 All to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines roundtable. My name is Sally and my pronouns are she and her. And I've had the pleasure of working alongside the enforcement drafting committee for the last little while. And I would love to take a moment to introduce you all to your panelists for today. So if we could go through the room and if you could introduce yourself, your pronouns and how you were involved with Wikimedia and the UCOC. Could we please start off with Ruby? And I think we might be having a little bit of technical difficulties with Ruby's connection at the moment. So we'll just pause there for a second and maybe if we can skip to Barkeep if you could introduce yourself and then we'll jump back to Ruby. Sure. Hi. I am an editor who goes by Barkeep or Addison Bryant. My pronouns are he him. I primarily edit English Wikipedia where I serve as an administrator and I'm currently on the English Wikipedia arbitration committee. And I am excited to be on the UCC enforcement guidelines drafting committee and now the revision committee. Thank you so much Barkeep. I'm going to pass it off to MJL next. And I think we may have some connection issues with MJL as well. Ray, would you be able to go next? Sure. Hello. Cool. I am Ray. I don't use the name Vermont. I am a steward admin check user on two projects and I also work on the communications team. I am part of the revisions committee and I was part of the phase two drafting committee as well and I use their pronouns. Thank you so much, Vermont. We're going to try to jump back to Ruby at this moment. And perhaps it could just be myself. Patrick, are you able to hear Ruby? No. I think Ruby must be having some connection issues. Okay. And maybe we could try back MJL if you're able to introduce yourself. MJL is disconnected and is currently waiting to be let back in. Yeah, it looks like Ruby and MJL are having some issues with connection here. So we'll hopefully introduce them when they're back. Alrighty. So Sally, I could jump in and do my short history of the UCC here. Beautiful. Thanks so much, Patrick. No. So Gretchen, if you don't mind just putting the slides back to slide four there. So yeah, I think that most folks are at least aware of the term UCC. They've probably seen it show up in different places, but I think there's probably some viewers who haven't heard about the UCC at all. And so we'd like to just do a quick history of UCC and then we can go back to our panelists for questions. So the origins of UCC were really from the movement strategy process. So we've probably some of you participated in that process maybe, but it took place 2016 to 2018. And really talked to Wikimedians around the world to try and see what programs they'd like to see the movement make in the next 10 to 15 years. And one of the recommendations was to create a code of conduct. And the specific recommendation was create a code of conduct in collaboration with communities to provide a universal baseline of acceptable behavior in the entire movement. Gretchen, are you able to advance the slides for me? Apologies to viewers. We'll go back a few there, Gretchen. Back again. Sorry folks. There we go. Thank you very much. Next slide, please Gretchen. So after that recommendation came out, it was really a matter of sort of trying to talk to communities about what their priorities might be for universal code of conduct. So 19 different communities took place in some initial conversations in their own languages on their own wikis. Talking about what they'd love to see from a code of conduct and what they really didn't want to see from a code of conduct. From there we put together the first drafting committee and we had folks from around the movement from different roles come in and starts throwing around ideas and creating a first draft. We had the community review that first draft, a lot of really, really good constructive input and the drafting committee was able to make some revisions. From there we asked the board to consider this code of conduct and they were quite happy with it and decided to ratify it and that was last year in 2021. Next slide, please Gretchen. I think most of you who have been involved in policies, either enforcing them or writing them know that a good policy isn't quite enough. You do need to have some guidance for the people using the policy about how it should be enforced. And in our movement, we have many different conduct policies across our projects, hundreds of different policies. We have very different ways of enforcing policy in our communities from very large established systems and large wikipedia to more informal, more social systems and some of our smaller wikipedia. So it was important to try and write some guidelines to help our communities mesh together some of those practices in a way that works for the UCMC. So many more consultation surveys discussions with communities we have a second drafting committee come up with some enforcement guidelines. And again, we brought a draft in front of the community and the community had a lot of different feedback on it. So the committee then made some more revisions and we had a full community vote on the guidelines. Next slide please. So we had a fairly good participation in the vote. It was about 56, 57% people supporting about 40%, 41% of people opposing. The vote also allowed people to