Hi Victoria, On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 at 15:09, Victoria Doronina <vdoron...@wikimedia.org> wrote: [...]
> [...] 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*. > Could you please elaborate on your point regarding affiliates' intentions please? Also, who are the usual suspects? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. Thanks, -- Christophe > > 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
_______________________________________________ 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/37JMF2BQRHRUYCF2FVAN5E73CQ6BVS3P/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
