 Okay, trying to tune in to see if there are responses right now. I'm seeing there are some responses coming up, generally on Facebook saying, hello from Amsterdam. Someone says from Facebook, okay, thanks. That's curative. And let's check YouTube. I'm not sure if I open the YouTube link if the sound will play, but I will try to mute that. Let us know. Welcome, everybody. There are plenty of responses on the YouTube stream. Hello from Iran. Algeria, hello, Bishunda. Nicholas, hello. Okay, Chris says hello from San Luis, Missouri, USA. Hello from Illinois, from here. Hello, Russ says hello from UK. Hello from Jakarta. Hi, hello from the Hague, the Netherlands. Rosie is from Nevada. Oh, that's okay. So many people. Hello, everyone, welcome. Okay, that's a really good start to our meeting. Let's go to the slides and see what we have. Okay, this was a good start. Turning over to the Slack screen. There is a great difficulty in the world right now. Things are not okay. There is racial injustice in the United States and around the world. There is economic uncertainty and an ongoing global pandemic. However, our movement is up and to everyone. We invite and welcome. We are committed to sharing the world's knowledge with everyone, from everyone for free. So this brand process too is up and to everyone. It depends on everyone. Hello and welcome. Today we're looking at things together because we are in this together. This is a time to test and refine ideas. We expect immediate concerns and watch outs in ways we can do better. It's not how good we are today. It's how good we want to be. So you can look at today's agenda. We will walk you through the updated timeline quickly together to take a look on the overview of the project and the naming process, which is going to take us to the most expated moment, the three naming convention proposals explained. And we're also going to explain the feedback providing process and at the end of the day, there will be an open queue and a session. For all of your questions, please put them in the live chat on either YouTube live, Facebook live or IRC channel, Wikimedia office. We will be collecting them for the Q&A. Taking a look at the updated timeline, this is where we are in the process working on naming with design scheduled to start in July. Today is June 16, and we are sharing the naming convention proposals with you. This marks the beginning of collecting community feedback from you. Thanks, which is scheduled to run through the end of June. All right, with that, I would like to turn this over to Esi to provide us with an overview on the project. Esi. Thanks, Amir. Hi, everyone. I am Esi Zahir, the senior brand manager at the Wikimedia Foundation and I am joining you from Brooklyn, New York. So this is our brand architecture today. It centers on the word Wikimedia and uses this round logo. We've been using it since 2003 and you can see that it's used by the Wikimedia Foundation below too. The problem is that Wikimedia is not well known. It's confusing. It does not impart who we are as a movement, even though it is widely used. This comes from research in 2018, prepared in parallel with movement strategy to understand how our brands were understood. Wikimedia is a different story. In research, we've concluded that Wikimedia is world famous and widely used with growing awareness and reputation. Loons of internet users visit Wikipedia each month, making it a bright spot of activity on the internet and the world. It is a part of culture, a beloved resource and something to brag about. These were suggested Wikimedia mentions from the brand network, by the way. So thank you to you all. And while we inside the movement see Wikimedia as one of the projects, specifically an encyclopedia, the studies show that the internet users see it more broadly as a place to find a credible information, a free knowledge resource. They see it like we see the movement. And we have a responsibility to meet the 2030 goals. And this includes inviting billions of people to join us and our brand can help with this. A brand is a beautiful tool, it's a front door, a way in. We have an opportunity to make the door easier to find and more inviting, to show off all the things we are and how things connect. Wikipedia is that front door, it already is. Our research shows that shortening the distance between what people know us for, Wikipedia and what we want to talk about our movement, our projects, is the most strategic and cost effective way for us to move towards 2030. So at a glance, the project summary, there's a problem. Wikimedia is unknown and confusing to the outside world. And what this means is that movement branding is not serving its purpose, our tool is faulty. So the solution is to create a unified movement brand using Wikipedia as the reference point, the central reference point. But to do this, we need to do this with our community. People join the movements that move them and our community is our most inspiring quality. In phase one of this project, we explore this question, who are we as a movement and collaborated with community members in Norway, India, when we could travel and zoom just like this. These representatives gathered reflected more than 65 affiliates, 41 countries and dozens of languages. They included everyone from individual contributors to the board of trustees. And together we created 23 concepts that represent what our movement is. To look at all the 23 concepts together, you will see a lot of common themes, but we needed just one. So we shared all 23 proposals to the Wikimedia community and asked for feedback and endorsements so we could distill it further. From more than 1300 responses, connections