give some comments about what they liked or didn't like about these enforcement guidelines. So after reviewing these comments and the vote, the Board of Trustees saw that there were some areas of concern in these enforcement guidelines. So they asked a revisions committee to be put in place to hopefully make some changes and improvements to these areas of concern. Next slide please Gretchen. The timeline that we're in the middle of right now, the revisions committee is working on some areas of the guidelines to try and make some changes and some improvements. There's also been a readability and translateability review of the document that was one of the feedback piece of feedback that the committee got. We're just going to outline some areas, specific areas that the committee has been looking at. One aspect is training around the UCFC, how it should work, who should provide it, whether it should be mandatory or not for certain groups. These are concerns that community members had. Next slide please. Another one was trying to make sure that people are aware of the policy and how they should sort of agree to it. And so this is called affirmation. And so the committee is looking at some of the challenges around affirmation. Right now we don't have sort of formal acceptance of policies or improvements. And so with the exception of the terms of use, of course. And so the committee is trying to navigate some ways to increase awareness of the UCFC without making it a divisive issue. Next slide please. The next slide is when cases are reported about violations or potential violations of the UCFC. It's quite difficult to strike a balance between protecting the confidentiality of a person who's making a report and keeping the person who has been reported informed or let them know about what's happening with the process. So the revisions committee is really spending some time trying to figure out that aspect in a way that works within our movements within the limitations of a volunteer system, but also provide some fairness in the process. Next slide please. So the revisions committee is hard at work right now. And they will be presenting their new revisions to the enforcement guidelines in September. And so we'll definitely be letting everyone know about that review in the beginning of September. And we'd love to have folks drop by, give their opinions and some of the changes. The committee will be again going back to incorporate feedback they get from this process. We'd love to hear whether people like the changes, don't like the changes, or would like to see something different. And so we'd love to see you all in September, but I'm going to stop taking up all the time of the committee here. And I'm going to give things back to Sally to open things up for questions. So I see a lot of folks in the chat. Please drop your questions in there. We'll get them in the queue. We've got a few pre submitted questions we're going to start with, but yeah, we'd love to see any questions you have in the queue and we'll get them into the mix here. Sorry, Ruby has indicated that she's trying to get back in. And so I don't know if there's someone technically who can help her rejoin the room. Very good. Gretchen will hopefully help Ruby get in. But I'll give things back over to Sally. Awesome. Thank you so much, Patrick. We'll get started with some of the questions here. And as folks join us, we'll be sure to let them introduce themselves. We have Ruby back. Ruby, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Awesome. Would you be able to introduce yourself in a quick 30 seconds perhaps? Yeah, my name is Ruby Dameshi Brown. So I'm from Ghana. My pronouns are she and her. I'm part of the Open Foundation West Africa Community, and I'm happy to be part of the Traffinal Enforcement Guideline. Yeah, thank you so much. Thank you so much, Ruby. And we'll get started. We'll jump into your questions and MJ, we will give you a chance to introduce yourself when we get to you. And one of the questions are, what are some interesting things you have learned about policy enforcement in Wikimedia communities as part of working on the committee? And I'd love to start off by hearing what you think of that, Ruby. And so the committee is currently working on presenting a new version of the Directive of Application to the United Nations. In the beginning of the month of September, there was a candidacy from across the world. Afflates, jokes, and other jokes. This is not too bad. Yeah. So what are some of the things you have learned about policy enforcement in Wikimedia? One, we have been saying this for seven years that this person doesn't have a certain right for the absence of policy enforcement. It's not enough to have a universal code of conduct. We need an enforcement guidelines. And which is what I've been part of this committee helping to draft this enforcement guidelines. And being a member of this committee, I've learned so much and I see why it's relevant for us to have such an universal code of conduct that all of us can make use of. And one interesting thing about this policy is the fact that the committee itself is made up of different representative of people. And that includes WMS staff, volunteers from different regions, and individuals from minority groups bringing that kind of diversity of views and perspective when we're deliberating on