Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network/2021 04

AgendaEdit

Meeting times and organization for the future

Following the regular call, in SWAN after hours: possible Wikimedia Meet Jitsi social event

The two times are
  • – 2021-04-25 (Asia-Pacific friendly time)
  • – 2021-04-25 (Europe-Africa-Americas friendly time)
The location is

03:00 UTC participantsEdit

Anyone with an interest in Wikimedia affiliates is welcome to join, even if they are not officially a liaison or representative

Etherpad link for collaborative notes

Saturday night for North and South America; Sunday morning or afternoon for Asia/ESEAP

  1. Pharos (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Mugli (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. SHISHIR DUA (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. Buszmail (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. Pavanaja (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  7. JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  8. Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  9. Pru.mitchell (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  10. Bachounda (WMF) (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  11. Fuzheado (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  12. econterms (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  13. Emufarmers (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  14. Canley (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  15. Yair rand (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

19:00 UTC participantsEdit

pre-registered participantsEdit

Anyone with an interest in Wikimedia affiliates is welcome to join, even if they are not officially a liaison or representative

Etherpad link for collaborative notes
  1. Pharos (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. --Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 20:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. - Anass Sedrati (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. --CDG (WMAT staff) (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. Sandra Rientjes (WMNL) (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  7. Rosiestep (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  8. M-Mustapha (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  9. Mervat(WMF) --Mervat (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  10. Zblace (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  11. SHISHIR DUA (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  12. Laurentius (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  13. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  14. NickK (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  15. Reify-tech (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  16. Tgr (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  17. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  18. DaSupremo (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  19. Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  20. Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  21. Peaceray (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  22. Quelet (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  23. Ms Kabintie --Ms Kabintie (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  24. Kayusyussuf (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  25. --MARKELLOSLeave me a message 18:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  26. Tiputini (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  27. Ravan (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  28. MPossoupe (WMF) (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  29. Bachounda (WMF) (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  30. RevitalP-WMIL (talk) 04:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  31. Camelia (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  32. aegis maelstrom δ 18:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  33. UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  34. Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  35. Qgil-WMF (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  36. Marcmiquel (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

signed in participantsEdit

51 people in attendance at 0:15 into the hour, 52 people at 0:30, 51 people at 1:00, 42 people at 1:30, 40 people at 1:45

Attendees:

  1. Ad Huikeshoven
  2. Jan-Bart de Vreede
  3. Tochi Precious
  4. Christoph Jackel
  5. Ester Bonet
  6. Winnie Kabintie _ User:Ms Kabintie
  7. Quim Gil
  8. Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
  9. Ravan J. Al-Taie
  10. Peaceray
  11. Geert Van Pamel (WMBE)
  12. Andrew Lih - User:Fuzheado
  13. Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry
  14. Shani Evenstein Sigalov
  15. Mervat
  16. RightCowLeftCoast
  17. Richard/Pharos
  18. David Goodmn / DGG
  19. Francesc Fort
  20. Jackie Koerner
  21. Mel Ganus
  22. Irvin Sto. Tomas
  23. Kira Wisniewski
  24. Marc Miquel
  25. Chris Keating / The Land
  26. Lucy Crompton-Reid
  27. Z. Blace
  28. Mehrdad Pourzaki
  29. Chico Venancio
  30. Alice Wiegand
  31. Lucas Pianta
  32. Erlan Vega (Alhen)
  33. Paulo Santos Perneta / DarwIn (WMPT)
  34. MARKELLOS
  35. Yair Rand
  36. Alan Wu
  37. Mykola / NickK (WMUA)
  38. Christophe Henner
  39. Anna Torres
  40. Nicole Ebber
  41. Claudia Garad
  42. Anass Sedrati
  43. bachounda mohammed

