Talk:Movement Charter/Archive 1

Archives

---

• Archive 1: December 2020 - August 2022
• Archive 2: September 2022 - March 2023
• Archive 3: March - September 2023
• Archive 4: September 2023 - March 2024

Develop charter in wiki way

Some people are shy about posting drafts and ideas but I recommend developing the discussion in a centralized way to identify both consensus and points which need discussion.

I suggest using this meta page as a place for drafting and that anyone who has their own ideas or draft text post on a subpage here. The reason why posting here is preferable is because there is a wiki custom to hesitate to edit text on individuals' user pages, but wiki custom does encourage editing common text.

If anyone wants both a shared version and an individual version of text on their userpage then I think that is great.

user:The Land publicly shared User:The Land/Movement Charter Input which I think is great, and I also know some other people have draft text but have hesitated to put it out for discussion due to shyness or wanting it to be perfect. I think the wiki community welcomes all ideas and wants lots of them. Thanks Land for posting.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's great that anyone can contribute their ideas about a subtopic of the strategy discussions and post that for everyone to read and think about. I'm not sure why it couldn't be part of the official process, though. I think that encouraging lots of people to think publicly about these topic is a great way to get people involved in the process so that they “own” the process and feel comfortable participating in it.Vexations (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:, thanks for the link here. I think that for developing the content in a collaborative way, a central space would be helpful. For this I created the placeholder landing page and have also added the links to Movement Charter input by User:The Landand Nano Charter concept page by Pharos there. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed process for producing the Movement Charter

Lots of people have ideas and here is one on the table for consideration.

• Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Global_Conversations/Report/January#Proposal_for_expeditious_7/7/7_committee_and_community_ratification_of_Movement_Charter

I feel that much is flexible right now. If anyone has proposals or ideas, then post comments here on the talk page or for longer process proposals or essays, write in your own space and link to it from the main page of this document. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have now started a dedicated new page for the concept here: Movement Charter/Committee.--Pharos (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Please mark for Translation

Please mark the "front page" for Translation. Thank you in advance! --Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 11:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Drafting a Movement Charter (Proposal)

Hi all! I would like to invite you to take a look at our proposal to draft the Movement Charter. We are proposing a way forward by limiting the scope and responsibilities of the IGC to being the Movement Charter drafting group. You can also read some reflections in the talk page on the process of ratification of the Movement Charter, the composition of the Movement Charter drafting group, among others. If you agree on this way forward, you can support it by endorsing it with your signature.

--marcmiquel (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on ratification process

Also I've posted some thoughts on what the ratification process might look like. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Following a SWAN call, a separate page was set up: Movement Charter/Ratification process. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Image

The Wikimedia Community would define roles and governance principles in the Wikimedia Movement Charter

I put an image in the article.

It seems like the content about the Movement Charter may become a matter of broader interest than typical pages on Meta-Wiki, and consequently, I think we should have some image to make it more recognizable. I am indifferent about what kind of image there should be, but I think there should be something. I am proposing this icon of a document as a start and encourage anyone else to make other suggestions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, thank you for the initiative! I think having a recognizable visual cue that connects for the process would be really helpful. +1 for this idea to be developed further. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Centralize discussion

The Movement Charter project has many subpages.

For accessibility, I have directed all talk pages here. Based on past talk page activity in meta, the Wiki community has been able to manage discussion even of quite complicated topics on a single talk page. The more common problem is having too many small conversations in too many places. To start with the most clarity, I propose to have discussion here, then if the need is great later, we be open to splitting off any major side discussions to a subspace if needed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Bluerasberry for proactively suggesting the change - and making that happen. I believe this works well for now to keep people in the loop, however in the future when we dig deeper in drafting, content, and ratification topics, we might want to have the specific talk pages back for keeping the conversation manageable (i.e. not overwhelming) and might need to fork the talk pages again. In that case, however, it would really make sense to provide quick updates regarding the most essential discussions happening on the central talk page. Just something to consider for the future. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This page is for the Wikimedia Community to host its own discussions

I propose that this talk page be by and for Wikimedia Community volunteer discussion. The soul of the Wikimedia Movement is the Wikimedia Community, and the Movement Charter is a reflection of that soul. The lead of conversations about the Movement Charter should come from the Wikimedia Community of volunteers and not from paid staff or management by consultants.

