On Tue, Jul 2, 2024, 5:42 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]> wrote:
> The main change for the UG would perhaps be that it could become a tier > 2 or even tier 3 affiliate: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Supplementary_Document/Future_Affiliate_Landscape Yes, and a certain increased ability to push for support directly with a Council (which would have some function for technical prioritizartion). This is in theory more nuanced than the technical advisory group Selena has proposed, which may only choose one optional priority for the tech team to work on each year. > Il 02/07/24 23:16, Samuel Klein ha scritto: > > > > Problems that may be irreversible: > > e) The current charter is impossible to update. [...] > > I don't understand how this is possible. The charter may be unamendable, > but it can't override the bylaws, so it can be abolished by the WMF BoT > with a stroke of a pen at any time, no? Hence: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Half_measures_and_next_steps Maybe? "Can" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The BoT can technically also choose to shut down the org. We are both a social community of practice, a coalition of affiliate orgs, and a global non profit. And the BoT is half community elected, the same primary form of accountability proposed for a Council. A clear and consistent community position on what should happen is unlikely to be denied or overturned by the board. (A primary strength of a council intermediating direct community engagement is it can have better message discipline to provide that consistent clarity throughout a decision process. A primary weakness of setting a low 55% threshold for approval of a council framework is it leaves room for uncertainty about the strength of its mandate) SJ > > Cheers, > Federico > 🌍🌏🌎🌑
_______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