received the most endorsements and comments. And our partners now had to realize that connections were slightly incomplete, that actually they wanted to celebrate how the movement strength comes from forging connections across boundaries, experiences, subjects, languages, cultures, people and so much more. They proposed interconnection as a brand concept and it has felt right. So allow me to introduce our partner from Snohetna, Sanda, are you here? Yes, hi and hello everyone. I am Sanda Zahirovich, the strategic advisor here at Snohetna joining you from Oslo, Norway, which today is crazy hot by the way. So when we started this phase of the project, we realized we have to zoom out and look at the totality as one whole and not as individual players within the movement. It was important for us to understand how it's all interconnected. And even though project names are out of the scope and we're leaving them on alone, we had to see how they live within the movement today and what we can learn to bring with us into the future. Starting with creating an understanding of how the different organizations and initiatives within the Wikimedia movement interact and connect to one another, but also how they connect to the movement today. By doing this, we saw the opportunity to create a naming convention that connects the legal organizations within the movement closer together like foundation, chapters and thematic organizations. So this required a more fixed naming convention. On the other hand, when looking at how naming is applied to user groups, initiatives, events and existing projects and from talking to you and learning from you in our meetings together, we know this naming convention also needs flexibility. Whenever we start a naming project, we have to remind ourselves of what is a good naming convention. And for us, it has to be consistent by reducing confusion and strengthening brand as a whole. It has to be clear, preferably short, but definitely easy to understand. And it has to communicate. It has to use descriptive terms that explain what you do. With this in mind, we use the concept interconnection actively to explore words and definition that took us in several different directions and helped us define different areas of the movement. Terms like network, group, alliance, organization, society. An important criteria for us in this process was securing words that are understandable and adaptable to local languages. But also words that bear the right association. For instance, the description of alliance fits really well to how the many parts of the movement are connected together. However, the association that quickly comes to mind are often political and sometimes even associated with military and war. We explored names, statements and symbols that are already existing in the movement like Wikipedia, Wiki, Free Knowledge or simply just the W and testing them as names for the naming convention. It was clear that Wikipedia was the strongest option but hidden inside of Wikipedia obviously is Wiki, a four letter word. And this we thought was really exciting. We observed that Wiki is a big part of your movement and a big part of the internet parlance. And research conducted in April 2020 shows that Wiki is strongly associated with Wikipedia more in fact than any other brand. So we wanted to see this going forward. This process got us to a set of options for both a name and a descriptive term for the different organizations and initiatives within the movement that can be intercombined. However, the creative process can only take us this far especially when working with naming we need to involve legal expertise early to guide us in a safe and a financially responsible direction. Now, this is where this process becomes a dance where creative thinking and rational solutions have to go hand in hand. And on that note, I want to hand it over to legal. Chuck, are you there? Yes, I am, hello. I am Chuck Rosloff, one of the lawyers at the Wikimedia Foundation and I'm joining you from San Francisco, California. I'm going to talk about what we learned when we looked further into the ideas that made it to the later stages of the process. These are the four dominant terms that we examined more closely including considering legal implications for use in naming systems. So the first is Wikipedia which is leading with our best known brand. And there's Wiki which is leading by association, free knowledge which is leading with our purpose and W which is leading with simplicity. So when we were looking into these we discarded a W because it didn't meet our needs. The simplicity of just W presents challenges from a trademark perspective and the current association with W is more in visual identity than in naming. For example, the W is used in the Wikipedia app icon. Free knowledge describes a core part of what we are about but that descriptiveness makes it extremely difficult to protect as a trademark. It would require a considerable marketing investment sustained over at least several years to establish the term and its connection to us in order to serve the global goals we have. The situation with Wiki is a little more complicated. We already knew of course how Wiki is used as a common branding element currently within the projects and communities and in our conversations with community members we heard many folks ask about Wiki based branding. We knew that Wiki is used as a shorthand to refer to Wikipedia externally as Sanda mentioned and we conducted some research that showed just how strongly people associated Wiki with Wikipedia compared to other Wiki based brands. However, in large part because of those other brands and websites that use Wiki