I'm shocked that "the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast"*, *which contradicts the rules of any other referendum I know. Everything was done to get the vote past an arbitrary line, first reducing the number of the votes required for the quorum from 4% to 2%, and now this. It would be interesting to recalculate the real percentage.
Philip, I'm happy that my irony didn't escape you - the revolutions are not done via convening a bureaucratic body. I think that what we see is the protest vote of the people unhappy with WMF for whatever reason + affiliates who want not just the slice of the pie, but the pie itself + the usual suspects. On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 12:56 PM Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote: > Eva > > A couple of issue yes there was just 3 days to write the outcomes, > fair there wasnt the time to polish it. The Movement Charter had how many > years? Yet the word is vague, incomplete, and insufficient for what it was > going to be. > > According to > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Quorums_for_current_SecurePoll_votes > a quorum was 2346 individual votes (2% of 117,275 eligible accounts). > this was not met as stated in this email because the neutral votes don’t > count towards the* total number of votes cast*, 73.30% voted to approve > the Charter (*1710/2333*) , while 26.70% voted to reject the Charter ( > *623/2333*). The total number of votes cast were 2333, which was 13 short > of the required amount > > > On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 at 19:09, Victoria Doronina <vdoron...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > >> Hello Paulo, >> >> Thank you for your kind words and your support. It's one thing to believe >> that at least a few of my voters support my actions and quite another to >> hear from someone. >> >> I believe that the contrarian voices were silenced from the start of this >> process, so it's vital to hear that the BoT did not act utterly contrary to >> the community's opinions. >> >> Kind regards >> >> Victoria >> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 11:21 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < >> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello Victoria, >>> >>> My reading of the proposed Charter very closely matches yours. >>> As one of the Wikimedians who voted for you in 2021, I'm very grateful >>> that you have not yielded to the immense pressure put on you and other BoT >>> members to approve it. >>> >>> My impression - perhaps unjust, but I have had it for quite some time - >>> is also that this Charter was seen as a kind of a gold rush by a number of >>> affiliates and other agents, with the corresponding impacts on its writing. >>> With sentences such as "*The Wikimedia Movement holds itself >>> accountable through community leadership as represented within Wikimedia >>> projects*", which opens the door for all kind of judicial trouble, and >>> "*Wikimedia >>> project communities have autonomy to establish policies for their >>> individual projects, so long as such policies are in conformity with this >>> Charter and the framework of global policies*" - which makes the onwiki >>> community policies subject to the charters, while not applying the same to >>> affiliates and the WMF, and a Global Council grossly biased towards >>> affiliate representation, I really can't see how this Charter defended the >>> interests of our communities, and I'm very glad it was sunk. >>> >>> I also have anecdotal evidence by personal contact that community >>> members voted to support it without even reading it, because they had no >>> time nor interest but were hard pressed to vote, so they gave a *carte >>> blanche* to it. Or they were told it was against the WMF, so we must >>> support it. And so on. >>> >>> Anyway, I hope the thing is not dead here, and we'll continue finding >>> ways to distribute the power our projects and communities generate in a >>> more equitative and fair way, but at the end of the day I do think we are >>> better without a Charter in the form it was proposed. >>> >>> Again, thank you very much for your courage and integrity, Victoria, I >>> hope you get reelected to the BoT. >>> >>> Best, >>> Paulo >>> >>> Victoria Doronina <vdoron...