 So this is the MCDC the movement charter drafting committee most of our members are here unfortunately Pepe and from Mexico and Erica from Argentina we're not in Brazil. Sorry We're not able to make it, but I'm gonna pass the mic to each of our my colleagues And they'll tell you who they are and where they're from Hello, I'm Richard user nose back bear, and I'm from the UK. I'm George from Cameroon I'm Jorge Vargas. I work for the foundation and I'm originally Colombian, but live in San Francisco I'm from India. I'm also a staff member on the at the Wikimedia foundation Hi, I'm Manip. I'm from India Good day, I'm Mihael from Wikimedia Poland and see hub. Hello. My name is Anna's and I'm from Morocco Hi, I'm Siu. I'm born and raised in the Netherlands I'm Richard user Feros. I'm from New York City and and secondarily from the United States Daria I'm from Poland and Wikimedia UK is a risker And clean and I'm from Canada And mainly work on the English Wikipedia. So that's who we are Most we were elected or selected by the community and the affiliates to represent the broad diversity of Thought on the issues of the Charter So we're on our agenda we're Introducing ourselves. We're telling you what's going on We're going to be having three break at groups and we're going to have two sessions of Breakouts, so the three groups are global council hubs and the ratification process and There will also be online attendees who will be Engaging in all the different questions that we are asking within these breakout groups And then we're going to follow up with some next steps So this is a very basic introduction to the drafts that we have going now We are all very well aware that these are not going to be the final drafts they are provided to the community for feedback so that we can improve and Take into consideration the concerns and ideas that come from the community members We were set about to do our task to ensure equity and decision-making within the movement We want to be Coming up with solutions that work Different differently and effectively for everybody to make this work We are working to build a movement Charter that will help us to do some of these things so way back a long time ago we published The preamble and the values that we were a stat we had established in developing the Charter and and We're working to define the movement to Identify what we're supposed to do with it We want to ensure that all stakeholders in the movement have their rights and responsibilities described and that it applies equally to both existing entities and potential future entities The values and the principles that the movement Charter builds on our free and open knowledge Inclusivity independence subsidiary decision-making at the level that has the most Responsibility for seeing that decision through equity accountability and resilience. We want this movement to continue to survive for many many years so our global council draft at You can read that. I can't read all of that The idea is that it is a body composed of volunteers that would have some support from staff and The volunteers on the global council come from a diverse range of Wikimediants from all over the world and with all kinds of different levels of experience within the movement It's intended to improve accountability and transparency To improve movement-wide decision-making systems to make sure that it's movement resources and Are more made more available and more equitably to individuals and to communities and We want to nurture trust amongst the stakeholders, which seems to be an ongoing issue The global council carries out its purpose by creating standards and objectives for groups across the movements Providing some oversight and some limited executive decision and that is based on the current draft that we have now So the discussion questions that we are asking you to help us figure out Are what are the pros and cons of different kinds of global council structures? small executive an advisory body a General Assembly all kinds of different structures have been proposed So we want to look at the pros and the cons of each of those and What is the relationship between the global council and the Wikimedia foundation and its board of trustees? Those are the two questions that we will be putting to the groups that are Having those breakout sessions With the hubs draft regional and thematic hubs are Intended to be structures from mutual support To help build a body of knowledge that is available to all and to support each other in various activities You know we want to learn we want to share knowledge we want to make that knowledge available to each other and The questions that we're going to be asking in that those discussion groups are Why would we start a hub? What would its purpose be and? What are the advantages of being in a being a member of a hub being as opposed to not being a member of a hub and The other question is about fundraising Do you agree that hubs should be able to fundraise independently from the WMF through non banner channels? And should all hubs both regional and thematic be able to fundraise? So those are important questions and you know you'll hear them again again the ratification draft proposal Comes from the fact that we recognize that there are very different types of stakeholders To whom this charter would apply and the first group