Hi, There is a scheduled virtual meeting of SWAN now 28 July at 03:00 UTC Meeting link – https://meet.google.com/jpt-oxnq-pgz
WMF folks including CEO Maryana are in the meeting room. Kind regards, Butch On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 5:50 AM Yael Weissburg <rweissb...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi DerHexer, > > Thank you for your message. I'm replying specifically to say "Yes, > please!" to your PS. about putting your comments in the Appendix Talk Page > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_resolution_and_vote_on_the_proposed_Movement_Charter/Appendix>. > As one of the staff members tasked with soliciting input on and > collectively turning these proposals into action, I'd very much welcome > that. > > In case the above isn't clear, I'll note that the experiments are very > much not set in stone, and are put forward as proposals. If you have > suggestions for how to iterate on or improve them, I'd welcome that. Yger > and Scann have offered their perspectives including some specific > suggestions on the Resource Distribution proposal, which I think are > helpful. > > Best, > > Yael > *Yael Weissburg* (she/her) > VP, Community Growth > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> > M: (+1) 415.513.6643 > I work from San Francisco. My time zone is UTC -7/-8. > Book a call with me here > <https://calendly.com/yael_wmf/talking-2024-yael-wmf>. > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 7:47 AM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> While I can follow the reasoning behind the concerns about the Charter >> draft (and I personally share some of these in parts), I still do not >> understand the reasoning for the proposed next steps (appendix >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Board_resolution_and_vote_on_the_proposed_Movement_Charter/Appendix> >> ): >> * Why is there no Movement Charter and no Global Council mentioned in the >> Appendix as they are considered relevant parts of more equal decision >> making within the Movement Strategy which was also adopted by the wMF? >> What is the vision of the WMF on these parts of the Movement Strategy and >> how to we make progress on these over the next couple of years? — With this >> proposal I feel like we're left in vacuum without any idea how and where to >> progress with these topics *together with WMF*. >> * Why are all currently proposed bodies designed exactly the way all >> parties had problems with over the past decade? >> ** One of them fully selected by WMF staff: “Applications for the PTAC >> […] Candidates will be selected [by WMF] for an interview on a rolling >> basis.”, etc. -> “recommendations for Wikimedia Foundation Product and >> Technology teams” >> ** The other one financially fully dependent on budget allocation -> “will >> seek the recommendations and insights of this body for proposals“ >> *: I assume that some of these wordings have legal reasons, but they >> create more frustration than needed because nobody knows if and how >> recommendations are heard and many of us carry their baggage. This is >> getting even more complicated the way the next steps were announced: Maybe >> there is a general need for the WMF Board to put everything in motions >> instead of *starting conversations with other stakeholders*, but for me >> it feels that by doing this there is not much ground for conversation but >> the next steps are put in stone just to fill a vacuum none of us ever >> wanted. >> >> Both of these points, the omission of core Movement Strategy vocabulary >> and the way the experiments are designed and seem to be set in stone, are >> nowhere close to “equity in decision-making”. I think we can do better, >> together! Why not also with regard to the next steps? >> >> Maybe you can also emphasize on this. :) It's helpful to read more from >> the Board perspective for one's own reflections, thanks once again! I'm >> also looking forward to conversations about it at Wikimania and meeting >> many of you again. >> >> (PS: If you prefer that I move these questions to the Appendix talk page, >> please let me know.) >> >> Best, >> DerHexer >> >> >> Am Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2024 um 16:00:06 MESZ hat Dariusz Jemielniak < >> djemieln...@wikimedia.org> Folgendes geschrieben: >> >> >> If the Board is not just a token body, it was in the voting pipeline for >> a reason. We really worked hard on trying to make things work - >> unfortunately, the visions have dramatically diverted. As I wrote before, >> we have been very supportive of the approach that is problem-oriented and >> organic (one possible idea draft >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pundit/Charter> I personally was >> in favor of, but there were others). >> >> The Board, as I understand it, is fully supportive of the changes in >> principle. It is just responsible enough to not go blindly for an approach >> that it considers flawed and costly. This is, fundamentally, an essential >> fiduciary duty of a trustee: to say "no," when needed, and even when a lot >> of people chant "yes". >> >> I personally am very much in favor of a transfer of responsibility to the >> community at large, I am quite against a large, parliamentary-style body, >> as it, paradoxically, takes quite a bit of power from the community itself, >> while not offering an effective solution. >> >> I may be definitely wrong in my views, but assuming bad faith, >> dictatorship, illusionary elections... Goes quite a bit too far, to my >> taste. >> >> best >> >> Dariusz >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 4:20 AM Itzik Edri <it...