I propose that paid staff who are eager to use this talk page advocate for the corporate position on the Movement Charter should instead convince Wikimedia community volunteers to make posts in their own words and of their own free will. If anyone has a statement to share which does not come from participating volunteers then let's discuss why that is. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to approach this with a 'staff vs volunteers' mindset, to be honest. There are lots of interesting perspectives on the whole strategy from people who work for either the WMF or affiliates, some of them are involved in their work capacity, some of them are staff working on other things but engage with this as volunteers. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I'm a Foundation contractor for the UCoC consultation in the ESEAP region. I'm not a staff, but an "independent consultant" that does not have employment relationship with the Fdn, as governed by Californian law. I have been following the Movement Charter discussion as a volunteer longer than I am paid by the Fdn, and I view that my participation is purely on a volunteer basis. I would very much like to continue that, as I see myself as part of the community. What is your definition of the Community? RamzyM (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose that honestly. Why would that be a reason to silence their voices. I feel it's odd that on one hand we talk about inclusivity and on the other hand we talk to silence people based on who employ them. They are part of our communities, those discussion will impact their lives more than most of us. To me, they should be allowed to join in that discussion like all anyone from any of the communities of the movement. schiste (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry:, I would like to understand better the intent and benefit of your suggestion.

In my understanding the Movement Charter is a document that will define roles & responsibilities and mutual accountabilities across the movement, including all members and entities. I strongly believe that this conversation can only happen when different stakeholders and interest groups in the movement have a common discussion space where they interact across the natural and artificial borders within our movement. For me it is a foundational premise of making the global governance discussions work. As a result, I don't find implementing proposed restrictions on a central talk page constructive.

I believe that there are affiliate and WMF staff members who have experience and expertise related to governance topics overall as well as movement governance and policy work in particular that would be highly beneficial to inform the discussions around the Movement Charter. I would suggest that these voices need to be included in the conversations.

I do agree that there needs to be high level of community ownership regarding the Movement Charter conversations, yet I do not see how the proposed means would function towards that end. I would like to understand that better. I would also like to hear about alternatives that would enable communities in these conversations that are more supportive of a converging discussion, rather than creating unnecessary discussion silos that lead towards divergence. What are your thoughts regarding this? --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@KVaidla (WMF): I appreciate your willingness to talk. I would be happy to meet with you for a recorded video conversation which we post here. The discussion of complicated subjects naturally happens better with real time communication, and asynchronous text messages posted here to talk pages could never be an equivalent to that. Under what circumstances could I make an appointment with you to chat, record, and share? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Mesh design

I strongly recommend the adoption in the charter of Mesh design for the most important issues. I also strongly suggest that the most important charter discussions be structured in Mesh design. To understand what Mesh design is see: Requests for comment/Closing the gap to and between the base communities. --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Felipe da Fonseca, thank you for pointing towards this design option. We have tried this approach previously in some of the movement strategy conversations and generally it works well for engaging wider audience and ensure they are well updated regarding the progress of the conversations. While active engagement on local wikis might be too much to ask for all the movement strategy initiatives, it does make sense for something as significant as Movement Charter and its ratification. We will have this idea in mind when discussing the process options. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Translation

Could someone prepare it (Template:Movement_Charter/Header) for translation and bookmark the page? I tried to prepare it but for some reason I couldn't. This template is not appearing in the Portuguese version, I would like to know the reason to fix it.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Please mark Movement Charter/Movement Charter Drafting Group, Movement Charter/Content and Movement Charter/Ratification process too.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Felipe da Fonseca:. Main page and Drafting Group pages are now marked for translation. The rest we will mark when they become more stable, so we don't have redundant translation efforts from volunteers. We will ping here once they are marked. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Content questions from meeting notes

I'm a bit concerned that there is a large amount of useful discussion at Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Proposal: Drafting a Movement Charter/Meeting notes which hasn't yet been carried forward, if only in outline format, to the charter content drafting space or this talk page for it. For example, these questions among many others and useful discussion points there:

• Can the Association of Chapters Charter be used as a starting point?
  • what are the advantages and disadvantages?
  • is it sufficiently democratic?
  • is it sufficiently inclusive of the global south?
  • can we charter grantmaking processes to be fair across disadvantaged wikimedians?
  • how can we codify an elected instead of appointed governing group?
  • do we need to recruit drafters from groups underrepresented in the strategy process?
  • what are the tasks necessary to complete a suitable charter?

