Thought it was worth adding a suggestion...
In the bylaws set-up at inception, WMF was an organisation with members.
Irrelevant to the complexity of the initial broken membership structure
(1), the members had only "one right". Which was to be allowed to cast a
vote to select a representative to join the board of Trustees.
That was IT. Nothing more. Members had to pay a due... and were able to
cast a vote for the board election. That was it.
The Wikimedia Foundation does not have WMF members nowadays. But the
community members still have the right to cast a vote to select a
representative to join the board (yes... it must be followed by the
approval by the active board)
There is a process to cast this vote, with an election committee, a
technical solution to cast the vote, a verification process of the
candidates, places to run campaign, a voting system etc.
The cast of vote for board members works, regardless of the fact the
voters might be called community members rather than WMF members.
The main difference is that in the original bylaws, voters had to pay
dues :)
In many membership based organizations though, the "rights" of the
members of an organization extend beyond "casting a vote to get a
representant on the board".
Often, the "rights" of the members include
1. voting for board members
2. approving the annual plan and the associated high level budget
3. at the end of the fiscal year, approving the annual report (including
the associated high level financial report).
4. eventually voting for super high level decisions
What is currently happening ?
WMF does apply 1 (election of board members) and eventually 4 (such as
code of conduct).
Why would WMF not also implement 2 and 3 ?
Why would WMF not also implement asking community members
- once a year, to vote for the annual plan and high level budget ?
- and once a year, to vote to "gratefully accept" the annual report of
the last fiscal year ?
- and every now and then, to vote for an add-on... such as the Wikimedia
Foundation 2030 strategy plan ? or Terms of Use. or Code of Conduct. Or
similar.
I do understand the hesitation of the current board to approve the
Wikimedia Charter proposition, because this is a huge change to
assimilate in one mouthful, with many imperfections, and some potential
deep pitfalls.
But after so many years, for a mix of community volunteers AND board
representative working on the Charter, spending hundreds of hours on
it... not being able to come with "an agreement of some sort", is quite
unspeakable.
The WMF needs to come up with some baby steps, which would be less
scary, not overly complicated to implement, and with limited damage if
it really fails. Some steps that would restore some faith in the process
and in the relationship.
So instead of simply ASKING the community to comment on the Annual
Plan... why not actually also implement a vote to GET the plan approved
? All the elements already exist. The plateform to vote, the prior
commenting system, the mettings to explain and justify, the voting
process, the "list" of voters etc. all of that exists already. The
calendar certainly would need to be reworked. But all elements are in
place.
Why not considering getting out of the confort zone then ?
Flo
(1)
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bylaws&oldid=620#ARTICLE_III:_MEMBERSHIP
Le 28/06/2024 à 20:30, Florence Devouard a écrit :
Greetings
I can not wait to see how history of "current days" related to the
"Wikimedia Summit, last modifications to the Wikimedia Movement
Charter proposition, and voting period" will be dealt with in 18 years
in the future. It promises to be stimulating.
In any cases, interesting "return in the past" Adam.
The initial bylaws were **extremely poorly made** and fully
mis-adapted to our context. Anyone reading Article III would realize
that. I am not impressed by the lawyer who wrote them, he did not do
us a favor (not naming names on purpose)
Flo
Le 27/06/2024 à 12:51, Adam Wight a écrit :
Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> schrieb am Do. 27. Juni
2024 um 12:21:
When the WMF was set up, those involved chose not to make it a
membership organisation.
Greetings! I will emerge from the shadows to point out that WMF
/was/ originally incorporated as a membership organization, with
criteria for membership, public pages about membership and
discussions about how to implement the details. However, its
articles of incorporation were later changed under very likely
illegal circumstances (through a vote made without informing their
membership). It's very possible that the many original members still
have the standing to remedy this unfortunate situation of a
self-appointing Board—if they can organize such a push.
The long story:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_membership_controversy
Regards,
[[mw:User:Adamw]]
_______________________________________________
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/AADLIHEE34LMPNLQHQDXN6IV6ZIJQKNT/
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
andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives
athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KKKR2BQB3J3IHJ53UYPNHW2IHLXRETZY/
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/LSK44U3OFDA2AFREZADSFNSCUTLIJMLH/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