and are not associated with our movement using Wiki on its own presents significant challenges from a legal and trademark perspective. The presence of Wiki as a dictionary word also makes it more difficult to protect through trademark registrations and therefore difficult to prevent others from using. We considered variants on Wiki as a standalone branding term that would combine it with some generic terms for describing organizations but we found those options presented similar challenges to just Wiki by itself. So in all based on our investigation our recommendation was that Wiki can remain in the proposals but only as a more informal element as opposed to the formal elements that are used for organization names. And so you'll see more about that hybrid option coming up and to tell you about the options what you've been waiting for, I'll hand it over to Zach. Thanks Jack. Hi everyone, my name is Zach McHune and I'm the director of brand here at the Wikimedia Foundation. It's great to be with you all really is and I am joining you from San Francisco, California like Chuck. Today I'm gonna tell you about three naming conventions which have come from the process Essie, Sanda and Chuck have outlined. In these naming conventions we find two naming conventions strongly centered on Wikipedia and one naming convention that uses Wiki and Wikipedia. We call it the hybrid and it's an exciting option as well. Let's move forward. Today we're showing you these options and they are things we want you to react to. Your concerns, your watchouts, your skepticism, your this doesn't work callouts are precisely what we're here to find. Overall, we are here to remove things that don't work, to refine things that need to be improved and to recombine elements that people like together so that the system works well. And you can think about this a little bit like magnetic poetry which is what this is supposed to illustrate here. If there's a term that you find particularly exciting, powerful and you think it should be taken away from a system that you don't think is as strong there will be a way for you to tell us that. We wanna learn that through this process with you. I also want to remind everyone to ride the reaction curve. We know that this work here is incredibly emotional and we know that as Wikimedians people who have created the meaning and understanding of our movement in the world you're going to have a very strong reaction to this as it's part of your identity. You may feel disappointed right away or excited right away and later you might have a different feeling. We encourage you to spend some time riding out the ride and fall of how you feel about naming ideas right away a little later and possibly a day or more later as well because we wanna know how these names could work in the long term. That's super important to us. With that, I want to take you through the conventions. So Essie, just give me one second here. I'm gonna go, we got a lot here so I'm gonna just take some coffee. All right. Let's go. Option one, Wikipedia as a network. In this option, we use the word network to show that this movement is an interconnected set of parts. Projects, affiliates, user groups, partners, all linked together. Encouraging people to notice that Wikipedia is not alone, it's part of something, something that they had never noticed before. In this approach, we would describe projects like WikiData as part of the Wikipedia network. And the foundation would be called the Wikipedia Network Trust to communicate the organization's role in protecting the credibility, the longevity and the security of people and projects in our movement. Oh, and I'll say this right now. There is no Pangolin's user group. There is no chapter in Antarctica. We have used those as example chapters, as example user groups. They are illustrative, demonstrative, rather than literal ones, but hey, we encourage everything. When we look at Wikipedia Network as a naming proposal, we see some rewards, some risks and some things to call out. The rewards in this approach come from putting the word network next to our very well-known term, Wikipedia. We think it invites people to combine the familiar with the unfamiliar and say, what is the Wikipedia Network? What is in the Wikipedia Network? And that starts the conversation that we know so many of us in the movement wanna have. We wanna show that we are an essential infrastructure that we're a vast set of activities and this starts the conversation right. The risks are also related to this word. Network can imply something corporate. It can imply a media company. It can hide the fact that humans are important by suggesting that it's just technology. So in a lot of ways, the risks and rewards hinge on this same phrase and how it's interpreted. It has some really powerful qualities and some things that are challenging. In legal understandings here, there was a call out around trust and trust is probably something that many of you will start to think about in looking at this name. Trust works very well in English but we've discovered that in translations, it's not always possible to communicate the same qualities that trust has in English. And that also means that legally there's some work to be done in terms of establishing precisely how fitting trust is to describe the foundation. How would this sound? Each time we're gonna take a look at the ways this naming system would sound if we could kind of go around with it. In this, we would say that the Wikipedia network is committed to setting knowledge free. Chapters and thematic organizations would be able to say things like, I'm contacting you from Wikipedia network Antarctica or the region