Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Set Up Options

Movement Charter

FAQ

Content

Community Consultation

Drafting Committee

Ratification vote

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee will be a group of individuals responsible for drafting the Movement Charter. They will develop the content of the Charter as defined in the Movement Strategy recommendation “Equity in Decision-Making”. Their work will not be limited to writing the Charter. It will also include consultation with communities and organizations as well as research and consultation with experts.

The group will not be a governance body. It must have diversity of members and skills fitting to their work. The Diversity matrix below suggests the factors  expected to be covered. The Expertise matrix suggests the skills necessary to work as a solid team, including content expertise suggested in the recommendations.

Diversity & Expertise matrix

Diversity matrix

General background	Engagement
	Projects	Organizations	Roles
Region / country	Different projects (Wikipedia, Commons, Wikisource, Wikidata, etc.	Affiliate size, age, focus	Contributor
Language	Emerging / Established	Committees	Functionary
Gender	Languages	Wikimedia Foundation	Community organizer
	Project size (small / mid-size / big)		Board or Committee member
			Affiliate or WMF staff member

Expertise matrix

General background	Drafting skills	Content expertise	Experience
Cultural and linguistic awareness	Policy writing skills	Safe and collaborative spaces	Participatory and consensus processes
Inclusion and diversity awareness	Writing and editing skills	Revenue generation	Previous phases of Movement Strategy
Governance of organizations	Communication skills	Resource allocation	Global or local policy work
Knowledge of Wikimedia	Strategic and structural thinking skills		Team collaboration

Commitment

• All members of the Drafting Committee are expected to act in the interest of the whole movement (i.e. not just a specific interest group), in accordance with the Strategic Direction, Movement Strategy recommendations and principles.
• Members need to be comfortable working in a consensus driven and open environment.
• Members are expected to focus on strategic work
  • The group will be supported by staff and consultants that can carry the bulk of time-consuming activities (e.g. commissioning research, note-taking, translations, community outreach)
• Drafting Group members will need to be able to invest a maximum of 5 hours per week.
  • The time commitment will be agreed by the committee members, and it might vary depending on how the work is organized.
  • Members are expected to participate in regular online meetings and collaborative writing.
  • Members should be able to commit the required time until the completion of the Charter.

Drafting Group set up option

Expertise focus

➼ Self-nomination with a form to surface expertise

➼ Appointment from the pool of candidates

➼ Possible further appointments to fill expertise gaps

Pros

➼ People appointed based on competency which increases efficiency of the group

➼ Fast process that gets us to work as soon as possible

Cons

➼ Potential concerns regarding transparency and legitimacy of the group

➼ Potential concerns regarding transparency of the appointment process

➼ Potential concerns regarding representation in the group

Considerations

➼ How will we ensure ... in the appointment process?

➼ How will the transparency and legitimacy of the process be ensured?

Parking lot of other options

Hybrid model

➼ Mixed approach of self-nomination process for expertise and elections in key groups for representation

➼ Possible further appointments to fill defined expertise and representation gaps

Pros

➼ Mixed approach will hopefully cover the expertise and representation needs, as well as the good feeling of the big communities about the process.

Cons

➼ Complexity of the process that emerges from combining the options

➼ Potential gaps in expertise and representation that come with a mixed approach

Considerations

➼ How do we ensure clarity regarding the process across stakeholders?

➼ How do we define the groups where elections would be held?

➼ Who will appoint the members?

Representation focus

(Text is colappsed. Click [Expand] to expand.

➼ Elections from pre-defined groups that need to be represented

➼ Election process defined by the groups themselves

➼ Possible further appointments to fill expertise gaps

Pros

➼ Potential increased trust in the process among the big communities due to elections

➼ Potential increased sense of legitimacy among the big communities by using their existing selection processes

Cons:

➼ Risk of election processes lacking diversity, equity and inclusion, and underrepresented groups (a priority for the Movement Strategy) still being underrepresented.

➼ Will take more time to set up and puts additional burden on communities

➼ Risk of people being selected based on their popularity rather than expertise

Considerations

➼ How do we ensure that there is expertise in the group to do detailed and quality work? ➼ How do we define the groups where elections would be held?