issues. And that is the whole period of this committee because we have that kind of diversified understanding and in dealing with some of these issues or helping to understand and digest some of these community feedbacks that we get whenever we reach out for community. This makes the policy very intriguing and helps us to deliberate and examine issues from different perspectives. Another interesting thing that I think I've learned from this policy was that we didn't do it in isolation of the community itself. We, from every stage of drafting, we engage the community, we digest their feedback and we see how we, we are able to incorporate these feedbacks into drafting this policy. And so I, this is one of the things, these are some of the things that intrigue me about being a member of this community. Yeah. Thank you so much, Ruby. And yes, I really hear what you're saying about the diverse opinions being brought towards not only from the community, but also the members of the committee. Thank you so much for sharing some of those insights there. Barkeep, I would love to hear some of your thoughts to that question. And please let me know if you'd like me to repeat it. No, that's quite all right. You know, I think something that I'm not sure I would say I, I have learned because I knew it, but I've learned a lot of the specifics of just how both how similar enforcement is in a lot of ways across the movement that a lot of policy is very similar. There might be small differences in details across the movement, but policy itself and guidelines and how we kind of handle you see is largely the same. There are some notable differences in that but but pretty similar. But even with kind of similar wording, the way communities actually implement and practice that can be fairly different that there's a little that they can be fairly different outcomes. And so that has been an interesting piece to me. And I would say, kind of learning. I did not know much about how affiliates have handled kind of their use you see type enforcement pieces and so that has been a really for me to learn through this process, because we do have at least we have a couple of people Ruby and another member who are both members of affiliates and speak to that experience. Thank you, Barkeep. And would also love to hear from MJL if you're are you connected at the moment. I believe so. Awesome. Would you also be able to quickly introduce yourself before we jump into your answer. Yes, my name is MJL pronouns they them I am a editor on English Wikipedia, and I do YouTube as well on the side. And Sally, could you please repeat the question for me because it's been a while since I want to make sure I answer right. Of course, what are some interesting things you have learned about policy enforcement in Wikimedia communities as part of working on the committee. I definitely have learned that I going into it I understood that everybody has different opinions about policy enforcement. And then, but being on the committee I were, I learned that people really have different opinions about policy enforcement. Which I learned that it's been a very interesting hearing the community's perspective on a lot of different things. So I that's definitely been probably the most interesting because I thought I understood the community's position I can on policy enforcement pretty well but honestly, no, and it's been a humbling experience. Thank you, MJL for sharing your insights there. We're going to jump into our second question, which is, what kinds of changes have you been working on during the revision process. And I'd like to start off by hearing some of your experiences there, Vermont. Sure. Yeah, so we had, as many will remember that vote and the rather large consultation period and a lot of feedback that we have. Basically, all the changes we've been making has been towards the areas that were highlighted by community discussion in those in the consultation period and working to address concerns and also to update the document with other plans that we had. It was not a finished document. It was a draft. And that includes, as I think people have asked about in the comments here, the information affirmation and training. We put a lot of effort into those weeks of just talking about affirmation and training and making sure that we get it right. Yeah. Thank you, Vermont. And Berkey, do you have some thoughts to add on that? What are some of the changes you have been working on during the revision process? Yeah. For me, I think, you know, Rosie's email was a, or Rosie's statements was a great kind of charge for us. And I was, I really appreciated the board saying, we appreciate that 58% of the participants liked this, but, but we really hear the concerns of that other, you know, 40, 41, 42% and want to see if we can't do better. And so I think there have been some easy fixes such as around training where I mean, we had some changes to make. But, you know, they were fairly easy for us to hammer out. I think that we have had some more difficult pieces such as balancing the rights of people who are being harassed with the kind of more general right to understand what someone, what you're being accused of. And so, right, so that is a tricky piece. And so, so I would say that's there. Something that we have started to do, but I think we have a lot more work to do. And so, and looking