or the topic, the theme that they are committed to. And of course, you could quickly say, I am part of Wikipedia group penguins to distinguish the user group activities that you are a part of. So in all that is option one, Wikipedia as a network. Let's go to option two. In option two, we call the movement what it is, a movement and we celebrate that it is made of groups and organizations. In short, in option two, we use human terms to make it explicit that Wikipedia is made by and for people, making the people of the movement the most visible. In this approach, instead of foundation, we use the term organization, which is also used by chapters and thematic orgs. The reason is we've heard from a number of people that foundation does not fully impart the range of work that the organization does and that chapters too feel sometimes that their title is not quite defining the incredible set of things that are happening. It can imply that it's simply a charity rather than a place for advocacy, for partnership building, for software development, for product development. So many things are happening within our organizations. We think it's worth describing them as bigger. In this approach, the risks and rewards are explicitly linked to the people terms we use. It's exciting to think about actually calling Wikipedia a movement because movement strategy and the amazing collaborations that have happened there have made us all aware of how interconnected we are and how when we come together, we share a great deal of power to rethink how things happen not only in our projects, but in the internet's knowledge ecosystem and the world itself. Some of the risks here is that organization can feel generic. It can sometimes lack the institutional esteem that we might wanna communicate with our organization names. So this is one of those moments for the magnetic poetry. Like we want you to hammer on organization and also to consider, does it work better short as just org? Let's go ahead here and move to what it sounds like. In this, the Wikipedia movement is committed to setting knowledge free. People could relate that they work at the Wikipedia organization. Projects like Wikidatae would be described as part of the Wikipedia movement. It's similar to option one in a few areas and distinct in others. We're excited to hear what you think of it. So option two, Wikipedia as a movement. Let's go to option three. In our third option, we use both Wiki and Wikipedia. We link our best known brand with our most beloved recurring naming element. This hybrid system celebrates openness while leveraging our biggest brand to pursue our 2030 goals. As you heard from Chuck, the legal team has advised that Wiki, it can't be used as a very, very formal naming element. And that means that the places it gets used are places that we intend to not enforce a great deal of legal protection. Places where we invite a lot of invention, of generativity, of even anarchy that we make the movement thrive by allowing this name to live outside of tight legal control and tight control of our thinking. What that then sets up is a need for the institutional parts of the movement to have something that they can use strongly and that's Wikipedia. So in this system, the chapters and thematic orgs would use Wikipedia foundation Antarctica or another modifier term and the foundation would be simply Wikipedia foundation. To go forward into the rewards and the risks, there's a lot to say here. This is perhaps the most complicated of the naming proposals. So outlining the risks and rewards is more complex. The rewards are that we use the same four letters across everything, our projects, our campaigns, our events, our groups, our slogans. Wiki love to everybody out there now. And we get to protect the parts of the movement that need protection, which allows chapters, thematic orgs and the foundation to identify strongly with Wikipedia while enabling other parts of the movement who want to be open and fast and iterative and reflect the spirit of Wiki software to use Wiki. The risks are that we do not own the word Wiki. We know it is used by others. And while our market research shows us that remarkable outcome, which is that 92% of internet users think of Wikipedia when they see Wiki, we know there will be other Wiki brands constantly and we will need to delineate between who is inside of our movement and who is outside of our movement. That will be work in this system that we'll need to do. It is a part that we could solve with design, which is something we'll be looking at later in this process. But it's just something that we wanna absolutely make clear and flagging to you all today. When we go to what this sounds like, it's a little different. Wiki is a movement committed to setting knowledge free. We describe projects as Wiki projects, organizations as Wiki organizations. And that enables user groups to be simply Wiki groups. As I said previously, we then outline that the Wikipedia foundation and Wikipedia foundation Antarctica share that foundation element. This is another chance to say that an exciting part of the system is putting the foundation and chapters and thematic orgs in a shared namespace. So instead of the sense of separation that can sometimes happen between the foundation and our extraordinary chapters, we actually wanna celebrate the closeness. This is something that Sondis said earlier. So I had to pointed it out right away. In all, that is option three, Wiki and Wikipedia, the hybrid system as we call it. Something to tell you, every naming element can be localized. We want that just as Wikipedia, the name is localized. We want these naming elements to be localized to fit