Wikibase Community User Group/2024 Movement Charter discussion

As covered in our June 2024 meeting (which included discussion of the WMF liaisons' and WMDE's views), the group, as an affiliate, may participate in a separate vote on the proposed charter - and should do so to cover the ratification threshold. This page is for group members to express their opinions, to try to achieve a consensus position and to help determine any comment attached to the vote. See the FAQ and analysis of new and changed aspects.

Note: The vote closes July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC, and time is required to compose a response, so discussion should conclude by 18:00 UTC on July 9. (Contributions were previously invited to the talk page of the meeting notes, but none were forthcoming.)

Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no consensus, with the agreement of contributing parties on Telegram. A – vote will be entered, with a summary of arguments for and against. This counts for quorum, but since it has already been met, it will have no effect, other than to offer comments. GreenReaper (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to Oppose. The Charter's a curate's egg - good in parts, but not fully baked, trying to do too much at once without nailing down details. The statement of values should be agreed on separately from the creation of a Global Council. The binding Care Responsibility also lacks detail to know what we're agreeing to ("includes, but is not limited to"). It would be good to address technical work on the Movement's free software, but I have concerns that this body would tend to divert funding raised by WMF and its projects to keep them going and improving into general "good deeds" (one video mentioned Hubs supporting African youth?). Separate, focused bodies, such as the proposed Product and Technology Advisory Council, perhaps coordinated by an enlarged board, seems a better approach than a similarly-composed-but-bigger body with fewer powers and an expansive remit. As others noted, permitting use of non-free software within the Movement as long as we don't make it risks undermining individuals' privacy and safety, potentially limiting participation from the restrictive regions most in need of equity. GreenReaper (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text that explains Care Responsibility has the note above saying it's supplementary information, not part of the Charter and the vote doesn't decide on it. As I understand it, the Charter declares that the relation between the movement organizations and the community is that of "care responsibility" in general but the details will have to be decided later. The supplementary text is there to give an approximate idea what the writers have meant with the term "care responsibility". --TuukkaH (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the motivation, but as the person most responsible for it, I don't think "we'll figure the details out later" is good enough, considering that not following the Care Responsibilities (whatever they may be) would potentially lead to the removal of privileges. I have concerns about the potential interpretation of some of WMF's requirements, but at least they're a bit more specific. GreenReaper (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of open source software, I think the current text (where the first subheading in listed values is Free and open licensing) is the best possible at this point: for now, people in the movement widely use non-free software such as Windows, iPhone, GMail etc. It would be difficult (and not the purpose of the Charter) to define where to draw the line and how the reality should and could be changed towards that line. --TuukkaH (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Support the Charter: I think it's an important step (not an end!) in the right direction for the movement including for our user group as part of it. It's not perfect and it never will be, but it's not sustainable if we stick to the current situation either (the foundation didn't create the movement, it doesn't represent us all; it should not be the highest decision maker; it should be accountable to the movement). I agree with the appeal of WMDE and the recommendation of the CEE Hub and quote WMDE: "It is good enough for now, safe enough to try." --TuukkaH (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eligibility note: TuukkaH was present in the meeting linked above and is active on Telegram. GreenReaper (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.