forward to community feedback to help us do this is I think, kind of, and the organizational part and making it easier to read and easier to translate, I think, and just easier to understand because we saw during the initial feedback that committee members had one understanding, but a very, but of certain pieces of text, but that the community fairly consistently read something in a different light. And so I think we have some more opportunities to to fix those areas as we kind of get some community feedback and and continue our work after in the kind of second phase of the revisions. Thank you, Barkeep and really appreciate that insight about what you've been working on in this revision process. Ruby, do you have some some other perspective to add. I think he said it all. I think basically what what we've been doing is trying to fix some of these issues, fixing the wording, making sure that phrases like the sentences have that clarity in it. So basically, these are some other things and how we're incorporating community feedback into the text that we dropped them yet. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, folks. We're going to jump to a question from the audience here. And we can maybe start off with MJL. The question is, beside the board's decision, what are some things that you personally or the community committee felt needed to improve? MJL. I definitely thought the training aspect, the training and the affirmations were probably going into it. I understood could have been a lot better and a lot more had a lot more improvements. So I was honestly kind of excited when the board made that statement because I was like, okay, I'm really glad we can tackle this again because we got, we had a lot of good feedback about that. And it was definitely clear that the committee's intentions, which were one thing versus what we ended up releasing didn't exactly like line up. And so having the ability to actually make it more clear to our original vision was something I was really excited about. Thanks so much. And we'd love to also hear from Vermont. And please let me know if you'd like me to repeat the question. Sure. Yeah. There is a lot that we have worked on improving. And unfortunately, one of the things about doing a big community consultation about a 15 page document is that there are areas of the document that need improvement that don't get much attention because people are only focused on the big stuff, like affirmation, training, and right to be heard. We have done a lot of other changes. We've fixed wording, we've clarified things. We have, what else is there? We've talked about like how we handle different types of cases, how existing enforcement structures handle them and how we want to write our recommendations in line with that. Yeah. Thank you, folks. Okay, we'll jump back into some of these questions here. What are some differences in community practices between different projects that you have observed? I would love to start off with Barkeep and hear your thoughts on that. I think that different communities have pretty different levels of, so I think different communities have different levels of kind of community involvement in enforcement. And so, you know, some of our larger wikis will have multiple places that enforcement will happen. Where some of our wikis have an arbitration committee that our MGL, I think you're, you might want to mute there. So some of our communities have arbitration committees, as I indicated, but even arbitration committees can have different roles there. And then, you know, I think the tolerance for our ability to have kind of private complaints is also a major difference that I see across the movement, and I'll kind of stop there. Thank you. Apologies for that, Barkeep. I think we missed the last part with some feedback there. Are you able to just mention the last part that you were speaking to? The private, the ability to kind of hear complaints privately at any level, you know, and how much ability and or community policy support there is for kind of private complaints is something that is very different across our movements. Awesome. Thank you. We're going to jump into another question from the audience, which is, how does the committee mitigate possible anglo-centrism in the worldview and process? For example, today's expectation for everybody to state their pronouns is incredibly anglo-centric, also posted on movementstrategy.org. Would love to start off by hearing your thoughts on that, Ruby. This is a really hard one. Can someone take the lead? For sure. Barkeep, would you be able to answer some of this question? I mean, I am quite sympathetic to the complaints here, right, that we have three of our four panel members here are in the United States, and so, you know, that is certainly a concern. We do have members from other continents, right, so besides Ruby, there we do have people that are living, working part of communities that are outside of the anglo-world. We have also been reaching out to, you know, groups inside the Wikimedia Foundation as the Wikimedia Foundation has really kind of expanded their workforce to make sure that it is not so anglo-centric to get some feedback on that. You know, in terms of the pronouns, that is tricky, right, because I would say the first phase had, I would say the enforcement has had a slightly, as a percentage, has