Movement Charter Drafting Committee proposal

Below is a proposal for a structure of the Movement Charter drafting committee (MCDC), along with a proposal for its selection, accompanied by identified (but likely non-complete) list of pros and cons. Two proposals are given, the latter somewhat a very rough attempt to utilise the interest in regional groupings/elections.

Although the MC workshop discussions have separated the composition and selection aspects of the MCDC, and this page attempts to do the same to ease comparison, the two aspects are inherently tied.

I, personally, prefer proposal 1, but hopefully proposal 2 will encourage food for thought.

Proposal 1

Proposal MCDC Composition

1. The MCDC will be made up of 15 members
2. 8 of these members will be elected members from the Community
3. 3 members will be selected from the combined Affiliates
4. 4 members will be appointed, with a specific focus on filling identified gaps in expertise and representation, as determined by the Diversity and Expertise matrix

Proposal MCDC Selection methodology

1. The elected members will be nominated (& self-nominated) from the at-large meta-Community, and voted on by the combined "electorate" through use of SecurePoll
2. No more than 2 MCDC members can be selected from a single project. In the event that 3+ would be elected, only the two highest scoring will be selected. A candidate's "home project" will be that of the project where they have made the most edits in the previous 12 months
3. Simultaneously, the affiliates will nominate and select 3 members from their number
4. No candidate may seek to be selected from both the at-large elections and the affiliate selections
5. After these selections have concluded, the WMF, with viewpoints specifically sought from the Community Trustees, will select 4 members to provide missing expertise and representation (which may include non-successful candidates from the above processes).

Pros

• This method is one of the easiest to comprehend selection methods that utilises elections
• It uses understandable methodology to generate a reasonable balance of representation
• A narrow majority of elected members provides good community buy-in, while still giving significant appointed provision to mitigate potential issues that can arise from elections
• As the matrix has been generally supported, the two-step process allows a good balance to be drawn of community buy-in/expertise/representation

Cons

• As with any electoral system, it will remain somewhat more complicated than a pure appointed method
• The current method of determining which project an editor is associated with is non-flexible, and may deny some beneficial cross-wiki editors from being able to be included should they run in a "busy" project
• A pure project-limitation can't ensure a diverse mix (whether in representation or expertise) in terms of elected members
• Affiliate members may be viewed as getting double-representation by being able to vote at a Community level and encourage selection of their preferred candidates through their affiliate

Remaining issues to be determined

• Would the traditional S/O/A or forthcoming STV system be used for the elected members
• Exact means of affiliate's selecting 3 members

Proposal 2

[The proposal that I believe is not viable, but is worth reading for consideration]

Proposal MCDC Composition

1. The MCDC will be made up of 15 members
2. 8 of these members will be elected members from the Community
3. 3 members will be selected from the combined Affiliates
4. 4 members will be appointed, with a specific focus on filling identified gaps in expertise and representation, as determined by the Diversity and Expertise matrix

Proposal 2 methodology

1. Communities will be split into the regional groupings with the following necessary changes outlined below, with nominations and elections being "contained" within each grouping, through use of the forthcoming STV system on SecurePoll.

   The "United States and Canada" grouping is replaced with an "English-speaking projects" category (e.g. en-wiki, en-wiktionary, Wikicommons), with any non-English speaking projects normally within this grouping being merged into the "Latin America (LATAM) and The Caribbean" grouping

   SAARC & ESEAP are merged into a combined regional grouping

2. Individuals may vote within any regional hub that they hold (or would hold) extended-confirmed (an account with 500 edits and has existed for 30 days) user-rights in at least applicable project, but may only vote in a single hub's elections
3. The two largest of these groupings will elect two representatives, the four others would elect a single representative.
4. The WMF Strategy team, through use of public consultation, will be tasked to create a clear list of all projects and their umbrella region.
5. Simultaneously, the affiliates will nominate and select 3 members from their number
6. No candidate may seek to be selected from both the at-large elections and the affiliate selections
7. After these selections have concluded, the WMF, with viewpoints specifically sought from the Community trustees, will select 4 members to provide missing expertise and representation.

Pros

• This method would guarantee a very diverse set of members in terms of geographic representation
• Buy-in may actually be enhanced, as it encourages involvement across local projects
• It is flexible towards cross-wiki editors
• A narrow majority of elected members provides good community buy-in, while still giving significant appointed provision to mitigate potential issues that can arise from elections
• As the matrix has been generally supported, the two-step process allows a good balance to be drawn of community buy-in/expertise/representation
• It would provide a test case for future use of regional groupings, both elections and otherwise, meaning even complexity-caused problems could be ultimately advantageous

Cons

• It is a very complicated electoral method, with significant ambiguities that would need to be rapidly settled.
• The allocation of representatives to regions is coarse and significantly imbalanced in terms of active editors vs member selection.
• The current method of determining which project an editor is associated with is non-flexible, and may deny some beneficial cross-wiki editors from being able to be included should they run in a "busy" project
• The elected aspect can't guarantee a good provision of non-geographic aspects on the matrix
• Affiliate members may be viewed as getting double-representation by being able to vote at a (regional) Community level and encourage selection of their preferred candidates through their affiliate.
• The benefit of affiliate representation at all may be less clear given the regional groupings.
• Making the breakdown clear in a reasonable timescale may necessitate a significant degree of trust in the WMF, as well as extremely good rapid consultation to identify and minimise flashpoints

Remaining issues to be determined

• Any amendments to the regions, and a full list clarification of which projects belong in which grouping
• Only once that is near-done, will the two largest groupings be clear

Proposal 3 - Compromise proposal

• 5 directly elected Community seats, generated from a single global candidate list
• Through an agile process (to be defined), affiliates form a group of selectors capable of representing ESEAP, South Asia, MENA, Sub-Saharan Africa, CEE, Western Europe, Latin America, and North America.
• Through an agile process (to be defined), projects form a group of selectors that takes into consideration Wikipedia sister projects and small language projects.
• The Foundation designates 2 selectors.

1. The affiliates’ selectors rank their top 15 candidates privately.
2. The projects’ selectors do the same.
3. Both private lists of candidates are shared within the selection group.
4. The two private lists are merged into one list with the top 10 candidates (a mathematical merge, calculation method to be defined).
5. The selection group (with all the selectors from the programs, the affiliates, and the Foundation) reviews the top 7 and adds up to 5 more (some flexibility is allowed) to improve the diversity and competence of the committee
6. At least 4 affiliate seats, 3 additional Community and 2 WMF members will be provided by this method