@wikimedia.org> escreveu (sexta, 19/07/2024 >>> à(s) 09:34): >>> >>>> Hello Galder, >>>> >>>> > As the BoT is, by definition, the one directing what the interests of >>>> the WMF are, we must conclude that > all the so-called community-elected >>>> and half of the affiliated-elected voted against the interests of their > >>>> represented. What interests did they vote for? That's the question that >>>> remains unanswered. >>>> >>>> It was stated in an early Charter draft that the goal of the Charter >>>> was “to take power from the WMF” - whatever that means. Mainly to >>>> distribute its entire budget, data centres and programmers be damned. >>>> >>>> But somehow, even the idea to further devolve the grant-making process >>>> never got any traction because some in the community want nothing less than >>>> a revolution, Russian style—to seize the assets and spend them now instead >>>> od thinking about the medium and long-term future. >>>> >>>> The idea that community-selected trustees - I’m one of them - must >>>> have voted to support the charter is false. I’m a part of the online >>>> community of the Russian Wikipedia and was never formally involved with any >>>> affiliates. The narrative “online wikimedians vs affiliates” mirrors the >>>> “wikimedians vs. WMF” - the affiliates are seen as people who don’t create >>>> the content but only profit from it. And don’t see how ratifying the >>>> charter would change anything significantly for me except spending the >>>> money on another bureaucratic body. >>>> >>>> After being on the WMF board for the last 2,5 years, I don’t support >>>> this idea, but the Charter for me clearly presents an attempt at a power >>>> grab by the affiliates. I was struck by the output document >>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2024/Outputs> [1] >>>> from the Berlin summit, where a third of the affiliates think that the >>>> online community should not be significantly represented on the Global >>>> council. >>>> >>>> >>>> 19. Processes must ensure that unorganized volunteers are significantly >>>> represented in regional batches of seats. >>>> >>>> yes >>>> >>>> 56 >>>> >>>> no >>>> >>>> 31 >>>> >>>> undecided >>>> >>>> 18 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As a member of the online community, I couldn't have voted to approve a >>>> document that supports the creation of a global bureaucratic class >>>> UN-style—with no possibility of impeachment of the individual members. My >>>> experience in global governance shows that in the proposed form, GC would >>>> not work effectively and would be only a waste of resources. >>>> >>>> Coincidentally, it also tallies with my fiduciary duty as a member of >>>> the BoT of the Wikimedia Foundation - I believe that the monies will be >>>> better spent on the infrastructure, overhaul of MediaWiki, grants to the >>>> affiliates - almost anything else than a 100 people talking. >>>> >>>> You would say that the “online community voted in support”, but this is >>>> an overstatement. “The quorum” is only 2% (!) of the eligible voters, and >>>> who know how many of them are the affiliates members and the people who >>>> were lobbied by the affiliates. >>>> >>>> As for the rest, I took part in a WMF staff and wikimedins meeting in >>>> London only the last week. I talked to a wikimedian who was going to vote >>>> yes, but when I asked them if they know about the proposed numbers of the >>>> GC they said no. >>>> >>>> Of course, I see a discrepancy in the WMF board's actions: on one hand, >>>> the candidates and newly selected trustees are told that they should act >>>> only in the interest of the WMF, while on the other hand, the Board just >>>> voted against the creation of a body that would have had the same duty of >>>> care for the movement as the WMF Board has for WMF. >>>> >>>> I did my best to commit the Board to the continuation of the Global >>>> Council creation process and salvaging parts of the Charter proposal. The >>>> result is buried deep in the legalise but there’s a potential to continue >>>> the conversation after the current pilots of the Tech Council and Grants >>>> Committee run their course. >>>> >>>> But of course, I can only influence the Board actions if I’m reelected. >>>> Right now, I feel that by voting against the charter in its current >>>> form—both as a trustee and a volunteer—I fulfilled the promise that I gave >>>> to about 6,000 wikimedians who voted for me in 2021. Preventing putting >>>> an albatross around >>>> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/albatross_around_one%27s_neck> the >>>> Movement neck is the worthy reason for losing my seat on the board. >>>> >>>> By all means, replace me and the other BoT members running for the >>>> reelection by the candidates that supported the charter - and see if that >>>> changes anything. >>>> >>>> Ultimately, the question of ratifying the Charter for me came down to >>>> "Is the Charter good enough”? My sincere personal opinion, considering how >>>> hard it is to change an existing structure or document even if it's clearly >>>> not working, is that it is not. >>>> >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Victoria >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2024/Outputs >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:45 PM Chris Keating < >>>> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, that's pretty categoric. >>>>> >>>>> While it is worth noting that many of the votes likely came with >>>>> caveats, or