the needs of you, our community. And so as you start to think on these names and to reflect on them, thinking about what you feel is helpful and what's not, what needs to be refined, what could be recombined and what could be removed. I'd also ask you to start thinking what terms can be localized in a really exciting way? How does network hold the qualities that you want to communicate about our movement? How does movement translate or is it difficult? We'd love to learn those things. So with that, I would like to turn it over to Essie, back to Essie, so that we can tell you how to get involved, because right now we need to learn from you. Essie, take it away. Big Zach, big breath. All right, so our plan for sharing and collecting feedback is an open call for comments. To process the hundreds of responses we expect, we'll use a survey that will be available in seven languages. And from the two weeks of community feedback we expect to, like Zach said, we're gonna remove, refine and recombine elements for a synchronized naming proposal. So we've shared the proposals that's happening right now. Surveys are gonna go live today, and then two weeks we'll go by, and then we'll get refining, combining, and solidifying. So based on the 2019 community review, there are the six criteria that the naming convention proposals need to help deliver on. So I would also just start asking yourselves, like, will these naming proposals help, say, explain who we are and resolve confusion, or will they help support movement growth? And the survey will guide you through this in helping answering this. So a bit more on the survey. First, it's available in the seven languages, German, English, Spanish, French, Russian, Arabic, and Chinese, and use the version you prefer. We did this to hear from across our global movement and learn how the names work, fail in different languages, which is very important. So we're collecting feedback from affiliate liaisons, individual contributors, and foundation steering committee members. So everyone gets the same survey, except for the first page to identify whose feedback this is. We would greatly appreciate your feedback on each proposal. So there's three sections of the survey. We would love you to go through it all. And if you have an idea, something you want to suggest, we truly welcome that, and there is a section in the survey for you to put that in. And at the end, let us know which ideas are the most ready for refining and which we should consider removing. So this is where you can move it up and down to the rank which one from top preference. And that is it. So we've shared out the naming convention proposals will be live for two weeks and then we'll have an open office hour next week and we'll share the link out with that later. So handing it over to you, Elena, are you there? I am. Hi, everybody. I'm Elena Lappin, based in San Francisco. And I will be hosting the Q&A. We have a lot of really great questions to be asked and as usual, we are monitoring YouTube, Facebook and IRC and I will be compiling different questions to try to get as many answers as we can in the 25 minutes that we have left. So let's get started. The first set of questions is around movement identity. First question. What is the purpose of movement branding? Why is a movement brand important? Wow, what a great question. And thanks, Elena, for taking this on. I actually think the first thing we should say is this the fastest we've ever done this, which means there's more time for questions. So excited about that. Movement identity. The strength of what we are doing comes from why we are doing it and how much we share across the projects. When we first started to look at movement brands in 2018 with Wolf-Hollens, we learned that the projects felt they were in competition with each other. That there was a paradigm that like things had to kind of compete for the attention of the internet. That Wikidata was in tension with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons was in tension with Wikisource. What that let us know is that there wasn't a strong sense of the shared spirit we all hold, that spirit that people experience when they go to events like Wikimedia and realize exactly how remarkably shared our vision and our commitments are. So we have realized that in supporting, again, the work of movement strategy, which has asked the whole movement to set common goals, we realized that brand two should reflect that we are a united effort. And while our projects and our affiliates, while our roles to play are different, they share some really profound common elements that should be celebrated quickly. Practically what that means is that if you encounter any one part of our vast global movement with lots of different free knowledge projects, it should increase your understanding of the whole rather than just the one. And so we've been really looking to network, to interconnect the parts, so that each bit of brand awareness that Wikipedia got wouldn't turn pay into the shared values we have as a movement, that if you learned about an affiliate in one country, you would be excited to discover that there are a network of affiliates. If you meet one user group at an outreach event, you would be thrilled to learn that there are others. I think in celebrating a movement identity, we're basically saying you are not alone. We are not alone. And for anyone who shares a commitment to free knowledge, they are already part of our movement and we want them to notice that and to discover who we are, what we have to offer and how much we need to learn from them. That's kind of my first thoughts on that. Thank you. So when we're talking about the movement