NotesEdit

  1. Sandra Rientjes opened the meeting
    1. Thanks for joining
    2. friendly space policy in effect as always
    3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Friendly_space_policies
    4. should anyone at any time feel that they are not treated with respect, reach out to Sandra, Richard, Andrew
  2. Introduction - the structure of the meeting, Chatham House rule
    1. We ask participants to observe the Chatham House Rule. Anything mentioned in the meeting can be relayed to anyone else, but we ask you not to attribute particular comments to individuals or communities/affiliates unless cleared by that person unless they indicate that it may be attributed. This is to provide an environment so people may speak more freely and to foster free and frank discussion. The exception is for comments from WMF staff and Board of Trustees attending as part of their responsibilities or official capacities. In those cases, it is assumed that all comments can be attributed and are on the record.
    2. notes go to meta after the meeting, please everyone edit collaboratively
    3. Rosie: rules are at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network/about
    4. the point of this is to encourage free speaking
  3. Sandra - anyone who wants to speak up please either post comment in the chat, or ask for speaking permission in chat
    1. people speaking should introduce themselves and their Wikimedia affiliate, if any
    2. Sandra: a comment was raised in the chat regarding the friendly space policy, any questions about this?
      1. comment: I want people to ask questions freely to get answers without it being a friendly space violation, even if the questions are difficult to answer
      2. Sandra: Yes, the intent is to share information. There can be disagreement, but it should be respectful.
  4. Announcements and updates:
    1. Community Affairs Committee (CAC) update - Shani
      1. Shani says thanks for 2 minutes to speak
      2. The Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees has a new committee called the "community affairs committee" (CAC in short)
      3. The point of the committee can be found on meta (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Committee) and in the charter, but one of its first steps is create a process to directly engage with the community during publicly scheduled office hours
      4. first session is Thursday, May 13th, 1900 UTC.
      5. the board asks for the community to send questions in advance so that the board can direct WMF staff to do any necessary background or research
      6. there will be time in the meet for open questions
      7. the format will be a scheduled hour, then an additional informal 30 minutes for open and less organized chat
      8. This is an experiment. We'll see how many people are interested and if the time works, and we will make changes if necessary accordingly.
      9. More details will be sent in the coming days , including a dedicated email. Till that is set up, please send questinos to Shani - shani@wikimedia.org
    2. UCoC update - Ramzy / Mervat (5-10 mins)
      1. Mervat:UCoC = Universal Code of Conduct
      2. the first phase of development is complete, and now there is a second phase beginning
      3. Mervat has a survey to offer to anyone who wants to share their thoughts about the process
      4. the drafting committee is about to be announced
      5. the committee is supposed to draft through June, at which point they share some outcomes
      6. summary of what has been done so far is on meta
      7. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/2021_consultations/Enforcement
      8. comment: the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is affected by the Code of Conduct in that now there are individuals who are perceiving the Wikimedia Foundation as a higher authority than the local moderation process. This is an outcome which many English Wikipedia moderators have wished to avoid, preferring instead community management of such things
    3. WMF Resolution about the upcoming Board elections (Quim) - 10 mins
      1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/2021-04-15_Resolution_about_the_upcoming_Board_elections
      2. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BGC_Community_Trustee_Selection_Proposal_April_2021.pdf
      3. the Wikimedia Foundation reported ~800 volunteers participated in conversations around the elections
      4. There is to be an election with 4 seats up for election
      5. community nominations are open in June 2021
      6. the election will resolve by August 2021
      7. process may be delayed 3 months if elections committee requests, to allow time for implementation of the preferred voting system
      8. the existing team around the call for feedback will continue working on engagement for the election itself
      9. comment: when will the election committee have an announcement of the voting method?
        1. Quim: I am not the elections committee and I do not know what they will choose. It is in everyone's interest that they make a decision quickly, hopefully within the next week. There is a need to develop a piece of software in which thousands of people vote and the election process works the first time we use it. It is not a trivial piece of script.
