I strongly disagree with cancelling or delaying the ratification process.
I want my support for the charter to be duly noted, and the set up of
the process and preparation have both going all OK.
I have participated in all parliamentary election in my country, even
when i know my preferred party will not be able to form a government, or
perhaps even win a seat in the parliament.
In the same belief in elections I intend to participate in the BoT
election in early September. And there I will vote oppose to all
candidates expressing support, explicitly or implicitly, to this
disastrous proposal (for the BoT to reject the charter). And I have,
perhaps naively, a hope that the new board formed in December will come
to it senses and change its vote (if it will be a no)
Anders
Den 2024-06-21 kl. 22:42, skrev Samuel Klein:
I agree with Christophe (no surprise) and also with what Paulo and
Gnangarra wrote.
– The Board should vote first. (Obviously the community can organize
its own vote for a no-WMF-approval-required movement body, but here we
are talking about shared decision-making that starts with WMF
delegation and facilitation -- so alignment is a prerequisite.)
= The current charter has known flaws*. Its text and details have
been in constant flux, and are absolutely not ready to be set in
stone. It must be easy to change; not the current approach of making
every small change /very/ slow and difficult
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Amendment_Process>.
As Paulo says, that is worse than no charter.
≡ We should all commit to meaningful change, to updating movement
structures and distributing power and decision-making effectively.
This year, that means starting to share aspects of each core
responsibility, while iterating [in public!] towards a polished charter.
I appreciate the motion toward this suggested in Nat's letter;
there should also be groups focusing on a simple version of movement
support (complementing affcom) and on movement strategy (complementing
existing annual processes).
SJ
☷ *Flaws: hundreds from small to large have been thoughtfully pointed
out in feedback to date. Many were addressed in the last revision,
but many more have not been. To name one prominent type of flaw: the
current draft creates a number of new risks and problems for the
movement, including risks related to the very power sharing it is
designed to address, without acknowledging or addressing the
challenges that each raises:
⧺ It is gameable. (Ex: the GC sets strategy for all, decides who can
be an affiliate, its own budget and size, and all funds dissemination.)
⧺ It would shift most power from a WMF with few checks and balances,
to a Council with almost none. That's not good governance, nor good
transition tactics. It is also not in keeping with the
recommendations from the last movement strategy process (which
involved more community energy, and was done in a more collaborative +
nuanced + open way, than this charter)
⧺ It would accelerate the unplanned trend of shifting power and
governance responsibility to affiliates, specifically to user groups
(which make up most affiliates) -- explicitly the opposite of the
original intent of creating such a lightweight form of affiliation.
⧻ It would /mandate/ that the Council immediately do four difficult
things, and that an unspecified dispute resolution body will do a
fifth. Overpromising leads to confusion, not strength.
Finally, after the practical issues are addressed, before proposing
something like this as a founding movement document, the language
deserves a round of tightening for eloquence, inspiration, and
clarity. There are neologisms, grammatical quirks, odd wordings,
easily misinterpreted clauses, and a lack of proportionality or
parallelism.
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 8:50 AM Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi
Have to agree with Christophe, if the recommendation of the BOT
liaisons to the Board about the MCDC is to reject it, then the
Board should meet first and make their collective decision
regardless of the cost. This is a broad document, with as
significant a potential for good and as it does harm.
On the checks and balances it has very limited capacity if not
absolutely no meaningful options for change should it be needed,
there's not even a last dire last resort Board can dissolve the GC
nuclear option.
We have time to wait for the Boards decision.
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 20:37, Paulo Santos Perneta
<paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
People don't approve a bad or deficient Constitution, and then
hope for improvement afterwards.
No Charter is way better than a problematic Charter.
Paulo
Christophe Henner <christophe.hen...@gmail.com> escreveu
(sexta, 21/06/2024 à(s) 13:29):
Hi Nataliia,
Thank you for your clear feedback. I’m concerned about the
current situation regarding the Movement Charter.
Firstly, I recommend the Foundation vote first in the
process. The board, being the smaller group with decisive
power, should *lead by example* to avoid wasting the
community’s time and energy if the charter is not going to
be approved. After three years of discussion, it is
unlikely that a few more days will change the board's
opinion.
Let’s be mindful of the toll additional voting will take
on all of us. This way, we can collectively acknowledge
that this effort did not result in an agreement by
everyone and create space to move onto the next step of
our collective journey sooner rather than later.
Secondly, the Strategy Process was initiated and funded by
the Wikimedia Foundation and led by it until the
recommendations phase.
It seems counterproductive to delegate the charter
creation to a volunteer group only to dismiss their work
when the outcome isn't as desired. Returning to previous
structures, like the FDC, which we identified as a
band-aid a few years ago, feels like a step back. This
approach nullifies three years of effort and misses the
opportunity to address fundamental issues in our power
distribution.
The current Charter, while not perfect, opens the door for
essential discussions and potential evolution in our
governance. Rejecting the charter outright reinforces the
status quo rather than fostering necessary changes. We
must recognize that Wikimedia Foundation, after 21 years,
needs to evolve alongside our projects and the wider
world. The discussions we initiated opened*new
possibilities* for our movement.
I hope the board will commit to *meaningful change* rather
than reverting to old methods. We need to align our
movement with our core value of equity, which requires
embracing radical change.
To also walk the talk of collaborating together and
sharing responsibilities, I propose the following steps to
move forward:
1. Reopen discussions on the Movement Structures with
clear objectives, support, timelines, and Foundation
involvement.
2. Gather a small working group to outline, in a fast and
agile way, the main questions and issues to tackle.
3. Engage more directly with community feedback to
address key concerns, improving on what worked in the
first phases of the Strategy Process that drove global
discussions.
4. Engage openly and build together to avoid repeating
the current situation of discarding three years of work.
I believe these steps could help us fulfill our mission
and align our movement with the values we all share.
Best regards,
Christophe Henner (Schiste)
Former Wikimedia Foundation Board Chair
Former Wikimedia France Board Chair
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list --
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NZWTGC6AHECU7T4UEJZF4PWJER7766BB/
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3DTACB26TTAUBCGHOYGN6LREHS62S67L/
To unsubscribe send an email to
wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Boodarwun
Gnangarra
'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardon nlangan Nyungar
koortabodjar'
//
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VS2I3UXIXBTQUIPJ7GXHB3LDI3RJPUUK/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives
athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2UBD3FIDFFUVLWLDB4PAKYOVLAXX4LBA/
To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2IXQVOQ2FVI4YLLXIHHOHPPXBJHOLU7Y/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