brand and why it's important for us, there's a question about how the movement's identity was captured in this exercise. How the movement's identity was captured. Yeah, how was the community's own identity considered in branding? Almost all of the six branding criteria are outward facing perceptions. So how do we take into account the internal identity of our movement and were those risks assessed and weighed? Okay, we're gonna answer that as two parts. The criteria and how they are external facing versus internal facing. And then how has this project made sense or included really relied on the movement's identity? So I'll start with the movement's identity. The movement's identity is best expressed in the people who make up the movement. That is the single best expression of it. And to bring that into this process, we have undertook the workshops the very beginning. Before naming was considered, before design was considered, before any actual branding elements were considered, our partners at SNOW had to facilitate at these discussions across the movement. And when I say across the movement, I mean across perspectives. We had the board of trustees joining individual contributors. As Essie said, we ended up having people come from 41 nations, from 65 different affiliates. And these people, these participants, these representatives, often think that they don't share a lot in common. And the exercise we asked them to do was to try to distill the movement down into a single word, into a single visual. That exercise was one of the most profound ways we could get a sense for the movement's identity as it is now. And that was not external facing, that was deeply internal facing. The things people came up with, galaxy, ocean, public good connections. Each of those things was a celebration of the experiences that movement members have being a part of our movement. But as Essie said, looking at that set of 23 concepts, you can notice that they're actually really profoundly external as well. In fact, I actually think that referring to this as internal versus external is probably not a good way to think of it. Like an ocean is so vast and has so many parts. Ocean was suggested more than once as a brand concept. Just as galaxy is so vast and has so many parts. And that was suggested more than once as a brand concept. Those things are all about their vastness and about the fact that there is not a really obvious inside and outside, that they're parts of vast ecosystems. So that's one of the ways in which that exercise captured that the movement itself likes to think about its role in the world and how big it is. So then Alain, I wanna go to that second comment, the criteria. So there's six criteria there and they go from explain who we are and clarify confusion to be opt in. They include asks to support the sister projects to grow the movement. I don't think they're very internal versus external. I think some of them are stronger internal versus external. Being opt in, that's a celebration of the self-determinance of our movement, very internal. Supporting sister projects. That's something that I would say is maybe more internal than external, but grow the movement and explain who we are and resolve confusion. I agree, very external. I think it's a nice blend of internal and external challenges for us to achieve with our brand. Thank you. Okay, so the last question on movement identity for now is around Wicca media. We have a comment that there hasn't been a compelling case made about why we need to potentially move away from Wicca media. And the questions are about why is Wicca media not an option and then have there been options that have been considered that aren't involving Wickey or Wikipedia or Wicca media? Well, I think we can do the second question first. Options that there were options as Chuck and Sanda outlined that did not involve Wikipedia or Wickey. W, free knowledge, those were looked at closely as possibilities to use a different type of naming element. Doing the work of rethinking names allows us to say what kinds of names should we be using to explain who we are? When it comes to the question around there hasn't been a compelling case for Wicca media or excuse me, there hasn't been a compelling case why we can't use Wicca media. One thing that's super important to this process is that if affiliates feel Wicca media is working for them, they can continue to use Wicca media. We actually did a consultation across the movement a year ago in which we asked people to think about the proposal to center branding around Wikipedia. And as part of that, we asked people to tell us what they liked about Wicca media. We didn't get many responses to that question. So I actually put the question back, like tell us what works about Wicca media. We're hearing a lot of, of course concerns, challenges of moving to Wikipedia but the defense of Wicca media as a tool for expanding our movement for reducing confusion, applying the same brand criteria to Wicca media. We found that it does not score well. Really, that's what we have. And I want to acknowledge as well that this is one of those fundamental tensions in this project. I think it's a healthy tension. Our movement takes all things from decisions to articles about sensitive topics. It takes them with such seriousness that we dig deep into the possibilities. So I don't think that this is working towards a singular unified instant conclusion here. And I encourage us to continue having the discussion around this. At this point here, in this process, we invite you to think about these new naming alternatives and ask us how they could be even better improved. If you are feeling strongly about