Wikimedia Summit 2024/Engagement session/Summary

Wikimedia Summit 2024

Program

Participation & logistics

Documentation & reports

Summary of the Wikimedia Summit 2024 online engagement session

Purpose

In anticipation of the Wikimedia Summit 2024, the online pre-engagement sessions were designed to frame the conversation, to create a more level “thinking field” among people interested in joining the Wikimedia Summit 2024 about Wikimedia movement governance in the past, present and future. The goals were to ensure that participants have a basic understanding of movement strategy as it relates to designing governance for the movement, as well as of big questions, terminology and governance scenarios; that participants feel comfortable engaging in discussions and have begun to form opinions around big governance questions and how they affect their affiliates, communities and the movement as a whole; and that participants will be prepared to engage in meaningful deliberations at the Wikimedia Summit 2024. The summary below is designed to reflect back to the movement, and to those who took part in these discussions, where we are up to in the conversation.

Diverse governance contexts

Participants shared the range of governance models among affiliates themselves, reflecting a diverse experience of governance across the movement that can inform the governance conversations for the movement as a whole. Responses were collected in the session chat, so this is purely indicative, rather than giving a strict breakdown. 65% of the responses indicated a board structure (either elected or selected, often with community nominations). Half of these responses (~ 33% overall) referred to a General Assembly membership model of some nature as the main governance authority. The remainder of the responses noted combinations of less formal models (overall 35%), including a combination of specific references to consensus (9%) or participatory voting (8%) approaches. Some responses indicated they are in the process of amending their model.

Where we start from

Comments in the sessions underlined that the current governance approach enables implementation of a number of the agreed principles in the Movement Strategy. Compared with other movements and organizations, there is an impressive level of accessibility to information and participation, reflecting the people-centered approach. There are strong elements of subsidiarity and self-management throughout the movement, as well as a general recognition of good faith endeavors progressively to improve equity and empowerment. Structures have evolved to support collaboration and cooperation in the meso-levels of the system, especially through the development of Hubs. And the Wikimedia practices continue to ensure that there is a strong culture of transparency and accountability. Different structures, including the Wikimedia Foundation, are also supporting certain efficiencies with respect to both strategy overall, technology, funding and reporting.

These reflections from participants on the current model underline that there are many strengths within the current ecosystem. The current governance approach does not undermine, and in many cases enables these strengths to flourish. At the same time, when asked what issues a revised governance model might improve, participants in many cases felt there was scope for further progress in the application of the (2030 Movement Strategy) principles of equity, subsidiarity, transparency and accountability.

The relationship between strategy, perceived issues and governance

Perceptions vary of what could be improved from the current approach. The comments responded to four illustrative scenarios that were presented to stimulate discussion on ways forward.

The issues to be addressed

Some participants, including those from organizations in positions of power, are still unclear on the issues that revisions to the movement’s governance would aim to address. Other participants noted their perception of the key issues, many of which reiterate components of the existing 2030 Movement Strategy documentation. We have captured themes of the feedback primarily in the form of questions, to guide further conversations:

Representation, equity and empowerment, inclusivity and participatory decision-making, people-centredness:

Better representation without over-representation: What type of representation is needed to govern the Movement in alignment with the principles mentioned above? At what point does attempting ‘absolute representation’ undermine our capacity to make effective decisions?

The role of affiliates: Some participants questioned the ability of their affiliate to represent their communities in governance discussions, while others saw this as a strong reason for affiliates to exist.

Enabling participation, not imposing it: How do we bring more equitable decision-making, involving more people in governance, without overwhelming our ability to get on with the work? How do we ensure that a governance model is an opportunity for inclusive decision-making, without imposing a burden on people and groups who prefer to focus their energy elsewhere?

Intersectional representation: How do we balance the multiple lenses of inclusivity? (e.g. vertically through the system - from the individual volunteer up to the global governance body; across languages; across cultures; between volunteers and staff; across types of structures - hubs, affiliates, user groups, etc).

Balancing centralisation and decentralization (subsidiarity and self-management, contextualisation):

Bridging center and periphery: One perceived need is reducing the distance between the levels and locales of the system (in terms of technology, geography, power, finance, expertise). How do we avoid the risk that a centralized representative body simply moves some people’s focus from the ‘edge’ of the system to the ‘centre’, but no bridge is built in the process?

Recognising multiple centres: Where is the appropriate ‘centre’ of the system? To what extent does it need a centre and for what specific purposes?

Preserving progress, advancing progress: How does a potential new model relate to the existing subsidiary governance structures that extend decision-making away from the ‘centre’? How do we ensure that progress so far towards subsidiarity and self-management is not reversed; i.e. that a new central governance system ‘takes back’ decisions to the ‘centre’?

The mechanics

Many comments noted that the visual scenarios simplified relationships between structures. With this in mind, many people emphasised that the most critical questions concern more detailed definition of processes and mandate of these structures. Without ruling in or out any particular model, comments raised the following questions:

What are the legal implications of a change, both for WMF and for other entities, and for any potential new entity? (concerns we remain realistic around options we explore.)

What are the implications in any model for power distribution regarding funding and resource allocation? (concerns that the new model must substantively address equity and effectiveness of resource allocation, not create a different but still exclusive system.)

Despite the enabling elements of technology, how would we address the significant challenges that remain for remote participation in decision-making processes? (concerns that a good theory in practice unintentionally entrenches marginalisation.)

Given that there are pockets of experimentation in new governance approaches, what have we learned from these? Is there an option for an incremental or ‘sandbox’ experimentation to a proposed new model, before implementing any comprehensive new approach? (concerns that too much is attempted too fast, counter-productively.)

How do we preserve the principle of efficiency as we move forward? There is bureaucracy in the transition to and implementation of a new model - how do we ensure that if any additional bureaucratic burden does not outweigh the benefits it is designed for? (concerns of a cumbersome global bureaucracy emerging.)

It has been an involved and detailed strategy development process. There are some perceptions that some options on the table are drifting away from what has been agreed, and we need to remain aligned to the Movement Strategy.

Philosophical approaches to governance and democracy vary across our movement - if the current system of inclusion is imperfect, how do we also ensure that the choice of the model is not unhelpfully biased towards the existing ‘governance cultures’?

Overall

Which of the strengths in the current ecosystem could be amplified by a revised governance model?
Which of the limitations we are seeing in the current ecosystem could be minimised or removed by a revised governance model?
Who needs to be involved in which decisions? Who wants to be involved in which decisions?
How do we minimise the risk that revisions do not unintentionally create new constraints where progress is being made, or exacerbates existing challenges?
What are the key features of a model that would achieve the above?