had slightly more anglo-centric contributors. There, the first phase where like things like where a lot of the kind of gender and pronoun pieces came out did kind of come out of that piece, and so I think that is an interesting part and something for the movement to continue to talk about. And I hope there's a really robust discussion about that when we kind of reach the, let's take a look at the UCOC as a whole and see what revisions need to be made, which the board has indicated. I think there's definitely a lot of work that can be done, and I'm hopeful that after we see the UCOC in action for a little bit, we will be able to evaluate that and see what parts are working and which parts need to be adjusted to be more culturally sensitive for the entire movement. Thank you, Berke, and would also look to hear from Patrick on this question. Hi, yeah, I guess I didn't even introduce myself at the beginning of this. I'm really sorry, folks. My name is Patrick Early. I'm a lead project manager, sorry, policy manager with the trust and safety team, and I've been working closely with the UCOC for a while. But I do want to mention that this is definitely one of the concerns that the Board of Trustees pointed out is that, you know, it's not just sort of this specific area of pronouns and gender, but that the whole document for the enforcement guidelines was difficult to translate into some languages. It has some idioms and some structures that did not translate very well, and readability in general could be improved as well. And I don't want to criticize our committee members when I say this, but, you know, it is hard to write a document that is universally translated, translatable, perhaps, you know, almost impossible. But we have been trying to support the committee in having some of our more experienced translators at the Foundation take a look at the documents and review it. We've also had folks with academic experience and education on the general concept of translatability, take a look at the document and make some suggestions. So it's, you know, it's a difficult one. I mean, I think to get a document that is, you know, universal, as in the title of the universal code of conduct, is a challenge and probably an aspirational goal. But we have to try to get close to it. And sorry if I've insulted committee members by saying their work was not readable. It was definitely readable, but it could see some improvements. Thank you, Patrick. And we're going to answer another question from the audience. It is, how are small wiki projects represented in taking decisions in the UCOC? Vermont, are you able to start us off with that question? Sorry, what was that question? How are small wiki projects represented in taking decisions in the UCOC? Well, the difficulty here is that this is, we are writing, or rather rewriting the enforcement guidelines for the universal code of conduct. This is the revisions committee. We have not written the universal code of conduct. We have written the enforcement guidelines. One of the things that we have definitely focused on is how can we best integrate the benefits of the UCOC with existing enforcement structures. So like, how do we create a functional document without accidentally destroying the way that projects do things? And what we have is people from a bunch of different language projects. We have someone from the affiliations committee. We have someone from Arbcom. We have me, I'm a steward. We have someone who's a bunch of people who have these very varied experiences. Yes, we have three people in the US, but all of them have very different histories and enforcement processes and very different understandings of them. We don't have any small wiki admins, but we do have who are people who are familiar with both small and large wiki processes. And we've been able to, I believe it is a document that supports them without disturbing the way they engage with their workflows. Thank you. Appreciate your perspective on that one. And we'll head back into the questions here. In what was the most difficult topic area you faced when working on the guidelines? And would love to hear from all of the panelists on this question. What was the most difficult topic area you faced when working on the guidelines? Ruby, can we start with you? Sure. This is very interesting. I mean, we had difficult instances where we dealt with it. But one of the most difficult faces that I think for me we felt was when we're dealing with some real cases and seeing how these cases will be dealt with in real life. And deliberating on these cases, some of the thoughts that came into mind was how can we ensure that third party reporters or victims are protected while reporting cases, especially when the case has a potential of putting people at risk when reported or putting the victim at risk. We are also like, how do we deal with a third person reporting a case when the parties involved do not see anything wrong with what they're doing? For instance, we have two individuals on Weki abusing themselves or using abusive words, throwing some chats on their top pages and all that. And these two individuals don't see anything wrong with the kind of all the choice of words that they're using. And this is a case, and this case is reported by a third party who sees everything wrong with this. So dealing with this issue, it becomes