Wicca media as an identity, we invite you to put it into the system, as Essie said, in the open-ended parts and tell us what's working right there about that system for you so we can understand. Thanks, Zach. There's a request for you to elaborate a little bit more on what the open-ended element is where people can suggest their own naming convention. Can you just go over that very quickly how that's part of the survey? Essie, do you want to do that? I'm going to have some more. Yeah, I'll do this one. Yes, so at the nearer to the end of the survey, there's a section where it calls out the naming structure, so movement tagline, user groups, chapters, thematic orgs, and foundation. And basically, you can go in and put whatever recommendation you think works for any of those categories. And you don't have to fill the whole thing out if you just think, actually, I've just got a better suggestion for the movement name. I've just got a better suggestion for the foundation. You can just fill that in with just so any elements welcome or you can do a whole new full proposal, fill that out, and we will receive it. So it's basically, there's the template in there for you to create. Great, thank you for that. OK, the next set of questions is about legal and reputational implications. So this first one's for Chuck. It seems the legal team has mainly reviewed legal risks associated with US trademark laws. What about the legal risks faced by affiliates if their name is more strongly associated with Wikipedia? And have you talked to lawyers in other countries about other issues? Hi, yeah. So first, we have spoken with attorneys in dozens of countries around the world, actually. We were trying to get a very broad perspective on the trademark issues because trademark laws vary locally and we really wanted to make sure we understood what the landscape was, especially if we were going to be using any of that analysis to eliminate any options. We wanted to make sure we preserved as wide a range of naming options as possible. Regarding other non-trademark concerns, I know that affiliates have brought up some of these questions in the past and there is a portion of, correct me if I'm wrong, Essie, but there's a portion of the survey where affiliates can write in any of the concerns that they have. I think if that is, yeah, is that right? No, yeah, their affiliates can, there's a chance for them to write out what their name would be in the structure and then tell us how they feel about it and then expand on that area as well. Great, and I think if any affiliate feels that they're not comfortable sharing like a legal concern in that form or they just want to expand on it in more detail, they're welcome to reach out to me directly as well. And what would really help us support affiliates and provide the information they need to really evaluate these options is if there are concerns to be as specific as possible about the consequences that the affiliate is concerned about. That'll help us know like, is this sort of like a vague unease or is it like, no, we think if we change our name to Wikipedia, this will happen or this will happen or this will happen. So yeah, we definitely like that conversation is still ongoing and we want to make sure that we're hearing from affiliates who understand their situation in their countries better than we do. Thank you. So we have a couple of follow-up questions about that, about particular areas that we may have spoken with lawyers and done legal reviews on particular parts of the world. I just want to echo what Chuck said and remind people that this survey, these proposals in the survey are really a starting point for discussion. And so we really want you to help us identify what it is that we can be looking into in the next couple of months and really help come to like the strongest proposal possible with the risks that you have identified addressed already. So again, starting point for discussion use the survey to identify what exactly it is that you need. The survey does have some preliminary legal comments. We're also releasing a legal review of some of the naming options that is longer, but please, the survey is for you to tell us exactly what you need to be able to make the best decision for you. Okay, great. So next question is about chapters specifically in the naming conventions where they have foundation involved in their name. Are there implications for chapters if their naming convention makes them sound like subsidiaries of the foundation? What if the organizational forum of a chapter isn't a foundation? Would that still be part of its name? I would say that that sounds like great feedback. So we don't have an answer to that. I'd ask for that to be added into response. That's exactly the sort of thing we want to think through. Great, thank you. The next question I will direct towards Snow Heta. Snow Heta, did you review any of the naming options that you put forward in other languages? Did you look at repercussions in other languages or did you keep your proposals and your analysis to English only? Yes, so we had a multilingual team working on this with us. So we tested this on the go as well as other naming options specifically. We did reach out to our own global employees across the world to translate the meanings for us. And this was both done for the names but also for the terms. Like we said earlier, it was really important for us that the terms themselves worked in the local languages as well as the naming as well. So yeah, that was a really important criteria for us. But also I just want to add that this is also a place where we want feedback on if it is local, if we can localize it and we think we