@wikimedia.org.il> >> wrote: >> >> When I realized the entire "voting" process was a hoax by the board a few >> weeks ago, I wanted to join other people in protesting against the board's >> behavior. However, I felt it would be pointless, as the board had already >> wasted far too much time, knowing it wouldn't accept anything other than >> its own decision. >> Why spend more time and talk about this charter, collaborate together, in >> what we thought was a democratic decision-making process for this movement, >> but then when it failed to meet the board's own needs, it became a >> dictatorship, where elections aren't just an illusion, and even a majority >> of the movement won't convince the board to accept the existing rules. >> >> But rather than addressing the fundamental issue of the board's disregard >> for this process, which is a waste of millions of dollars and even worse, >> the time spent by countless volunteers thinking, writing, and developing >> this charter, this discussion has shifted to irrelevant issues such as >> whether neutral votes should be counted and whether 100 members (a maximum >> number, not a desired number) of the Global Council should attend Wikimania >> (a matter that is not even mentioned in the charter). >> >> I'm sorry, but all of this is dodging the truth that the board made very >> clear in their resolution - they don’t want any change of forces. >> >> It's clear from their proposed changes to the resource distribution >> ("Because the Board of Trustees holds ultimate financial and fiduciary >> obligations, they are ultimately responsible for approving how much of the >> Foundation’s budget will be made available for grants distribution") - No >> one will decide how much money the foundation will spend. It is up to them >> to decide how much money will go to the rest of the movement bodies, and >> volunteers can maybe only influence how it will be split among them. How is >> it different from now? >> >> The board's resolution is unambiguous, from the resource distribution >> component to the complete disregard for the global council. The board is >> unwilling to recognize any entity that could potentially challenge its >> authority. *Its* staff will support affiliates, resource allocation, and >> other committees, but any potential global council body would be entirely >> dependent on volunteers for all its activities. In contrast, the board >> itself enjoys the support of 100~ paid staff (executives, legal, >> communications, administration..). This arrangement represents a >> significant imbalance of power that serves no purpose other than to >> maintain the board's control. >> >> So what is the point? >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 7:57 PM Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 12:30 AM Victoria Doronina < >> vdoron...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >> Pete, >> >> I live in Europe and am not familiar with the US rules. In the UK, >> spoilt ballots, equivalent to the neutral vote, are counted in the tally. >> >> I don't follow your connection between a spoilt ballot and a neutral >> vote, to me these seem to be unrelated concepts. One has to do with the >> technical condition of the ballot at the time when counted, while the other >> reflects the intent of the voter. >> >> The UK system also does not appear to work the way you describe. For the >> UK referendum we all know best (Brexit), the percentage reported on the >> English Wikipedia article (51.89%) aligns exactly with the result of this >> formula: >> Leave / (Leave + Remain) >> (the same formula used for the charter vote, and in Oregon elections). >> >> The percentage it differs (51.85%) from >> Leave / (Leave + Remain + spoilt) >> (the formula I think you endorse and, I think inaccurately, ascribe to >> British referenda). >> >> So I really am at a loss. The formula used by the Charter Commission >> seems both to align with the policy it set up ahead of time, and with >> precedents in other electoral systems. >> >> Chris said: >> >> > 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. >> >> Victoria said: >> >> The community-elected trustees were repeatedly demonised and asked for >> their opinion. Now that I’m expressing my opinion, it is suddenly >> inappropriate. Is it because I’m a woman or because the opinion that the >> Charter and the process of its' ratification are not fit for purpose should >> be silenced by any means? >> >> >> I disagree with Chris on this point. But I do find your position >> confusing. Is it not *you* who are now demonizing the committee, by >> asserting that their chosen methodology is unique among systems of >> referendum, and imputing ill motives? In addition to being inaccurate (as >> to the propriety of the tallying method), your words after the fact come >> across to me as spiteful. It's hard to see what they accomplish beyond >> furthering acrimony. >> >> Victoria said: >> >> Dear all, >> >> I regret to see that the communication in this thread fractured. People >> are now asking who am I to use the wikimedia.org email address. >> >> >> I certainly don't object to a Trustee commenting on something that has >> been a significant project of the organization, that seems like an ideal >> use of a wikimedia.org email address! >> >> I also have no objection to the Board's singular act of vetoing the >> charter. >> >> What *does* concern me is trying to comprehend what the Board is aiming >> for. This seems like a uniquely important moment for the Board to clearly >> communicate its vision, as it rejects the proposal that arose out of the >> process it had previously defined. >> >> Instead, communications from the Board (including yours) seem to be >> varying shades of inaccurate, political, vague, and inarticulate. >> >> I would urge you to reflect on that. I'm not saying don't communicate, >> but the opposite. I urge you to communicate more clearly and carefully. >> >> Pete >> Editor of English Wikisource, Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata, etc. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/BE5EZWEQ3VUVIUULHJHRZPOTEFC2SOBP/ >> 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/VJBDJFG34COTBWQJJYOH5727QQOA2AQP/ >> 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/OZYUAWU37TETDXKGHSZGWCQ4FPLD32N3/ >> >> 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/XWZTQHVKOWJTWQQMIB34VANTXP2BGUP3/ >> 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/UJFGYALSH2DMJMA6QMJXEJXSQBXHECCX/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org -- Sincerely, Butch Bustria ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is privileged and intended only for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative of the intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of this message or the information it contains is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
_______________________________________________ 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/44XS5TBHPAPKKC7R5WJYPBHLOEJJWOQ2/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