very complex and very cumbersome because I mean, the Weki space is made up of different communities. What might look like an insult to one community can be a greeting for another community. How do we even differentiate that? So dealing with some of these cases or drafting guidelines for some of these cases becomes very complex. And another instance is how to deal with vandals. Of course, there are many things that we cannot avoid. How do we stop people from vandalizing or abusing this reporting opportunity that we've made for community members? We also want to ensure that staff and volunteer time are not wasted in handling things that are not even real in the first place. So this is also like some of the difficulty that we foresee. And these cases may look very simple when dealing with or maybe when you read about it, it looks very simple. But when you bring it to real life, like practically how, what steps are we going to deal? What's the value going to take in dealing with this issue? Realize the complexity of it. So this is like some of the things that are identified as kind of like a very tricky and difficult area. Yeah, basically. Thank you, Ruby. I really appreciate you bringing contextually how every case can definitely look different in different parts of the world. Thank you so much. We would love to hear from all the panelists on this question. MJL, what was the most difficult part or sorry, difficult topic area you faced when working on the guidelines? The right to be heard definitely for me was that was a lot of difficult stuff because I, I felt like the community was asking us to solve some problems that were extremely, extremely complicated. And that the community itself didn't have answers to so I was more than happy to receive feedback about it. You know, we're still ironing out a lot of the kinks with the right to be heard. I can't, it's definitely dwarfed anything else that we've worked on, even during the first go around of drafting. I can't, because we, I know we had a lot of contentious things that we had to work out in the first round. But this, the revisions committee with the right to be heard is definitely, it's definitely been a very, very, very, very complicated process and contagious. Thank you. And we'll go next Vermont and then Barkeep Vermont. What was the most difficult topic area you faced when working on the guidelines? Honestly, this would be the training bit. We put a lot of effort into training. There was a lot of discussion over. Let's go for this. We had a lot of talks about the specific content that we wanted involved in training and the level of specificity we wanted to give to that content, because at the same time we're kind of rebuilding the U4C policy and how the U4C building committee is going to look and they're going to be the ones who actually make the training. And there were a lot of discussions over, okay, what is the training for? Are we doing levels? Are we doing modules? Who are we recommending take which trainings? It was all really helpful. So, yeah. Thank you, Vermont and Barkeep. We'd love to hear your thoughts. I mean, I think MJL is correct that the balancing of rights has been is one of the trickiest things. But for me, my answers would go back to the phase one pieces. I think the two pieces that I would like to identify that have been hardest for me were first kind of making sure that enforcement processes that are happening across the movement are for universal code of conduct like behavior, even if it wasn't labeled UCOC enforcement, right? A lot of projects are already actively enforcing these areas. And let's make sure that nothing we do will stop that work from happening, right? That we are not going to undermine local processes. And this goes back to the question of how do we counter English centrism? We need if, right, so an important principle that one of our members introduced was the kind of, I can't remember the English phrase, and she talks about it in French. But it's basically the idea that enforcement should happen at the most local level possible in most circumstances. And so kind of respecting that idea and making sure that that played out throughout the documents was super hard. And then I would say everything around the universal code of conduct coordinating committee, commonly known as the U4C was incredibly hard. And it was so hard that essentially towards the end of the process, the committee threw up its hands and said, this is so hard that we need to have a whole separate group that is going to do this themselves after we're done with our work. And I think that reflects just how hard and complicated and involved that what is going to be. Thanks, Barkeep. We're going to pass it off to another audience question here. And perhaps we could start with MJL. And it is, in what areas do you or committee think community input is lacking? That's an interesting question. I think a lot of, I think, I actually don't know, because it's been in general, like most of, I would have loved to see more community input on pretty much everything. Like that's, for me, it's like, I would have, I feel like it's been a very, the community has been very disengaged with the process, despite it probably being one of the more important things happening in the Wikimedia movement at the moment. There's definitely, from the technical code of conduct and the, and