Thanks for the feedback, Shaba.
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 7:47 AM Stephane Coillet-Matillon <
stephane(a)kiwix.org> wrote:
Thanks SJ, very interesting. And cool to hear that
there’s interest around
offline wikis.
The million-dollar question I guess after what you wrote is whether we
should support or not this Charter when it is put up for a vote?
Personally, I am unlikely to support this version of a Charter: it is still
changing too much and too opaquely. A charter for our movement of all
movements should honor the value of fast, flexible, frequent iteration.
[the committee just confirmed
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#End_of_the_Community_Engagement>
they will make another major bulk revision and immediately proceed to a
vote.]
For our group, even if the final text resolves the many open issues with
the current draft, I think we should be wary of supporting it for two
reasons:
*–* Revisions are going to be made even harder. From Risker's latest
comment
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Alternate_ratification_and_amendment_process_proposals>
on the talk page, all revisions of any substance may require a community
vote. That's a risky outcome in my view: a high-overhead governance
process, requiring a second high-overhead process to make any changes.
*=* This final round of outreach + vote has positioned affiliates against
individual contributors in terms of setting tone, purpose, & priorities.*
This is an affiliate-heavy governance proposal with a few affiliates
already asking for a Council to be the "highest decision-maker" about
resource distribution.** That doesn't feel right for reasons Yger
expressed here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter#Concerns_over_comments_from_Affiliates_EDs_and_Affiliates_summit>.
We should fix this in the draft before voting, or indicate that more work
is needed.
Sam
* There has been little substantive engagement of the broader editing
community since the first drafts landed on Meta last year.
The last month of outreach leaned heavily on a Summit gathering of
affiliates alone.
** This would be risky governance practice to assign to a yet-undefined
Council, with gameable governance and COI challenges. It's also rather
different from the 2019 plans that started us down this path
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_2/Roles_%26_Responsibilities/2%263>
.