obviously Our individual editors the next group is the individual projects Obviously the affiliates and the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Sort of in charge of their whole Wikimedia Foundation We'll be using probably secure poll as a voting platform for individuals and projects and It'll determine total votes of all the individual editors and each individual project Each affiliate will have one vote and their collective vote will determine the outcome of the affiliate vote and The Board of Trustees gets one vote So all four of those groups need to agree for the charter to be ratified So the discussion questions that we have are how do we balance transparency and privacy in these in the voting process? And how can we reassure voters that counts are accurate and fair? And and that the result is valid if we Take steps to protect the privacy of the individual voters in this process So you have your ideas as you can start to figure out where you want to wind up being We just wanted to let you know that roles and responsibilities, which was published just before Wikimedia is intended to ensure that entities and stakeholders within the movement have Have decentralized roles and responsibilities and that those roles and responsibilities our distributors Equally equitably, that's a hard work as possible across the movement And responsibilities are delegated to the lowest reasonable level and there's also a glossary that was published in July it's giving Giving people an idea of how we are using specific terms within the charter we're trying to use those terms consistently throughout the document and part of the reason for the development of a glossary instead of linking to wiki pages or External sources is to ensure that if those other sources Make have changes in the future. They will not change the meaning of the term within the charter So it's time now for our breakout sessions. I think what we'll do is we'll do hubs there ratification over here and Global council up here So please feel free to move around grab a drink of water while you're at it Really back five minute warning five minute warning for your breakout group before we switch everyone the first round of the Okay, 20 seconds 20 seconds and then I'll give instructions Okay, the first round of the breakouts is over Listen carefully you can stay within your group if you want or you can take this opportunity to rotate groups The global council is up here the hubs over there the ratifications over there You can stay in your group and continue the conversation or you can take this opportunity to rotate groups and Meet new people and talk about new things. It will be another 30 minutes I'll give you 60 seconds to move around if you want I I I I I Minute warning five minute warning I Hi everyone Hi, it's the bear of bad news It is time to wrap up unless you want to like go into your lunchtime. We got a wrap up now Um, so Yes, we're gonna wrap up right now I'm gonna ask the MCDC members from each group to recap what they heard and then And then the group members if If there's discrepancy in what they recapt you have a you have an option to refute it as well But MCC members recap your sessions Yes to everyone you're gonna recap to everyone so everyone knows what's happening I will walk around with the mic who wants to go first Okay, I'm getting a request for two more minutes, so I'm gonna give this group two more minutes They will go last as well. That's what you get two more minutes Okay Here we go Hubs you want to go first You ready Jorge? Okay, so the hubs group is going the hubs group is going to recap what they shared and the hubs participant can You know veto what he said, okay? We have to start again Delete everything start from zero No, so I mean a lot of amazing feedback that trying to summarize it It's gonna be complicated, but I would try to maybe highlight three main points one is that The Charter around hubs is being too specific It's talking about things that may not exist in the future What if regional fund committees or AFCOM or something like that that is mentioned in the Charter in general but also in the context of hubs is Stuff figure that it's no longer there so definitely trying to take the element of going back a lot of steps and making this more of a as a Charter just a high-level Constitution and then allow Policies to be discussed around fundraising for instance So jumping to the second point when we discussed the fundraising element there was definitely no clear consensus on How would the fundraising work what vehicles should be done? But maybe the Charter shouldn't even get to that point that Contrary point that we were saying and as drafting committee is the fact that fundraising seems to be like the topic that everyone wants to talk about and we felt the Pressure of having to like also find ways to discuss this in the Charter. So that was the other thing And I would say that the third point was that we really need to reduce the hub anxiety there's this notion of If I'm not in a hub, I'm gonna miss out and we have to be way more specific or explicit in the Charter that Not being in a hub is not bad But in the contrary we should really refocus on how can we make affiliates stronger even if they're not in a hub So trying to reduce the hub anxiety that the movement is currently under there's a lot of more But I think that