes for "yes", 2 votes for "no" and 6 votes for "-". There were no comments made publicly to be submitted as part of the vote. | en | ||
| 51 | GC | 1. There is concern that the proposed Global Council will not be representative or truly serve the community. 2. Low expectations for the charter have been validated due to veto behavior by board members and the community, which demotivates volunteers. 3. It's important to clarify that the Global Council will set policies for affiliations and fund allocation, but existing WMF structures will implement them. | en | ||
| 52 | Miscellaneous | Conveyed the concerns of my community through vote. | en | ||
| 53 | Miscellaneous | It's a step in the good direction, but next steps must be taken carefully. | en | ||
| 54 | General Support | We support the idea of the Movement Charter and most of its points. | en | ||
| 55 | General Neutral | There was neither interest nor disinterest about the charter by the affiliate representatives, so, the affiliate vote is abstained. | en | ||
| 56 | General Neutral | Wikimedistas de Uruguay members opted for a neutral position on the Movement Charter ratification. Despite seeing some positive aspects, the overall feeling of our constituents is that they either don't have enough information to cast a vote (be it negative or positive), and/or that while inspired by good intentions, the Charter does not provide a significant path forward towards a more democratic Wikimedia movement. | en | ||
| 57 | GC | Our affiliate would like to see the new Global Council setting policy about recognition of affiliates, grant-giving, and technology, but not taking on the details of these tasks itself. We wouldn't want the GC to build up its own bureaucracy to do those things in the near term, which might cause delays or duplication. It should be part of the WMF, as one of its governing institutions. We'd like new institutions and experiments to be conducted on a small scale. We hope the GC's role can be made more clear in supplementary documents or revisions. | en | ||
| 58 | Miscellaneous | Unfortunately in this timeframe we weren't able to have the necessary discussions to form our shared position on such a big and complex case. | en | ||
| 59 | The process | هل تعتقد أن هذا منطقي يعتمد قرار التصويت بـ "نعم" أو "لا" على ميثاق حركة ويكيميديا على العديد من العوامل، بما في ذلك وجهات النظر الفردية حول المشاركة المجتمعية وعملية وضع الميثاق والقيم التي يمثلها. فيما يلي بعض الاعتبارات في اتخاذ قرار التصويت: المشاركة والتشاور: انطوت عملية وضع الميثاق على قدر كبير من التشاور والنقاش، مما يدل على بذل جهد كبير لإدراج وجهات نظر متنوعة. التنوع والشمول: يهدف الميثاق إلى تعزيز التنوع والشمول، الأمر الذي يمكن أن يقوي مجتمع ويكيميديا ويشجع على مشاركة أوسع. الأساس الهيكلي: يمكن أن يوفر الميثاق الواضح هيكلاً ومبادئ توجيهية للمستقبل، مما يساعد على حل النزاعات واتخاذ قرارات أكثر اتساقًا. الافتقار إلى المشاركة الحقيقية: يشعر بعض أعضاء المجتمع أن العملية لم تشرك قاعدة المجتمع بشكل حقيقي وأن هناك نقص في الدعم من المساهمين النشطين. مشاكل في التواصل: كان هناك انتقاد للطريقة التي أجريت بها المناقشات، بما في ذلك اللهجة والمصطلحات المستخدمة، مما قد يشير إلى وجود مشاكل تواصل كامنة. العملية طويلة جدًا: كان يُنظر إلى عملية التشاور على أنها طويلة جدًا ومعقدة، الأمر الذي قد يكون قد أدى إلى إبعاد بعض أعضاء المجتمع. | Do you think this makes sense The decision to vote "yes" or "no" on the Wikimedia Movement Charter depends on many factors, including individual views on community engagement, the charter-making process, and the values it represents. Here are some considerations in making a voting decision: Participation and consultation: The charter development process involved a great deal of consultation and discussion, demonstrating a significant effort to include diverse viewpoints. Diversity and Inclusion: The Charter aims to promote diversity and inclusion, which can strengthen the Wikimedia community and encourage broader participation. Structural foundation: A clear charter can provide structure and guidelines for the future, helping to resolve conflicts and make more consistent decisions. Lack of real engagement: Some community members feel that the process has not truly engaged the community base and that there is a lack of support from active contributors. Communication problems: There was criticism of the way discussions were conducted, including the tone and terminology used, which may indicate underlying communication problems. The process is too long: The consultation process was perceived as too long and complex, which may have alienated some community members. | ar | |
| 60 | GC | It is a step in the right direction, but hopefully, it will still improve on the concerns raised. Like how could the Global Council have a needed role (even though as part of this Charter it might have had more sense to greatly reduce the focus on the Global Council part in it and have the functions of the Council drawn out even in more detail at a separate document to allow more room for this to develop in future instead of unnecessarily pointing out that the Council "decides on the details of its own procedures" and vaguely sketching out its functions) | en | ||