Anyway, I suggest those notes are worth at least a careful skim by anyone interested in drafting. 2601:647:4D00:2C40:0:0:0:88EB 08:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping regarding this. It is good practice to build on previous conversations and linking to them in a more accessible way makes sense. However, I believe that this link makes more sense under the "Content" section, which is under construction. I also added the link there for the time being. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Movement Charter/Ratification process: Ideation and iteration too

I'd suggest that we expand the scope of Movement Charter/Ratification process to cover initial ideation and iteration of proposals over time, so it's not just about ratification at the end stage. I believe there are things we can learn from the Community Wishlist Survey and similar curated community processes, so that a Drafting Group has some raw material to consolidate, refine and develop further.--Pharos (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Have also put forward a 23 May session during Wikimedia Hackathon 2021 at 18:00 UTC.--Pharos (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pharos - I agree entirely! I have some thoughts on this which I'll also add to the page probably next week. I'm interested to hear what you think the learning points from the Community Wishlist Survey might be - could you expand on your thoughts on this? Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pharos:, thank you for the initiative. From the theory perspective, I also strongly agree with you. Developing Movement Charter needs to be a consensus process and considering the diversity of perspectives we have in our movement, this cannot be an additional phase added to the process, but it needs to be integral part of the content development. I look forward to seeing this conversation progress and contributing to co-creation of a meaningful process.

Having a Charter hacking session at the Hackathon is an interesting idea. I plan to participate and hope this working session goes well. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Land and KVaidla (WMF): Thanks, would welcome both of your participation, as well as anyone else interested. What I like about about the Community Wishlist Survey is it allows a bottom-up process where any individual can contribute basic ideas, there is a test of support from the broader community, and then the ideas are evaluated, refined and combined by facilitators. Some extra layers and mechanisms would have to be built in due to the differing domains, but I think that this can serve as a productive model.--Pharos (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Movement Strategy update, May 19

There is a new update published regarding the Movement Strategy, which you can find here. For easier access, I am sharing the points related to Movement Charter also here:

• We are happy to announce two weekends of Global Conversations in June.
• We want to present these Global Conversations as the official beginning of the Movement Charter work. In the previous months there have been different initiatives and discussions, and it is time to converge. For this reason, we are organizing a planning meeting to design together the Movement Charter conversations in June.
  • On the weekend of June 12 and 13, we will host a Global Conversation about the Movement Charter. The main objective is to define the Charter’s scope. We want to expand the current perspectives and include underrepresented groups.
  • This event will be similarly structured to the one in January focusing on the Global Council.
  • We will host two 4 hour sessions covering different time zones, one on June 12, 5:00 - 9:00 UTC (local time) and one on June 13, 16:00 - 20:00 UTC (local time).
  • Registration for this event will start May 27.
• On May 31, we will host a small, two-hour meeting to plan the conversations about the Movement Charter in June. The objective is to bring together the promoters of different Movement Charter ideas and agree on the immediate next steps. This meeting will take place on May 31, from 15:30 to 17:30 UTC (local time). If you would like to attend, please email us your name and your objective for this session to strategy2030(_AT_)wikimedia.org.

--KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

We will work again with our vendor Insightpact, which supported us already organizing and facilitating our events in November, December, and January. We are happy to be working with you before, in, around, and after these events. Information about participation support for these events will be posted in the upcoming days Feel free to contact us when in doubt, either via email or in the Telegram group. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Movement Charter proposal for next steps

Hi, after the Movement Charter conversations last weekend, we are proposing next steps for the next couple of weeks: Movement Strategy/Updates/June_15,_2021.

In the same link you can find the documents shared and produced last weekend. We are still working on the report. Qgil-WMF (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This is an invitation to discuss three questions that need answers in order to create the Movement Charter drafting committee. You can find more context about these questions on Movement Strategy/Events/Movement Charter Global Conversation, 26-27 June 2021. Qgil-WMF (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Category for proposed charters + elements?

I know we've developed this timeline for building a formal charter-drafting body, and cascading towards standing up a Global Council. Are there also aspects we can develop in parallel, rather than in series, and that anyone can contribute to as they have time and inspiration? –SJ talk  17:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a category for proposed charters, so that people who want to draft an entire document (to illustrate how they see things holding together) can do so?
• Ditto for elements to include in a charter -- it seems that we have a number of topics (high level, including 'values', 'accountability', 'decision-making' from a past draft; but also topical, such as 'role of the Global Council in decision-making'). Is there a category for these or a list that anyone can add to?