their committee, I would have loved to see more media wiki developers, you know, weigh in. That's definitely, I feel like we haven't gotten a lot of feedback on how the technical code of conduct is going to interface with the UCOC. And I feel like that's probably one of the, I would love to see more, you know, feedback from, from folks covered by that. Thank you. And would love to open that space up to other folks on, on who are panelists here. In what areas do you or committee think community input is lacking? Are there any other thoughts? Please feel free to, to, to speak openly right now. And I can then move on to another question. Yes, Bertha, please. Yeah, I have a thought. I think, I think it's a really hard piece, because I think we have, we want to provide lots of opportunities for community feedback. But I am hearing from multiple communities that they are feeling burned out from the amount of the amount of feedback. And so I think we're just having to walk a tough line because we genuinely want community feedback. But we also want to respect that people are feeling like, boy, haven't I already done that? And I think especially that, you know, there were lots of people who were talking about the needs of their, the need to kind of balance rights between people in the first phase and it didn't, and that feedback wasn't listened to until it kind of came out through the comments of the ratification process. I mean, it was listened to that's not quite fair, but it wasn't, it wasn't acted on in a way that really felt good until, until the board statement. And so just kind of want to recognize that, that complexity for the community there. Thank you, Barkeep. Were there any last panelists that would like to speak to that question before we move on? Awesome. Thank you so much. So I do see that we are nearing time here and would love to pass it back to Patrick to, to, yeah, pass it back to Patrick. Yeah, I'll just close out. But I think I just got a message from Vermont who actually had something to add on the Anglo-centric aspect. Vermont, do you want to hop in and just make a comment there? Sure. Yeah, unfortunately, I don't think either I'm jail or I had the opportunity to respond to the Anglo-centric and pronouns related comment. I understand there is a large issue with Anglo-centrism and the way that we have formed a lot of people based in the US we do have a lot of people who are not based in the US but the issue stands there is a balance to be made in every foundation related committee between experiential diversity and geographic diversity. I feel like we have definitely hit the experiential aspect but we have not exactly hit the geographic aspect. What it will also say is that the idea that respecting people's pronouns and how they want other people to refer to them is Anglo-centric. That idea is patently unacceptable in the Wikimedia movement and not something that I'm going to address seriously. Because we have very clear history of maintaining a degree of tolerance and acceptance of other people's identities independent of people's traditional cultural beliefs. And on Wikimedia projects you have the right to be respected for how you want other people to refer to us. Thanks for that, Vermont. It's definitely an issue that is something that our communities are struggling with as well and I'm glad that we have a committee that is willing to tackle that issue. It is incredibly difficult. I'm going to close out our presentation today. I want to really thank Ruby, MJ, all Barkeep and Vermont for joining today. They've put in tremendous amounts of work with their other fellow committee members. And to do this presentation was something extra but they thought it was quite important and I agree it is important to help Wikimedia attendees understand where we are with the process. We saw a question earlier on about how can I give some feedback on these upcoming revisions. I just want to remind folks that we are having a community review of the revisions in the month of September. We have tentatively put September 7th as the opening date. Just be aware we might have to shift that but it looks like we should be good to go on September 7th. We will be working with our movement strategy and governance team to make sure that we get as much messaging out about that consultation as possible so that everyone knows how to take part. Again, if you have something that you really think you want on the table, there's many ways to reach out to the team. But we'll definitely communicate through on Wiki, social media, the new movement strategy forum as well and we'll do as much as we can to make sure that everyone has both the information they need to take part. But the ability to take part in different ways. So we're hoping to have some conversation hours so people can take part verbally as well as on Wiki consultations and gathering information through other channels. So we're trying to make this as accessible as possible. I see my little counter is getting down to 15 seconds. So again, I just want to thank all of our Wikimedia attendees for coming. You know, policy can be a dry topic, but we saw some great engagement and great ideas, great questions. And so I'll just wish everyone happy Thursday and I believe this is one of the last sessions of the day so if you're tired, get off the computer, go for a walk. Have a wonderful day.