      10. comment: will there be ranked voting?
        1. Quim: Yes this is the intention under discussion at the moment, the Single Transferable Vote system. It was proposed during the call for feedback. I am not the elections committee though and this decision is for them to make.
      11. comment: can we outsource the voting to a third party? LOOMIO.org would be a good choice *(FLOSS)
        1. Quim: one challenge with this is verifying the Wikimedia user names of voters. It is complicated.
      12. Sandra: This was a very intensive consultation process, how does WMF look back on this?
        1. Quim: My own view and I was co-ordinating this call for feedback. But I am satisfied, the comments were broad and deep. A number of communities participated in this conversation for the first time. Some people/communities learned about the issue and the existence of the WMF Board for the first time. So it was a success. But it was very resource-intensive, neither WMF nor communities can handle another 10 of these in a year - there is a balance of doing the best call for feedback, vs the capacity to do it.
      13. Shani: I want to reinforce what Quim is saying. It was important for the board to make an informed decision and the only way for us to do this was to talk with the community. We talked with parts of the community who had never been engaged before. They did not know about the board elections. There are 3 main changes in the process this year, after hearing the community: 1) Moving to a single transferable vote system. 2) An evaluation form, that will be a tool for the community to review candidates in terms of diversity and to get information which we thought was impportand but challenging to include; 3) A commitment to allocate resources to underserved populations to get their participation in the election process. We are not introducing quotas or other changes at this time because we are introducing many other changes as is this time. We want to see how things work with only these changes and then re-evaluate.
      14. Comments from chat:
        1. also echoing host's question: this process seemed quite enormous (especially in relation to other processes that are going on)
        2. Having the call for feedback increases trust and ties within the movement.
        3. I think we all have a role in the election, hopefully we can work together to make for a better and more diverse outcome
        4. Having more than one model of doing it is important
        5. Community Resilience & Sustainability (CR&S) role in Movement Strategy coordination (Maggie/Quim?)
          1. Maggie Dennis - "I will be available to talk about all matters related to the work of Community Resilience & Sustainability - which includes Movement Strategy and the Universal Code of Conduct, among others."
          2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Global_Conversations/Report/January#Movement_Strategy_update
      15. QUIM: The role is simple, movement strategy sits within CR&S.
        1. Quim: Maggie is the executive sponsor and I report to Maggie. Kaarel reports to Quim and continues to do the work of designing the process. There is Abbad, Ellie, Cornelius continuing to work on this. We are finishing this as you know for the foundation. We are in the last quarter of the fiscal year discussing our annual plan for the next fiscal year. In a few weeks we will know the resources that the movement strategy team will have. You asked about the role - this is the information I have.
        2. Quim: there have been two kinds of changes lately in the movement stragegy team and process. We moved from the transition phase to the implementation phase. This is the last phase. Now there is no more planning except what happens while we take action. The Movement Charter is one of the pieces of the Movement Strategy which needs to get done. We want to reorient the team to get things done. Previously Ryan Merkeley was executive sponsor of this but he is now gone from the Foundation. Katherine Maher was part of this but she left. Their absence makes changes now as compared to how things were six months ago.
        3. Quim - re the names mentioned in chat - the team previously relied on a lot of contractors around peaks of work - a lot of them were very passionate and still participate, but are not currently part of the strategy staff team
        4. comment: in the past few weeks I and some others have noticed increased interest from the Wikimedia Foundation in response to the Movement Charter
  5. Movement Charter - discussion
    1. Andrew Lih presented some slides called "The state of Movement charter efforts"
      1. Slides:
      2. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1C6H-a6qh_y_nOR33azLXp9k4eEn0nEinUpye8U1Ibws/edit#slide=id.p
    2. general discussion about where we are and where we are going
      1. SWAN has been particularly engaged in developing the Movement Charter
      2. an analogy: some people feel that we are building a bridge but do not have a clear idea of where we are going, whereas more people have some ideas of what is on the other side where the bridge will lead
      3. reminders: assume good faith, be intentional with comments to move the conversation forward, and consider the merits of viewpoints other than your own