See also this comment. –SJ talk 

Examples of other charters

Charters for CSA networks: France (2014), global?

Process Consensus

There's a proposed process on this page, that was suggested by User:KVaidla (WMF). As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any community discussion about if the process is acceptable - it was proposed by a Foundation employee, and hasn't received any input from the community. I think it's important that the proposed process (the selection of a small charter-writing committee) achieve on-wiki consensus before it goes forwards, and especially before this novel process is substituted for our standard way of developing content and policy - participatory on-wiki discussions. As this is a movement-wide enterprise, decisions on process need to be made by traditional consensus, and not by Foundation fiat.

Hence, I'd like to start a straw poll as to if people support or oppose the proposed process. TomDotGov (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose I don't think that appointing a closed committee like this is likely to achieve a successful outcome. It was tried in the movement branding process, and the result was a set of proposals that the community found unacceptable. A better alternative would be to draft the movement charter on a wiki page that anyone can edit, the same way that policy and content is created. TomDotGov (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Superseded by Movement Strategy/Events/Movement Charter Global Conversation, 26-27 June 2021/Proposal by the Wikimedia Foundation. Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't believe this is the case. There hasn't, as far as I know, been a community decision to restrict things to a tiny and privileged drafting committee, as opposed to the more inclusive method used for legitimate process. If there has been a decision made by the community - and not WMF Staff fiat - could you point to the wiki page where the discussion occurred? TomDotGov (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  @TomDotGov Ah, sorry, I misunderstood the purpose of this section. I thought you were specifically asking to the proposal the Foundation shared on the June 12-13 conversations about the Movement Charter. My intention with the comment above was to simply inform that such specific proposal has been superseded by the new one that I linked to. That's all, I'm sorry if I caused confusion. Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose Agree with TomDotGov a committee to write the charter (or anything, quite frankly) is flawed in itself; let it be written for approval, not some approval process which precedes the writing — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tofergus (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Movement Charter drafting committee proposal by the Wikimedia Foundation

Considering all the Movement Charter drafting committee proposals presented by different parties and the ongoing discussions, the Wikimedia Foundation presents this new proposal for discussion:

Movement Strategy/Events/Movement Charter Global Conversation, 26-27 June 2021/Proposal by the Wikimedia Foundation

We had presented a previous proposal during the last Global Conversations, on June 12-13. There we were told by several participants that

• it is better to share proposals beforehand, so that people have time to review them
• it is better to detach a new proposal from the program of the event, for fairness toward other proposals.

We are proceeding accordingly.

This aims to be a proposal to converge and agree on the next steps to create the drafting committee. It is based on solid principles but the implementation details are quite flexible. We welcome your questions, suggestions, objections, endorsements…. Please share them on the Talk page or the Movement Strategy Telegram group. Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, a lot was discussed about the Movement Charter drafting committee last week, and the Movement Strategy team is completing the report.

The proposal we shared received some good feedback, some mixed and yet curious feedback, and also some criticism. We are introducing some changes to this proposal to address the main concerns: the timeline and the possibility to vote.

Please review this proposed modification. We hope that we all can find a point of compromise and a way forward. Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about Movement Charter and Global Council

Hello, please forgive me if I have missed the relative section as I have not had the time to go over or even find a lot of the information regarding the Movement Charter and Global Council. I am not exactly sure how revenues and funds are handled within the Project although I know there is a board of some sort, but my question probably like a lot of people is whether or not either the Movement Charter or Global Council are intended to supplant the administration functions and processes in place for the individual Wiki's, as in my opinion (and many others) they do quite well in self-sustaining/ policing as well as inclusion, as far as the content side goes (again I am not familiar with the financial side, other than a lot of people, professional or otherwise, donate a lot of time for managing, programming, etc..) I don't understand exactly what the frequently-used term "diversity" is pertaining to specifically, or if it is meant in a broader sense, because again, I myself see a wide range of content from a wide range of views, and I have taken a fair amount of time and have a thorough knowledge of geography and history from around the World (plus I am obsessive compulsive so I cannot "skip over" any areas or groups), so I believe I can keep impartial quite well when I say that.

