Dear all
As many of you will be aware, over the past three years volunteers, staff, partners and other stakeholders from across the global Wikimedia community have been involved in a process to identify what the future of our movement should look like, and how we should get there. After what I know has felt like a bit of a long haul, this process has now reached a crucial stage, with the publication of
13 recommendations which will form the basis for the implementation of the strategic direction.
Implementation is likely to include changing the way the movement is structured and funded (including looking at chapters like Wikimedia UK), implementing behaviour and safety standards off and online, and looking at content on Wikipedia (e.g. potential priorities for topics, or changing notability criteria). This stage moves from what has been an abstract discussion, into what will actually change in the movement.
There is now a limited window for all of us to give feedback on these recommendations, and I invite you to do so in one of the following ways:
1.
Email me with your feedback (preferably in a summarised, bullet pointed format!) and I will add this to the feedback I will be giving on behalf of the UK chapter, including responses from staff and trustees. Please
email me by reply or on
lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk by
Thursday 27th February otherwise I will not be able to include your response.
2. Add your feedback to the relevant discussion page on meta. There is a discussion page for general comments on the recommendations (and, more broadly, the strategy process) or you can contribute to the discussion pages for specific recommendations. Ideally you should do this by 21st February for your input to be taken into account by the team reviewing feedback.
Chris Keating very kindly emailed the Affiliates mailing list highlighting the aspects of the recommendations which are likely to have an impact on affiliates. I've reproduced this below in case this is helpful - although of course, people on this mailing list may well be looking through a slightly different lens.
Changing nature of affiliate-WMF relationships
The recommendations call for significant changes to the relationship between the WMF and affiliates.
In particular, it calls for:
* a Movement Charter, which sets out a common set of expectations around behaviour and accountability of all movement entities (including both the WMF and all affiliates)
* a new "global governance body" that would provide input into future development of future strategy; would set the framework for funds dissemination; and hold all movement entities accountable. (including affiliates and the WMF)
To be clear, it's very likely that many existing WMF/Affiliate structures (AffCom, FDC, etc) would end up being folded into the global governance body.
These recommendations are there in part because of feedback from affiliates and communities that there is no way to structured way of holding conversations within the movement. The expectations of behaviour from movement entities (WMF and affiliates) can be unclear, and methods of communication and conflict resolution are lacking. These proposals are there to address that.
Going beyond these proposals, the recommendations also include decentralisation as a principle - pushing power and control away from the centre to the people who are most directly running projects. If taken seriously, this would be a very big change in the relationship between WMF and affiliates (particularly around grantmaking, where there has been feedback around bureaucracy and inflexibility in the current system).
Supporting development of affiliates
There is a strong emphasis in the recommendations on building skills and supporting individuals and organisations. Training, mentorship, and learning are all mentioned a great deal.
This is a direct response to feedback from affiliates that there is not enough support on offer from the movement at the moment. Many affiliates have been saying "Ok, we got recognised by Affcom, what comes next?" and finding there is no real support on offer. These recommendations are aimed at solving that problem.
There is also the concept of 'regional hubs' which would exist to bring affiliates (or affiliates-in-formation) together to better support them. Again, this is directly in response to the fact that many of our existing regional partnerships have a lot of value for affiliates and communities, and affiliates are asking for support in languages other than English and geographically close to them.
Impact and funds dissemination
It's recommended to clarify the movement's definition of 'impact'. This means that there would be a clearer set of criteria around funds distribution based on what impact projects are expected to have on people and on knowledge equity.
It's also recommended that more of the decision-making power for funds dissemination will sit closer to the communites using the funds. So less focus on global committees like the FDC or global grants programmes, more focus on groups of affiliates and community members in regional hubs working out what to spend their money on (within an overall framework established at a global level).
As the strategy liaison for the UK I'm happy to be the conduit for any questions you have on the strategy process - although of course you are also welcome to add questions/comments to meta.