that's I don't Okay You know refute what he said. No good job. Good job. We have ratification next So we talked our focus was on how how to or our questions were focused on how to ensure trust in the outcome if we were to Make private more of the information that comes with using secure pull and what and I want we sort of figured Yeah, yeah, that's not a problem was the feedback that we got we'll we'll figure that out, but it was more Is this the way that we want to vote? Do we want to use cure pole should projects be able to vote in different ways? what and and looking at the actual complexity of how we are setting up the vote We got a lot of really useful feedback on different suggestions on how to carry out the vote I thought it was very interesting that you know here. We were so worried about You know Having people have faith in the result and their concern was the practicalities of the vote And I think that told us what we needed to know. So we really appreciate this feedback We derailed a little bit from the original questions and then also talked about the difference between Voting for the charter to say okay This is the charter that we want as a movement and then in the next step ratifying it for your own Organization or community because we think like yeah, we thought it would probably be two different steps Thank you application Global counsel my rowdy group you're next Who of the MCDC members wants to recap what they learned and take I Will try really my best we had a lot of rich discussions, and I know we want to eat lunch So I will be very very quick But but really it was incredibly useful feedback for us a lot of ideas that we received so we obviously talked about the global council and most specifically we talked about a lot of things but the most Specific part we talked about especially in the beginning was the structure So the different types of structure that we had in the beginning we presented the Scenarios that we had and we put pros and cons for each one But then we went to a third scenario which was to have just a general assembly following the European model and most of the discussions were there about what are the pros and cons about That model and if it would apply to a global context or global movement But it was really very useful discussions I'm sure that we will have the the notes later to To go into the details We also had very useful discussions about specific concepts. Maybe That we need to to think about also later. For example, what is democracy? What is accountability? What how do we ensure accountability? How can we? Have diversity because if we have direct elections We will not have the diversity that we strive for these are not easy questions And the the good thing is that we have diverse members also who came in between the two sessions So we have a lot of opinions from different Parts of the world also. So we saw a lot of useful perspectives. So, yes We I am a bit overwhelmed with all the the info that we received but really thank you everyone who who participated I probably missed a lot of points, but it's because it was a lot of really useful ideas I don't know if anyone wants to mention some specific idea that they liked I think the note that we have taken for ourselves is that we need to prepare a parallel document to the charter to explain How we have read a certain conclusion on why what are the basics behind how we have proposed a certain structure that is one Ask and the second ask is that in the scenario to that we have explained There is no accountability that we have set for the executive body with the larger group And the suggestion is that if you're going with that model We'll irrespective of the terminology that we have used here There should be accountability which should which the executive body should have with the larger group And that's the general agreement that we have I think we're gonna have lunch over this, but I think that's it My dad you want to wrap us up with next steps Hey, well, thank you so much Even when we were designing the flow of these conversations I mean drafts were shared in July the MCDC worked really really hard y'all Drafting groups multiple times a week weekends I think I don't even know we have yet one Sunday free this whole summer So this takes a lot of effort hours of calls and it's so great and the whole thought as even anas opened This group was this is not a final verdict. This is not a mandate It's the whole thought was let's have documents out so people can react to it like you are doing here So thank you so much and the conversation continues. The whole thought was July August Let it be online. Let's hear what people are saying on wiki. We're getting great response on that Wikimania was really seen as a milestone. Let's engage with people in person. So thank you so much for contributing here and Conversation continues online on calls and also I mean September to November to many regional events happening We he commenced your Franco phone wiki in Dabba. There's so much So look for yes the German speaking wiki con and the summit pre-engagement So Yes, please join please share ideas please speak to your MCDC at a call and continue to share thoughts and Hopefully new drafts We be shared we'll see we'll we'll share with you at an updated comms plan. Hopefully at the end of wiki mania Thank you so much. Bon appetit when Provecho