I have not read enough on here to comment about this movement specifically, but I would caution in general that sometimes using words like "inclusion", etc.., when pertaining to creating a higher level of authority, are actually used to subvert and consolidate authority to fewer people, and in effect have the opposite outcome, essentially de-democratizing a system or organization. So basically I guess I am wondering if this movement, which as I understand it takes effect around 2022, is meant to reinforce the existing structure of the Wiki projects and how the finances are handled or if it is meant to replace and/or re-arrange the foundational and management systems that have been in place in any way? Again I apologize if I missed any sections that address this, so any clarification would be appreciated, thank you.--JLavigne508 (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A recent overview of Movement Charter initiative is available, indicating the charter iteslf is meant to define the roles and responsibilities of the Global Council, and currently steps are being taken towards forming the drafting committee in a diverse, equitable, and inclusive way (most recently during Movement Charter Global Conversation). Ensure Equity in Decision-making involves "enabling empowerment of local communities". Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@JLavigne508: A major purpose of the Global Council is to make "movement-wide" decisions. The Strategy Recommendations bring up the issue that a lot of responsibilities in that area have ended up in the hands of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Board, and they're really not suited to handling those things. (The Board is set up to be able to govern a specific non-profit organization, but not really a global volunteer movement centered around wikis.) The GC will also handle responsibilities relating to resource allocation and enforcing certain standards in Wikimedia organizations. It will not supplant any wikis' internal administration, nor any on-wiki decision-making structure regarding content or local policy, to the best of my knowledge. --Yair rand (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh okay thank you Yair rand that makes sense to me. Like I said I knew a lot of people are giving a lot of their time for management on various boards on here, and it seems that is the general focus of what a lot of these efforts are focused on from what I can tell also, and again I am definitely not familiar with the specifics concerning all of that. I hope any of the changes here can help that end of things go more smoothly and efficiently, and helps keep the Projects running and growing. I will look further into it to see if there is anything I can do to help. Take care.--JLavigne508 (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Drafting Committee Call for Candidates draft published

We have published a draft of the call for candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. This is now marked for translation and in the upcoming days there will be translations available in a number of languages.

Over the course of the next 10 days we will be collecting feedback regarding this draft and making necessary changes based on the suggestions received. We have tried to converge different viewpoints presented in previous discussions and hope there is not a need for substantial changes. In this anticipation we are looking forward to launching the call for candidates on August 2, 2021.

We are here to hear your feedback and answer any questions or specifications! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

No Disabilities again, too?

I am very disappointed the Disabilities are excluded from the ‘diversity’; who are proper for including them in the overall Wikimedia movement processes. Therefore, I express regret to the Wikimedia Foundation for the Foundation does not regard any wikimedians with Disabilities to their party for cooperation. - Ellif (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC) / 08:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Voting extremely difficult, non-transparent and invalid

@KVaidla (WMF), Ellif, JLavigne508, Yair rand, Xeno (WMF), Qgil-WMF, TomDotGov, Pharos, The Land, Bluerasberry, and Vexations:

• The technical implementation of the voting is simply bullshit - sorry for this harsh word, but there is no other that fits better here.
• Anyone who has read through the long list of candidate presentations and now wants to become active on the voting page faces a major problem there.
• After opening each of the voting lists, you find a complete unsorted chaos of the names of (almost) all candidates. You are forced to go through the whole list until you find the name of the candidate. Sometimes you overlook the name and have to search through the list a second or even a third time. The browser search function "Search in this page" does not work with the expanded voting lists either.
• "Runa Bhattacharjee (@Runab WMF:)", however, I did not find even on the 4th search. She is probably one of the two candidates listed on the 72-candidate introduction page, but missing from the voting lists of only 70 candidates.
• This clearly means that the election is invalid and must be repeated!
• Incidentally, the absolute least that could have been done would have been to sort the candidates in the shortlists on the voting page in the same order as on the overview page of the candidates.
  • But it would have been even significantly better if the candidates in the voting list had been sorted alphabetically.
  • A third sensible method would have been, as a supplement to the first-mentioned method, to number the candidates consecutively on the introduction page and to use the same numbering in the voting lists.
• Due to this chaotic voting method, it took me almost half an hour to be able to cast my vote for 12 candidates. Probably most of the voters give up much earlier. Perhaps this is exactly the intention, in order to have as little work as possible with the counting in the end.
• Another major shortcoming of this vote is the complete lack of transparency. I have already experienced many votes on different levels of the wiki project. There, the status of the vote was always visible at any time. Here, everything remains secret and the final result can be manipulated uncontrollably by the person counting the votes.

