You managed to sell the Charter so well Sj ;)
On another note... to comment on Stephane's below... I also feel that
the only real pressuring need that led to the work on this charter is
decision over funding - about collecting the money (eg; having the right
to fundraise), about spending the money (in particular to address
increase of funding, or at least stability), and about redistribution
(per region, themes etc.)
Is there any other significant goal the Charter is trying to address
that could justify the complicated scheme ?
Flo
Le 02/07/2024 à 22:16, Samuel Klein a écrit :
Thanks both for these thoughts! I also don't want to "just" say yes
or no, but those are the options.
We can leave a detailed comment about what we actually want to see.
Maybe we draft that collaboratively?
Stephane writes:
> TL;DR: too complicated; structurally unable to address any type of
challenge.
I agree with this assessment for now. Overall engagement in these
matters has dropped steadily since 2018. Creating a new body that's
likely to struggle but will take up the time of another 25-100 people,
may be depleting a critical resource. My preference is not to 'fake
it till we make it', but to make simple clear steps that play to our
strengths, solve explicit problems, and don't further divide us.
Iterating on and strengthening a much simpler + more focused
charter/council could build shared identity, and feel like moving from
success to success. On this issue, to me that suggests voting "No"
with a detailed, constructive comment rather than "Yes" with such a
comment.
_Longer thoughts_:
Even at the fully-subsidized WM Summit, people complained it was hard
to make time to participate without an additional stipend. Not many
attendees had experience or appetite to run a new parliamentary
bureaucracy [except those already employed by affiliates, who would be
ineligible]. I proposed simplifications
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/Design_chats/Charter/en> to
the charter at the time; 8 people found me to share comments in
person, but none left comments or edits online. (I would have been
just as happy with postive or negative edits; but /no/ edits suggests
a lack of energy for real drafting of policy or process texts)
Participants all wanted more say in global decisions, for various
reasons (including wanting more say in their own budget growth), but
there was an odd sense of dependency. At the end of the Summit, a
working group was formed to organize the next Summit in two years'
time. They nominated a spokesperson to report to the audience. He
said, and I swear I did not hallucinate this, "We are excited to start
planning the next summit. First we need the WMF to provide a staff
facilitator to help us schedule our meetings and keep notes."
In contrast, the editors on the projects are quite independent, but
are not that interested in nebulous governance issues. (perhaps like
many on this list ;) The unaffiliated community hasn't given much
feedback up til now, and should be part of the next step of the
process. We must upgrade our global self-governance if we want the
projects to evolve and thrive... but we have to work up to that.
Things we need:
a) Some rebalancing of resources across the movement. The example
championed by Brazil is a good one, we need more like that.
b) Larger affiliates need more stable funding commitments. Like 3-year
commitments that can be revised down in line with all budgets if
there's a global shortfall.
--> We don't need a charter for these things; but an interim group
that pushes hard on global allocation percentages. The WMF has
already committed to having a body that could do this, in place by
January.
Problems:
c) The council as currently written is a new bureaucracy, accountable
only to itself and its new time-consuming election process.
d) The latest charter sets up the council to implement and enforce a
new global strategy... something no one really asked for. It's
unlikely to go well. (Read cynically, this is a way for the council
to force WMF to change its plans. Not a good start to trust-building.
Under "Responsibilities" for WMF, *but not for affiliates*, the
Charter reads "/The Wikimedia Foundation should align its work with
the strategic direction and global strategy of the Global Council/" )
Problems that may be irreversible:
e) The current charter is impossible to update. Any edits require 50
people to support the change on Meta, plus months for translation +
announcement + full-movement ratification. Of course an edit could
change the amendment clause... but policy-creep suggests this won't
happen. It makes no sense to /start/ with the sort of red tape that
will one day grind things to a halt.
f) The worst outcome in my view is that we somehow create a new class
of self-perpetuating 'paid global bureaucrats' who become a new power
bloc, with its own problems and conflicts, without solving existing
problems.
Sam.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:00 PM Stephane Coillet-Matillon
<[email protected]> wrote:
Ok, I’ll bite (I’m in a bit of a rush so apologies in advance if
the tone seems curt. Not the intent, but emails often come out as
such)
My first concern is that I still don’t know what the exact problem
is that this charter is trying to solve. If it is to restore some
balance between Chapters/UG on one hand and the Foundation on the
other hand (basically undo what Sue Gardner did 15+ years ago and
spread money around), I’m not convinced at all: no matter how we
frame it, the WMF’s main mission is to support the tech that makes
the whole movement exist in the first place, and it is in some
respects struggling at that. Except for Wikidata/Wikibase (managed
by WMDE; and possibly Kiwix as it spun off from WMCH), I don’t see
chapters/UG having brought much to the table in that regard. Could
it be that they could not because they did not have the resources?
Well, that’s what someone writing an AI/crypto pitch deck would
say, but I’m not convinced.
So what is left when all this is said and done is this charter
being a fight for the « proper » allocation of money, and there is
plenty of literature to explain that there will never be enough of
that. Whatever the problem, it won’t be solved. In fact, the
Brazilians have been /very /smart in pushing their requirements
for a bigger focus on Global South users (Global Majority is not a
good term, so don’t @ me), and it really did not require having
100 people sitting on some sort of council to get things moving
forward.
Which brings me to the Global council, the one thing that really
rattles me. There is a structural risk in putting people in charge
only because they demonstrated their love and participation in the
project rather than because they have specific skills/vision
needed to give directions to a Foundation spending 100 millions
each year. We already have that, and though I like them as people
I also remember
_______________________________________________
Offline-l mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Offline-l mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
