Talk:Movement Charter

Archives

---

• Archive one: December 2020 - August 2022
• Archive two: September 2022 - March 2023

Ratification methodology

Below are questions related to the ongoing Community Consultation about a proposal for the Movement Charter ratification methodology. Feel free to share your input on the questions below! --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC).

Question 1: To ensure a fair and inclusive election for a vote that impacts the whole movement, what methodology should chapters and thematic organizations use to vote on the ratification of the Movement Charter?

Please select one of the following options:

• Their entire membership (as of 3 months prior to the vote) cast a vote.
• The decision-making body of each chapter and thematic organization cast a vote on behalf of their respective entity.
• Some other way – please share proposals.

Question 2: To ensure a fair and inclusive election for a vote that impacts the whole movement, what methodology should UGs use to vote on the ratification of the Movement Charter?

Please select one of the following options:

• UGs will determine the voting method themselves and report back only on the results of the vote.
• UGs will submit to the Charter Electoral Commission evidence that their full membership has been consulted when they report back on the results of the vote.
• The Charter Electoral Commission will specify the voting method to be applied to all UGs.

Question 3: What percentage of individuals should vote in favor of ratification to ratify?

Please select one of the following options:

• 50%+1
• 55%
• 60%
• Other – please share what percentage.

Questions about the Charter Electoral Commission (CEC)

Question 1: How will the members of the CEC be recruited?

Share your ideas here.

Question 2: Who will select the 5 members of the CEC out of all eligible candidates?

Share your ideas here.

Question 3: What types of experience would you like to see from members of the Charter Electoral Commission? Should there be any formal minimum criteria for eligibility?

Share your ideas here.

Feedback on non-question areas note

Hi all - just want to stress that we'll gladly receive and consider feedback on any portion of the draft methodology! The questions above are just areas where we specifically wanted more community consideration :) Nosebagbear (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Why do affiliate members get the chance to vote for multiple affiliates and also a project, if eligible, but project members only get to vote for one project even if eligible for multiple projects? Barkeep49 (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this idea @Barkeep49. How would you actually see this work in practice? Would you imagine there to be a limit to the number of projects at all, or simply a possibility for users to vote for all projects that one would be eligible for? Ciell (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest all projects that a person is eligible for as they are part of knowing whether or not that project supports the mcdc and that seems to be the intent here. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This is one of many such examples of bureaucratic empire building that will eventually destroy Wikipedia. I demand that for any new line written to WP administration several lines get deleted, also, we should cut down staff and word count of regulations to the status quo ante of 15 January 2002, one year after the founding, that's quite enough. We can't allow activist busybodies to take this project over, it would be the end. The Magna Carta contains around 3,550 words and serves as the basis for the legal and political order of dozens of countries. If written well, with the best interest of the project –not its administration!– in mind, that's more than enough. Tickle me (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems to confuse the purpose of the Movement Charter. Whereas the Magna Carta is a document outlining rights, this document needs to outline roles and responsibilities for many distinct entities. A more apt comparison would be the UN Charter containing 111 articles across 19 chapters. I assume you perceive the UN as unnecessary bureaucracy too, so I will preemptively note that UNICEF alone has saved millions of lives. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 23:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The WMF will not save any lives, just alienate volunteers and mislead people into wasting their money. Wikipedia is not a nation, it is an encyclopedia; Wiktionary is not nation, it is a dictionary; etc. The WMF should have no right to impose their bureaucracy on these projects, which do the most good in the world when the communities that are to be thanked for them maintain agency over them. The WMF (which is a much more hierarchical and non-voluntary system) should serve purely to handle technical matters and make difficult decisions as a last resort. The more active and less passive the role of the WMF is, the more the spontaneous and voluntary activity of the projects it governs suffers. 77.102.33.213 12:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This is actually one of the things the charter is trying to tackle - putting in writing that all have their own responsibilities and can take their own decisions, but also where you can go if you don't agree with a decision and where you can request help if things get too complicated. Please realize that many of these things have grown organically in the past 20 years and are already very much in force, but this has not been captured in one central place yet. This is what the charter aims to do, while also making sure that the scales are correctly balanced again.

The question on this page now is: how should all the votes be weighed in the ratification process of the Charter, which is planned for 2024? Ciell (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Bureaucracy is bureaucracy. I know it when I see it. Those with power in the WMF should be embracing genuine passivity with regards to their governance, not pouring oil on a fire by coming up with more policy creep in response to complaints about policy creep. 77.102.33.213 13:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

“to reduce duplicate representation”, nice call. I'm member of and leader of a handful of user groups, but that's a general issue that I don't want to tackle here. Do I understand correctly that I can choose freely from all projects where I am eligible? Certainly, my vote is more worth when I choose the wiki with least (possible) voters (e.g., metawiki instead of enwiki). That's not very fair for users who are active on a crosswiki level. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@DerHexer The plan is indeed to have someone with, say, 600 edits on en-wiki and 400 edits on de-wiki, to be able to pick between the two. Obviously this does indeed mean your vote has greater impact at the project level if you pick a smaller project.

Continuing purely for me, not the whole committee: it is not the only place in the methodology where no singular ideal option existed. Neither first edit, or edit count or advanced permissions is a flawless method for determining what an editor actually views as their "true home project". Free choice (limited to those where an individual is eligible to vote) is also not ideal for the reason you note - someone might pick off electoral benefit rather than their actual viewpoint. Ultimately, this safeguarded option felt like the best selection - if you disagree that would be good to know - and even more so if you could advise what option would work best/least worst :) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)