Hi, Dariusz here. As a community-elected trustee with nearly a decade on this board (and also as one not upcoming for re-election), I want to share my two cents. Entirely subjective. Very opinionated, too.
I understand Vicky's frustration with the idea of 100+ bureaucrats. Over and over I tried to explain why this is a bad idea, some MCDC members were receptive, too (e.g. here a quick bit.ly/MCDC-manifesto we drafted with Michal Buczynski, right after the MCDC meeting in New York, to large extent resulting from the disappointment in the direction the thing was going, and proposing a way forward... but proposed too late to change the course). Instead of a nimble body or bodies, with clear tasks (and a transfer of power, resources, responsibility, etc.), the charter ended up with a parliamentary-style approach. The problem with that is that it consumes a lot of resources, while providing an ineffective solution. Running a meaningful discussion in such a large body is simply impossible. These people would also have to meet in person - from the MCDC discussions I understand that the idea was to make it at Wikimania, because "we already pay for that", but that is a deeply flawed assumption: reserving 100 spots for bureaucrats instead of editors and Wikimedia activists, for whom going to their first Wikimania is actually a big deal, is not saving money at all. The paradox of the rise of bureaucrats is such that even when initially these bodies attract genuine activists, these activists disentangle and alienate from their base very quick. I've heard an argument that we need a representative body - the more granular the representation is, the more excluded are those who are not directly represented. But even if this is not a problem, I see another, bigger: the idea I've head was to use this large body for "major decisions only". Why on Earth would we not want to ask our community directly for really major decisions? Finally, as already pointed out, the changes of what will the acceptable threshold be done by the MCDC itself <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Movement_Charter&diff=prev&oldid=26911936> (and not by the WMF) additionally undermined my perception that the process is right. Not counting neutral votes surprises me a bit, but has not affected my decision, as I've found about it just now. My general opinion remains unaltered: we definitely need more community-driven bodies. We need more shared responsibility. We need to fulfil the strategic promise that the MCDC started with. However, we need to have efficiency, effectiveness, and actual problem-solving in mind at all times. In my very private view, the failure of this exercise is not the fault of the MCDC members. We (the Board, the WMF) have definitely insufficiently supported the MCDC with tools, knowledge, processes - we took a hands-off approach, not to meddle, but we also should have realized that we actually do need to step in, minding the overall goal. We need a postmortem to make some sense of it, and I'm not sure what the immediate useful takeaway is, but I really hope we'll be able to start creating community-driven decision-making bodies with proper staff support, and that the overall charter will emerge from action. best Dariusz "pundit" PS As I'm recovering from COVID, I may not reply to any followups in this discussion, apologies! I hope my sharing of my subjective perspective is not inciting too much. On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 9:49 AM Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Victoria, > > This whole process is commissioned by the WMF. The MCDC is a committee > established by the WMF. The electoral commission overseeing the MCDC is > appointed by the WMF. The strategic recommendation to devolve power away > from the WMF and "ensure equity in decision making" is a recommendation > endorsed by a prior WMF board, after at that point 5 years (now 8) of > collaborative, deliberative process initiated and funded by the WMF. As > part of this process, the WMF made sure that it had a final say over the > Movement Charter draft - which you have exercised. > > Given all of that, it is neither appropriate, not helpful, for you to now > launch into some kind of public critique of this process based on your own > views. > > It is not appropriate for you to be accusing 'the affiliates' , who are > the WMF's strategic partners in delivering its mission, of some kind of > conspiracy. > > I am glad that you were able to share your reservations about the content > of the Charter and its implications. It is useful to understand Board > members' personal thinking and often this is valuable, even where it is > controversial. > > But you have gone well past the line of communicating your reservations > about a particular proposal. With these frustrated emails, you are now > undermining the work of the WMF, and its relationship with its own > volunteers and its partners. Please stop. > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 2:10 PM Victoria Doronina <vdoron...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/Q5HZ4IJE44QMIJUVXSGZOIJEJDCLFYXN/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org -- ________________________________________________________________________________ *Please, note, that this email will expire at some point. Bookmark dariusz.jemieln...@fulbrightmail.org <dariusz.jemieln...@fulbrightmail.org> as a more permanent contact address. *
_______________________________________________ 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/G4OULKBBLKCJTDO4UGT7UHCYKOOUWPCX/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
