Talk:Movement Charter/Drafting Committee

The following Wikimedia Foundation staff monitor this page:

In order to notify them, please link their username when posting a message.
This note was updated on 02/2024
This page is for discussions related to Movement Charter/Drafting Committee.

  Please remember to:

  Discussion navigation:

April update? edit

Hi folks, wondering if there was any update for April 2022. Thanks! Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Updates - Fuzheado (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fuzheado: Look You Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fuzheado: should be coming very soon, it's delayed because some in our team were on break last week. Sorry for that and thanks for asking! RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fuzheado: It's on me for having been on vacation in the first week of May. The update is now published (I'll wait a few days before sharing it on Telegram, though, to allow for some translations to take place) --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Wikimania Sessions not recorded edit

I learned today that this session was intentionally not recorded for privacy reasons. I would like to understand why the MCDC would decide to present at Wikimania but not allow for a recording. The Universal Code of Conduct presented at Wikimania 2021 while its work was still going on and were recorded (and did so again this year, but I will grant that this year is slightly different given the ratification vote). The MCDC recognized transparency as an important desire in November 2021 and instituted the Chatham House Rule. But Wikimania is not an MCDC meeting and so presumably the ability for transparency should be more rather than less of a business meeting. Further, I was told by an MCDC member that I needed to complain about this privately which I am not willing to do because it undermines the message I am expressing here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your question, Barkeep49. This session is set up as a round table; historically, round tables are intended to be discussions and are not normally recorded. The decision not to record was made in part because of past experiences at Wikimania where people who have certain types of safety or similar concerns have deliberately chosen not to attend and/or participate in sessions that are being recorded and subsequently distributed to the world. It is important that the MCDC hear from those Wikimedians, as well as those who have no such concerns. Everyone gets access to the video we present, the slides we present, an Etherpad, and a summary of the discussion after it is complete. The names of the MCDC members in attendance at each session are at the top of the Etherpad notes (and will also be in the summary), providing transparency and accountability. There is no reason to identify the individuals asking questions; to some extent, we aren't able to so, given that participants are quite likely to have different "usernames" on the external platforms than the ones they use on Wikimedia projects. Chatham House rules are being applied. Although we have had some discussion of your question as a committee, I am writing this response in my capacity as an individual member and not on behalf of the committee as a whole. Risker (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delay edit

September's update will be delayed until mid October, due to both the high workload after the Wikimedia Summit 2022 and also that I myself was on vacation during the last week on September. Apologies in advance Abbad (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Values & Principles (translation) edit

Coming across a translation segment "Values & Principles drafting group": could you help me put into ja, or where can I find relevant page for Principles? Any context will help. For Values, I did search on Meta:

-- Omotecho (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Omotecho Thank you for looking after the translations! Unfortunately, the text of the Values & Principles isn't yet on Meta (it will be there very soon). You can find here the context about what this section means, though. I hope it helps and happy to re-explain myself anything you find difficult --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Future progress & moving towards ratification edit

(I initially put a version of this note on the Wikimedia Strategy telegram channel, but have moved it here for visibility and transparency)

Hello MCDC,

In the light of the current drafts and the comments on them, I do not think there is any real possibility of ratifying a movement charter draft this calendar year. I think the MCDC needs to make significant changes to how it is working if it is to succeed. There is a real possibility that, if we continue as we are, the MCDC will get to the Wikimedia Summit and there realise there is no possibility of affiliates ratifying the document they are planning to create, and the process coming to an end at that point.

I would suggest the MCDC does the following:

  1. steps back from the current drafts and clarifies the underlying statements of principles and purpose for the whole document (and each section)
  2. if there are differences of opinion on the MCDC itself then the MCDC should expose these and invite input from the community to help provide more perspectives and build a bigger conversation, before making a decision. (What they should NOT do is present a document which every MCDC member is happy with)
  3. once the principles and purpose are clear the MCDC should then flesh out more details of each area - in some places it will be important to develop different options and get community feedback on more than one option

Essentially, the MCDC needs to engage in divergent thinking with the community, it needs to proceed from principles and purpose to actual design, and it needs to create and evaluate several different options, and needs to articulate its rationales for WHY particular text is proposed as opposed to the many other options It's very clear in the feedback so far that some people disagree with some of the underlying principles (so will never agree with the ultimate model), as well as not agreeing with or understanding the reasons for some of the specifics. While I appreciate the many many challenges the MCDC faces in doing its job, the methods it is currently using are simply not up to the task.