| 61 | General Neutral | The Wikibase Community User Group had no overall consensus on ratification, but offers comments in several areas. One member described the Charter as "a curate's egg", trying to do too much at once by mixing values and a definition of a governing body when they should be separate; and felt the case for Hubs was not made (referencing MCDC's video in talk), expressing concern they might divert funds intended by donors to keep projects and technology in shape to "good deeds". While the User Group is all for addressing technical work on movement-related free software, it was suggested that the proposed Product and Technology Advisory Council, if properly funded, might be a more-suitable solution to this pressing issue - perhaps coordinated by a slightly enlarged committee on the WMF board side - than a larger board of generalists. Imprecise definition of the Care Responsibility ("includes, but is not limited to") raised concern. It was suggested this definition was merely in supporting documents, but this was not taken well, as it meant the Charter was even less clear about what responsibility the group was signing up to (cf. WMF's "Primary Contact Rights & Expectations" - also imperfect, but clearer). A lack of clarity around supporting use of non-free software outside of production was also raised - as it was on the Charter's own talk page - though it was put in response that there is wide use of proprietary software within the movement for general purposes and it'd be difficult and outside the purpose of the Charter to address that. Some felt the above was enough to refuse the proposal. Others echoed the words of WMDE and CEE Hub, feeling the draft was "not perfect" but "an important step [...] in the right direction", citing what they saw as the current lack of accountability of the WMF to the movement, and saying that the WMF "doesn't represent us all" and should not be the highest decision-maker. There was agreement that it was "not sustainable if we stick to the current situation", and so we encourage all attempts to improve matters, including this charter - which if nothing else, may have led to movement on PTAC. | en | ||
| 62 | General Neutral | The process | We are submitting a neutral vote. We feel that this is not a finalized document and our community cannot confidently vote yes or no at this stage. We recognize the enormous task that the MCDC has been tasked with and the various complexities involved, especially when concerning power/money. At this stage, unfortunately there is still not a lot of clarity about how the charter would work in a tangible manner. It is also concerning that the current draft lacks a definition on the future of governance that is worrying for thematic affiliates specifically. Unfortunately, thematic affiliates often feel like an afterthought with only chapters and hubs centered (and that may be due to the perennial issue of resources for thematic groups that enables them to be more active in these movement-wide conversations). Further, when speaking about diversity it’s unclear the commitments that the charter is making. We recognize that diversity is an important part of the mandate and in knowledge making and sharing, in general. However this current draft isn’t clear how the charter will work with the community to create a roadmap that doesn’t overburden participants and how and who would be accountable in order to achieve diversity (please do not interpret this as us advocating for a quota; quotas have been proven time and time again to be unsuccessful). Most urgently, the current process and power dynamics does not seem to be serving the Movement as a whole, and we would encourage not just a revision, but a regrouping and reboot of how WMF, BoT, and the community engage together in order to move this work forward, that includes an affiliate strategy that is not treated as a separate conversation. | en | |
| 63 | General Neutral | The process | AfroCROWD is casting a neutral vote in support of further revision. While we appreciate the extensive effort invested, the path forward still remains unclear. While we endorse the principles of distributed governance and participatory design advocated in the Charter, our neutral stance reflects apprehensions about potential marginalization in the decision-making process of thematic groups and affiliates as well as underrepresented voices. This area needs clarification. We want to ensure all stakeholders can fully participate and benefit. | en | |
| 64 | General Neutral | Principles and Values | Our affiliate had minimal participation with only a few community members interested, and they were split between yes and no, so without an obvious consensus we are entering a null vote.. One person write they were concerned about the sentence re: "definitions of ... neutrality might vary across different parts of the movement". | en | |
| 65 | General Neutral | The process | Among our members, the sentiment was mostly a mix of "No vote" and "No". Some were wary of they way user groups were given an outsized role in this governance model. Some wanted to express support for *having* a charter and global council without supporting the current text up for ratification. So we are abstaining. We all felt the charter details need significant improvement, and that its current amendment process makes this too hard. Fix it before fixing it in stone. We also agreed the movement needs more delegation of decision-making to community-led bodies. - A new conflict-resolution body, or interim council, could help work through the problems with the draft and conflict between different visions for a council. - We need to start doing the work, through community bodies already planned: with or without a ratified charter - Any community bodies should be more transparent, and work more in public + on wikis, than the MCDC. | en |