      4. comment: people have reported learning a lot by listening to diverse viewpoints as so many people speak up
    3. highlights of recent history
      1. summary of movement charter discussions
      2. proposal: drafting a movement charter
      3. 7/7/7
      4. ???
      5. ???
      6. proposal from 10 individuals
      7. limit the scope and responsibilities of the interim global council to just creating the movement charter
      8. provide certainty at the start of the process that the intent is to present the charter for ratification by the Wikimedai community
      9. define the roles and responsibilities of the drafting group
      10. Kaarel memo
      11. start with the movement charter drafting committee and get it set up as soon as possible
      12. keep the size of the group reasonable to keep it functional
      13. ensure that there is diverstiy in the group to have perspective
    4. challenges
      1. how do we improve on the perceived shortcomings of the working group?
      2. how much power will the IGC / MC have
      3. how do we select IGC / MC
      4. model of process overview
      5. define responsibilities
      6. select committee
      7. design a process to create charter
      8. plan the ratification process for the community to respond
      9. insight: this process emphasizes the what and how, and downplays who actually is on the committee
    5. proposal to move forward
      1. focus on the what the committee does and how we ratify it
      2. define characteristics of the committee
      3. who has abilities, skills, and knowledge
      4. have a selection process based on that
    6. questions: why have a committee at all?
      1. please clarify. If we do not have a committee, then what is the alternative? Perhaps an open community wishlist for charter items?
      2. comment: for this call and our planning, we have been assuming that there will be a Movement Charter, and it will come from the Wikimedia community, and the Wikimedia Community will generate the charter by forming a small committee to produce a draft
      3. comment: we have been discussing in phases for years, and months, and these past few weeks leading to the formation of a charter, and the conversation has converged into planning a drafting committee
      4. comment: does anyone oppose the formation of a Wikimedia Global Council as one of the targets of the Movement Charter?
      5. ???
    7. Background info:
      1. Summary of current situation by WMF (Summary of Movement Charter discussions, posted by Kaarel) - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Global_Conversations/Report/January#Summary_of_Movement_Charter_discussions
  6. Proposals
    1. Drafting a Movement Charter" developed by group of Wikimedians (includes notes from last two meetings) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Proposal:_Drafting_a_Movement_Charter
    2. Previous proposals
    3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Global_Conversations/Report/January
    4. Possible way forward:
    5. Consensus: MC drafting committee only
    6. Discussion: Committee - define desired abilities, skills, knowledge, expertise, diversity
    7. Discussion: Ratification - define a process that is solid and meaningfully engages the community
    8. Discussion on next steps?
    9. comment: I am an active participant with a Wikimedia chapter. I have been in various working groups over the years. I see the drafting committee process organized similarly to Wikimedia Foundation branding initiative. To me this seems like a big difference as compared to typical Wikimedia community volunteer committees. Why is this happening?
      1. Question: please clarify why you think branding is a part of this
      2. response: the Wikimedia Foundation pushed a rebranding proposal without significant Wikimedia community oversight. The result being a proposal visceraly objected by the community, and I feel that this movement charter is process following a similar path. When we have such a big community process such as this movement charter we should be careful to not have the lack of oversight and participation in this group that there was in the rebranding. The Wikimedia Movement strategy emphasized equity in decision making and inclusivity, and with re-branding there was a closing off of Wikimedia community participation and I fear that in this drafting committee there is a similar closing off. We have a very low trust environment right now and the drafting process should increase community participation rather than be restrictive.
      3. comment: about the branding, the fatal flaw in my view was that the Wikimedia Foundation presented a ratification process which offered only 3 options all of which were the Wikimedia Foundation's own choices which the Wikimedia community had no say in developing. In the movement charter I feel that the ratification should be planned in advance so that when we seek community approval we already know that the community will accept the process. Ratification is key and a valuable thing on which to focus. When we choose committee members I think the choice should be about process.
      4. question: when you asked about the rebranding, where you suggesting that there should be an on-wiki community conversation?