The ultimate document is never going to please everyone, and it will only be ratified if people can see WHY it has been created in a particular direction - and if their own personal preference is not reflected in it, why not.

Regards, Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chris perhaps this should be on Talk:Movement Charter instead, as it's not about the committee composition. (I've referenced this there in a new section, but didn't move over your comments. 19:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC))Reply[reply]
How do you think the issue you raise has progressed since Wikimania? I have not been following as closely as you, but have a similar concern six months further on. –SJ talk  23:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MCDC composition as of now edit

Dear all,

the loss of Nosebagbear is a great loss for his family, his community and also for the MCDC.

And although it may be a bit inappropriate at this early stage, I would like to express a concern.

When the MCDC met two years ago, it had a balanced composition: 7 members elected by the community, 6 selected by the Affiliates, and 2 appointed by the WMF.

After two early resignations, the MCDC decided on not to replace further retiring members. The subsequent resignations of two community representatives who were not compensated have already changed the original balance. With the death of Nosebagbear, it is now completely out of whack: instead of 7:6:2, the ratio is now 4:6:2 - the non-institutional representatives on the committee, voices of the community, have fallen significantly behind.

I doubt that the current composition of the MCDC still adequately represents the Movement's stakeholders. Given that the current drafts have already been criticized for not really meeting the community's expectations for substantive change, it seems to me, therefore, that the MCDC should reconsider its decision not to replace departed members or otherwise ensure that the original balance is restored. Denis Barthel (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Denis Barthel, thank you for reaching out, raising this concern and actually creating a window to address this topic.
The committee spoke on this subject in our internal sessions in Singapore, because we already noticed the same things you mention. The MCDC is on a short break at the moment, but when we return to our meetings in 14 days we will be making some changes to our way of work, and one of the things we may want to address is exactly what you point to.
You can expect to learn about these changes in the September summary (to be published mid-October) of our work. Ciell (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ciell - when checking after a while I wasn't able to find the information. Maybe you can help me out with a link? Thanks a lot! Denis Barthel (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Denis Barthel, thanks for reminding me. This question actually deserves a longer explanation, and I hope to share a link with you soon. I'll make sure to ping you when published. Ciell (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much, I'm looking forward to it. Denis Barthel (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Denis Barthel, we have included a longer explanation in the January update of our work. Best, Ciell (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sexism imbedded in the translation in French edit

Hi, I went to read and unfortuately the whole text has been translated in the masculine form, which basically excludes 50% of the world constituted by women (not to speak about non binary persons). I cannot vote, vouch or promote such a version of the text. I think it basically is not conform to correct gendering of participants in the movement. Sorry for this. I would have corrected if there was not a line asking not to do so :/ Nattes à chat (talk) Nattes à chat (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, sorry for your unpleasant finding of the text. This talkpage is for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee; you would be welcome to move this message to Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter. In the meantime, I work to support both entities, so let me relay your concern here to the team. Best, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your comment, Nattes à chat. I am aware that French, and several other languages, are inherently less amenable to gender-neutral translation and writing. As you have far more experience with this genuine issue, could you perhaps give some pointers to current French-language pages that are published in a more gender-neutral way? My French language skills are pretty rudimentary (even after all these years, I don't understand why it is la plume but le stylo), so I know I don't have the skill to identify what terms are concerning; I do remember that the various translations of the term "User" tend to be gender-specific in several languages, and any help in figuring out how to get around that issue would be very much appreciated. While I recognize that you have specifically mentioned the UCoC charter in your original post, it is clear that these concerns could also apply to the Movement Charter translations. Risker (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "Movement Charter/Drafting Committee" page.