--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 06:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I jumped straight to the candidates via the table of contents and missed the "Wikimedia Foundation-chosen members" mini section. But that does not change the other points of criticism.--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 07:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not know the reason that you pinged me, but I could not agree of you. If I could not believe the selection process, I would not a candidate for this committee. - Ellif (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why I was pinged, either. I don't believe that a legitimate movement charter can be developed in off-wiki secrecy, and so I don't think this vote is a productive use of time. TomDotGov (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

(Disclosure: Am candidate.)

@TomDotGov: One of the questions the candidates were asked is whether they support the statement that "The Movement Charter should be developed in an open, iterative, consultative, participatory and transparent process." Many candidates explicitly stated their support for developing the Charter in a wiki manner. --Yair rand (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yair randWe have over 70 people that wish to participate, and 15 of them will be allowed to. That's not the wiki manner, regardless of what people put down on a form. TomDotGov (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@TomDotGov: But... the committee could just allow everyone to participate? I don't think I'm quite understanding what you're saying. --Yair rand (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yair rand A committee allowing people to participate is a problem - an important aspect of the wiki method is that it's permissionless, and that everyone that's participating in good faith does so as equals. That's where a lot of legitimacy comes from - everyone feels that their ideas have been heard. TomDotGov (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Bestoernesto, thank you for sharing the feedback despite of the evident frustration. I am offering a response regarding some of the aspects you have raised, I hope it is helpful.

• Both the list on the candidates page and also the voting page have randomizing templates. This means that every time you refresh or reopen the page the candidates are presented in a different order. This was implemented to ensure that no candidate has an unfair privilege in their presentation. We understand that this causes issues in voting user experience, yet we felt that fair presentation of candidates needs to have prevalence and have decided to implement the randomized order. The methods that you have suggested, unfortunately, would not cater for fair presentation.
• There are ways how to overcome this complexity, but apparently we could have done much better job in sharing the information. For example, when having clicked on the dropdown list in SecurePoll, one can type the letter of the name of the candidate and go through the candidates whose names start with that letter more easily. This is not ideal, but significantly improves the user experience.
• I have to admit that I do not fully comprehend the transparency aspect. SecurePoll extension is being used for the elections of Board of Trustees and also on some wikis for ArbCom elections. 4 stewards have volunteered for scrutineering and we plan to publish anonymized ballot dump. What would be the further requirements for transparency in your perspective?

Thank you for your kind attention and have a great week ahead! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the transparancy problem: I can not see who voted and I can not see for whom someone voted. I dont't even know who can. That's intransparent. During "nomal" voting like in RfCs everyone can see this and therefore it is transparent. Also keep in mind: Security and transparency are two different things. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 15:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Der-Wir-Ing: The list of voters may be found here: votewiki:Special:SecurePoll/list/1208. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wikimedia Foundation process for community requests I listed some recurring ethical and social challenges with WMF requests for community attention. The major problem is that the the WMF is continuously in conflict with the ethics and values of the Wikimedia community, and whenever there is a conflict, the WMF hires staff to advocate for its positions while restricting the Wikimedia community's access to resources which would enable the community to advocate for itself. The usual Wikimedia Foundation response to conflict with community is to pay its staff money to dominate discussions to either defend itself or make claims that the conflict does not exist, and typically also to make the claim that WMF staff actually advocate for the community. There are major Wikimedia community claims that its ethics and WMF ethics are different.

In processes such as the Movement Charter where the stakes are high, and the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia community of volunteers have very different ethics and values, then the power imbalance between the Wikimedia Foundation and the community creates a great conflict. The Wikimedia Foundation has a conflict of interest in these negotiations because it accesses the pool of donor money that supporters give to Wikipedia, but then the Wikimedia Foundation restricts, prohibits, and discourages community access to those same resources. The Wikimedia Foundation also fails to report how much money and how many labor hours it expends, and also dismisses Wikimedia community pleas for assistance and relief from forceful Wikimedia Foundation demands.

More particular complaints are that the WMF set the schedule for this. Volunteers had about two weeks to prepare as volunteers, when 10+ Wikimedia Foundation staff entered this process well-prepared with funded labor at the time that the WMF dictated this schedule without consulting with the community of volunteers.

