Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Set Up Options
Note: This is a page that presented different proposals for setting up the Movement Charter Drafting Committee in June, 2021. These proposals were discussed during the events on June 12/13 and June 27, 2021. These conversations led to establishing the final set-up process and this page is kept for archiving purposes.
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
| 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 | |||
| 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 options
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?
Hybrid model
(Text is collappsed. Click [Expand] to expand.)
- 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 collappsed. 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?
Wiki Model
- Treat the Movement Charter like any other policy (and like content), and develop it in an inclusive manner on-wiki. Avoid the selection of a committee smaller than "anyone who wants to participate".
Considerations
- If there was a better model than this, why not use that model to develop content and policy on the various projects?