I don't know of an internal tool (wudele is only for simpler single-queation votes), but can set up a poll today. Something like:
Q1: How should WOW vote on the movement charter? - Yes - No - No vote Q2: What comments should we leave? (We will combine + summarize as many points from members as we can in the space provided) 🌍🌏🌎🌑 On Fri, Jul 5, 2024, 2:35 AM Stephane Coillet-Matillon <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree broadly with your take SJ, we should make a short comment as to > what could be more palatable, but this being said, how do we formally set > the UG’s position one way or the other? Is there some internal voting tool > we could use? > > On 2 Jul 2024, at 22:16, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 to [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > Offline-l mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