Another big problem is lack of transparency. In a friendly way I have asked KVaidla to disclose WMF budgets for organizing community conversations, and because of conflict of interest, KVaidla has promised to provide this data several times but then never provides it. I do not blame KVaidla, he is a victim here just doing his job, but the Wikimedia community has no funded staffperson to advocate who is the equivalent of KVaidla while the WMF pays for KVaidla to advocate for the WMF. At this point I do not want KVaidla to provide budgets anymore because obviously it is contrary to the WMF interest, and instead, I want a wiki community organization to get funding which is to do its own documentation and reporting.

There are lots of other ethical issues which we could discuss, but a big one that I will state again is that the WMF very casually makes requests that 1000s of Wikimedia volunteers spend time to engage in public debate. When WMF makes these calls, then that is a drain on volunteer time which happens at scale, seemingly without WMF being aware or grateful for this time. The situation is that WMF does not value or acknowledge or count or measure volunteer time, so when the WMF asks 1000 volunteers to each spend 3-10 hours debating something, there is no one to evaluate whether this is reasonable. WMF sort of treats community time as a reservoir of free labor and research, and never negotiates with the community about how much time it is able to demand. For this Movement Charter the WMF demanded 1000s of volunteer hours only after it used donor money to craft its own well-formed positions.

The individual who is most responsible for making this right is the person chosen and hired by the Wikimedia community to advocate for the Wikimedia community. That person has all the blame and responsibility for making things right, and that person does not even exist because there is no budget for the role. Please no one obligate or blame anyone at WMF for this, because they are no more responsible for this than anyone else with a conflict of interest would be. For now, I have these draft demands, Wikimedia Foundation process for community requests, where wiki community members can better negotiate these things and hopefully defend themselves from endless and thankless WMF demands on volunteer time and resources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Do we have to be the first Hub?

Later, if we add something in other MC sections that will require an update, it means doing at least a new mini revision.
✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

from Japan

I'm sorry to use Japanese.
こんなに遅く、日本語で意見を言うことをお許しください。

私は日本語が母語で、日本語版Wikipediaで、主に歴史の記事を書いています。Universal Code of Conduct/Initial 2020 Consultations/Japanese での調査結果を読みました。 ジェンダー意識が高い人が、処女航海や乙女といった言葉に抵抗がある、という指摘がありました。 （私は女性です） まず、日本語はインド・ヨーロッパ語とはまったく違うということを指摘させてください。あなたは、日本人は男女差別が激しいというイメージを持っているかもしれません。

私が言いたいのは、日本語には、言語においては、あまり差別はないということです。”人=man”という言葉は、男女を問いません。単に人間という意味です。 処女、乙女「Otome」という単語については、1000年以上前の和歌集にすでに現れる言葉です。 その言葉が、「性体験の有無」なのか「結婚しているか、違うのか」どちらの意味で使われていたのかはっきりわかっていません。当時の日本では、いわゆる「処女性」が良いものという観念はなかったようです。私は処女（おとめ）という言葉が読み込まれた、美しい詩をたくさん知っています。

英語のように『man ＝male 』ではないし、「he/she 」の区別も、近代の前にはありませんでした。 ですから、たとえば「処女」という単語だけで、ジェンダーの問題だと考えないでください。言語の問題です。日本語は、北東アジアによくある、孤立した、古い言語の一つのようです。日本語では、ひとつの文は

主語-形容詞-名詞-形容詞-名詞-動詞

のようになります。

もしあなたが文を書く時、関係代名詞を少なくしてくださると、翻訳者の方は助かるでしょう。 私はポリティカルコレクトネスは言論弾圧ではないかと捉えています。どうか、あなたがたの「現代の基準」だけで、言葉の言い換えを指示したりしないでください。

私はアメリカから来たGAFA の恩恵を受けていますが、同時に、彼らの、現地の微妙なルールや美意識を無視したやり方には怒りを覚えています。また、これは日本人も悪いのですが、英語を無闇に取り入れて英語とも日本語ともつかない文章が溢れている状況になっています。 彼らのいうポリティカル・コレクトネスは、言論弾圧になり得るのではないかと恐れています。Wikipediaは、どうか、わたしたち日本語ユーザーや、インド・ヨーロッパ語ではない言葉を使う人々の、文化の背景まで考慮してください。 Thanks--Kizhiya (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Kizhiya様、この投稿が運動戦略ガバナンスチームの何人もの興味を引いております。初め、公開を前提にしなかったのですが、急遽、ここに載せました。訂正がありましたら遠慮なく訂正、追加をしてくださいませ。

Translation:
Please forgive me for expressing my opinion in Japanese. I'm a native speaker of Japanese, and I write articles for the Japanese version of Wikipedia, mostly on history. I read 。Universal Code of Conduct/Initial 2020 Consultations/Japanese

People with high gender awareness pointed out; feel like to resist words like "maiden voyage" and "maiden".