      5. response: that could be an option but also community selected representatives could do this
      6. comment from Chris K / The Land: responding to the idea that the drafting process could be 'silo'ed off from the community, as the branding process was. If that happens then the drafting process will fail. It's not a case of a group of people being told to go away and create a document and then put it up for a vote on Meta. The process will need to be different from previous stages of the strategy process. Needs to go step by step (iteratively) with rounds of discussion and feedback on drafts. Could start with 'soft' consultation designed to raise issues, later rounds could be more formal e.g. project RfCs and resolutions of affiliate boards. Further thoughts: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Proposal:_Drafting_a_Movement_Charter
    10. question: what is the mandate that the SWAN group has in this charter discussion?
      1. response: SWAN is a forum for people to converse and come together but is not claiming a mandate
      2. here are some of the ideas which have come from SWAN about this process
      3. abilities, skills, knowledge, and experience
      4. https://jamboard.google.com/d/1SIbXQs-462SgRMCKthx1SIrAyOqwcSvIaJuFliSe_yI/viewer?f=1
      5. the jam board is anonymous, anyone can post stickies freely so do not be bashful
      6. other board - diversity and membership of committee
      7. (people engaged with jam board for 20 minutes with limited conversation)
  7. Sandra: who here in this call would be willing to form a subcommittee (or group?) for planning ratification to draft a propsal in the next two weeks. Plus skills etc needed in the committee from the jamboard.
    1. Chico Venancio - chicocvenancio@wmnobrasil.org
    2. Christophe Henner - christophe.henner@gmail.com
    3. Richard Knipel pharosofalexandria@gmail.com
    4. Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
    5. Mykola Kozlenko
    6. Ad Huikeshoven
    7. Alice Wiegand
    8. Erlan Vega (Alhen) alhen.wiki@gmail.com
    9. Claudia Garad claudia.garad@wikimedia.at
    10. Nicole Ebber - nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
    11. Anna Torres
    12. anass sedrati - sedranas@gmail.com
    13. Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight - rosiestep.wiki@gmail.com
    14. Andrew Lih - andrew.lih@gmail.com (simply to help liase with Asia community, then i will hand it off)
    15. Yair Rand - yyairrand (at) gmail.com
    16. Michal Buczynski michal.buczynski@wikimedia.pl (late submission, subject to availability ;))
  8. Sandra: I have a question for Quim or Shani. How does the WMF intend to participate in this process going forward?
    1. Quim: In the past the community has said that the process was slow. I like these activities a lot because I think they are focusing on the right questions. I understand why previous SWAN discussions happened, but some of them did not lead to direct actions toward a goal. This one is going in a different direction toward an endpoint. The worst combination would be to discuss perfection for another two years rather than getting to an endpoint. The team would facilitate whatever the community requested.
  9. (extensive discussion of whether the Brazil national football team should be elected or appointed)
  10. Shani: earlier we talked about the new Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation board which is to be a link between the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia community. The CAC is the main Committee to be working with community affairs - advising, supporting, engaging. The CAC will be part of the discussions about the IGC and MC, and is in a position to guide, recommend, reconcile and of course make recommendations for the fuller board and to staff. It is important to stress that it doe not have any funds of our own to disseminate. But it is in a position to, in collaboration with staff, make specific requests, and recommendations when it comes to resource allocation. What was mentioned in the morning session was that WMF is now working on the budget for next fiscal year (which as was mentioned before, begins July 1st). Resources are already being allocated towards implementation of the strategy, but the clearer requests the community has, the easier it is to tailor it to actual needs, so please let us know if you have specific needs that come up.
    1. Sandra: the next steps will be elaborating what is on the jam board. It will not be drafting the movement charter right away.
  11. question: should we plan another SWAN call earlier than usual, perhaps in 2 weeks rather than in one month?
    1. (a few people supporting, 40 people in room)
    2. comment: will the people who added their name to organize the ratification committee please organize among yourselves? SWAN cannot organize.
    3. Andrew: I invite anyone to continue the conversation in the SWAN telegram chat. I am sharing the link to this.
  12. comment: we have not talked about a committee to draft the ability / skills / knowledge we want on the committee
    1. comment: I think the people who are listing themselves to volunteer for a committee might join either the ratification committeee, or the abilities committeee, and there could also be a resources committee