suggestions for improvement - it is also a massive vote in >>>>> favour of the concept of a Charter and Global Council, and against the >>>>> idea >>>>> that the WMF should be the sole body in the movement responsible for, >>>>> well, >>>>> anything really. >>>>> >>>>> There is a clear way forward now for the WMF to bring itself in line >>>>> with the vast majority of the community that it claims to work with as an >>>>> equal partner, and start working with the MCDC, or whoever there is to >>>>> talk >>>>> to if the MCDC is now disbanded, to look at the feedback on the present >>>>> draft and create a final version. Perhaps we can hear less about how >>>>> everything has changed since the start of the strategy process 8 years ago >>>>> (it hasn't), or how there isn't money (there is), or how 'form should >>>>> follow function' (well, perhaps it should, but also let's not have >>>>> unrealistic and single-sided expectations where every proposal for change >>>>> is made to provide a clear and eloquent narrative while the status quo >>>>> continues to evade scrutiny). >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Chris >>>>> (User: The Land) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 3:40 PM Charter Electoral Commission < >>>>> c...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> After carefully tallying both individual and affiliate votes, the >>>>>> Charter Electoral Commission is pleased to announce the final results of >>>>>> the Wikimedia Movement Charter voting. >>>>>> >>>>>> As communicated by the Charter Electoral Commission >>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Thank_you_for_your_participation_in_the_Movement_Charter_ratification_vote!>, >>>>>> we reached the quorum for both Affiliate and individual votes by the time >>>>>> the vote closed on July 9, 23:59 UTC. We thank all 2,451 individuals >>>>>> and 129 Affiliate representatives who voted in the ratification process. >>>>>> Your votes and comments are invaluable for the future steps in Movement >>>>>> Strategy. >>>>>> >>>>>> The final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter >>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter> ratification >>>>>> voting held between 25 June and 9 July 2024 are as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> Individual vote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Out of 2,451 individuals who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 2,446 >>>>>> have been accepted as valid votes. Among these, 1,710 voted “yes”; >>>>>> 623 voted “no”; and 113 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral >>>>>> votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 73.30% voted to >>>>>> approve the Charter (1710/2333), while 26.70% voted to reject the Charter >>>>>> (623/2333). >>>>>> >>>>>> Affiliates vote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Out of 129 Affiliates designated voters who voted as of July 9 23:59 >>>>>> (UTC), 129 votes are confirmed as valid votes. Among these, 93 voted >>>>>> “yes”; 18 voted “no”; and 18 selected “–” (neutral). Because the >>>>>> neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 83.78% >>>>>> voted to approve the Charter (93/111), while 16.22% voted to reject the >>>>>> Charter (18/111). >>>>>> >>>>>> Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted not to ratify the >>>>>> proposed Charter during their special Board meeting on July 8, 2024. The >>>>>> Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Natalia Tymkiv, >>>>>> shared >>>>>> the result of the vote, the resolution, meeting minutes and proposed >>>>>> next steps >>>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_resolution_and_vote_on_the_proposed_Movement_Charter#cite_note-1> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> With this, the Wikimedia Movement Charter in its current revision is not >>>>>> ratified. >>>>>> >>>>>> We thank you for your participation in this important moment in our >>>>>> movement’s governance. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Charter Electoral Commission, >>>>>> >>>>>> Abhinav619, Borschts, Iwuala Lucy, Tochiprecious, Der-Wir-Ing >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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/CORH7NNW2UTXQLJPLVPIBDBT6IVI2FGH/ >>>>>> 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/7BLCIOWT4O4P4MS6HIGPJXKJW6KJ3GOG/ >>>>> 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/LVCLH5AWG7IGAFG2AKWVGTGKHZRQMJ2C/ >>>> 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/OJ6SZK5YLSODRFVUIOXQUQLILLSQAMMZ/ >>> 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/7ER7C6KSMF7Z2BSPVRMMUJZIVJJG7DCK/ >> 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/ZLSLOYWFVYIXP7LHZVOX3WE7M47LXTEQ/ > 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/EHGWN66ZUVZBFLLDN63CY7V35DVZYGZO/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