(I'm a woman.)

Japanese is very different from Indo-European languages. You might think The Japanese are very sexist.

What I want to say is our language has almost no gender difference. For example, man & woman are the same word. 【For example, men and women are part of the big concept of person"ヒト、Hito." Men are “オトコ,Otoko’”women are “オンナ,On-na”. the words themselves are the same length. There is no hierarchy.--Kizhiya (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)】 The usage of 乙女「Otome」 "maiden"　”virginity” , the word already appears in waka poetry anthologies more than 1,000 years old. It is not clear which meaning was used at that time; “married or not” or “sexual experience” . It seems there was no thought the importance of "maiden"　”virginity”. I know many beautiful poems which have these words.

It’s not 『man ＝male 』 like in English. The difference between 「he/she 」didn’t exist before European influence. So, please don’t consider the doc above, which raises this gender issue based on the word-usage. The Japanese language is one of the north-east Asian languages, which has isolated old languages. A sentence; Subject - Adjective - Noun - Adjective - Noun - Verb

If your writings will have less relative pronoun, translators would be appreciated. I think political correctness is suppression of speech. Please, don’t instruct to rephrase words with “the modern standard”.

I'm a beneficiary of GAFA coming from the US. At the same time, I feel anger with their attitude; ignoring the local subtle rules and aesthetics. Japanese people are also responsible that our language is confused by importing English without consideration. It’s not Japanese, nore English. Wikipedia, please, consider the background of the Japanese users and other languages which are not Indo-European languages.

translation by --YShibata (WMF) (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kizhiya, thank you for sharing your insights and experiences. From my personal capacity I can say I really aim for the MCDC to draw a cultural sensitive charter. We are aware the English language can raise difficulties in translations, and in my opinion a Wikimedia Movement Charter should be able to take into account cultural differences worldwide. There is a difficult task ahead of us, and we want to reach out to different communities in the best way possible to present the charter for review. If you would like to help us with this next year, I would be happy to contact you. In any case, I want to thank you for your link to the analysis of how the process around the UCoC went from the point of view of the Japanese community, this is already very valuable. Ciell (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC) (Viewpoints are my own, and may not reflect the opinion of the full MCDC) Ciell (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

こんにちは、Ciell (talk · contribs)私の長い文を読んでくれて、返事をくれて、ありがとう。メタ-Wikiの活動をするのは、私には余裕がなくて難しいです。

処女や乙女という言葉について少し補足します。あなたは日本の「kawaii 」に詳しいようですね！　私たちの文化は、「乙女ゲーム(Otome -game)」と呼ばれる、女性のための恋愛（性的なものも含む）ゲームを持っています。乙女（Otome )を形容詞にして、女性のロマンティックな気持ちを表すのにも使います。

Wikipedia日本のメンバーは、財団についてほとんど知りません。そのため、最近、有志が、財団用語を調べるプロジェクトを始めました。

とにかくありがとう。--Kizhiya (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Translation:

Hello Ciell, I appreciate that you read my long contents. Thanks for your reply. The activity on Meta is difficult for me because I have no time for it.

I’d like to add to a few things to the words "maiden"　”virginity”. You seem you know a Japanese word 「kawaii 」well! Our culture has a game for female, called 「乙女ゲーム(Otome -game)」, which means love, (including sexual one). Sometimes the adjectivization of noun 乙女Otome will be used to express the romantic feeling in a woman’s heart.

The majority of Japanese members don’t know about the foundation well. So, some of us has begun a project to learn words from the foundation.

translation by --YShibata (WMF) (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This is great Kizhiya, thank you for your efforts! Ciell (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

What year

It is most confusing dates is mentioned but not year (in Previous), please put it in Yger (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Yger, I agree, I had already added the years in these links but was not aware there was a similar section on this page. Thanks, and I'll go through the link and when still relevant add the years! Ciell (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)