should localize everything. So if there are better suggestions on different languages that need to be localized the other way around into English, then that would be really interesting to hear as well. So there is a follow-up question about why not make the survey translatable so that people can really give this multilingual feedback in their native language. And I just want to clarify that the survey and the proposals have already been translated into the six languages that Essie mentioned earlier. So when you go to take the survey you will be able to select your language to take the survey in and to read the proposals. The survey text is also available on Wiki and the proposals are also available on Wiki. So if your language is not covered already that is translatable and you are free and we would love if you want to go in and translate those texts on Wiki into your own language and we can input them into the survey when they're ready. I want to turn quickly to the RFC. The statement first is that the RFC clearly and nearly unanimously said it's not okay to use Wikipedia in names for the movement. Why are you disregarding this community input? Thanks for asking that, Melina. We are not disregarding that input. Our team looked and followed that with great interest and found that a lot of the themes shared in that RFC followed the six criteria, concerns about confusion, concerns about how it would benefit sister projects, how it would support movement growth. One thing we asked during the RFC in commenting on it was that we felt it was a premature discussion that it was taking an option off the table before we had arrived at this moment here to actually look at how naming could be a tool for us something that could bring the movement together. And so we now feel that this is the moment where we wanna have the discussions about naming. This process is so wonderfully unique and I would say it's wonderfully Wiki. We intend to do branding in a way that no other organization does branding. Branding is often done to the benefit of the longevity of an organization. It's done by a few people and they do it in secret and they do it to produce a strong result and they refine and they refine and they refine and they bring it out and they deploy it and there's great dissatisfaction. This process has the exciting dimension of having dissatisfaction and frustration alongside the enthusiasm and the hope as it goes by being open and iterative. And so I really hope that at this moment people can join us in thinking about names because this is our moment to think about names, to talk about names. So welcome and thank you for being a part of the naming discussion now. We recognize that the RFC discussions started a lot of the naming conversations but we don't think that that's the exclusive or the only set of perspectives on name. One of the reasons we've done the translations that we've done here that we've outlined central notice banners that we've built a network of affiliates across the world is because it's a movement brand. It has to reflect many parts of our world and many parts of our movements experiences. And to that we've actually had to create an even bigger discussion than just the one that happened on the RFC. Thank you. I wanna ask a couple of questions about the feedback period and the process. So these will probably go to Essie. Let me combine two pretty frequent questions into one question since we have five minutes left. First is would the team consider making the comment period longer than two weeks? So that's number one. And then number two, on the survey is there an option to express that people don't agree with any of the three options? And would the community be able to make another option if they don't agree with the three? Right. So first question, can we extend the two weeks? We've definitely thought about it for the affiliate liaisons knowing that they're going to be doing collective feedback into the survey. So 100% for the affiliate liaisons. If you need more time, you just let us know. I think we need to gauge it for the individual contributor survey, but I'm sure if we hear that people need more time, we will make sure that there is some more time available. Secondly, each proposal that you look at in the survey, there is a moment where it says, like generally, how do you feel about this proposal? And if you do not believe in it or don't see the strength in it, then there is a complete open section for you to tell us. But you need to go sort of through each one to tell us that each one. So there's not just one big question of the whole where you can be like, I don't agree with any of this, but we'll be able to see that. And then secondly, there is this space in the survey where you can put your option in, your complete naming convention proposal in. And I think for us, if we start to see a lot of similarities coming in there and the strong reasons why and how it relates to the six criteria, how it relates to interconnection, how it shows we are gonna go to meet our goals for 2030, whether it is that there's all that space in the survey for you to put that information. Great, thanks, Essie. I also wanna add that there is an open discussion space on Meta. All of the comments that are left on the naming project talk pages are going to be qualitatively analyzed and they are going to be part of the report on naming that is a result of the end of this process. So if people want to be iterative and creative in the Meta discussions, that is also totally encouraged and we will be watching those discussions as well. Elena, can I join it there? Let's make it a personal answer. Let's have, let's talk about this. So important thing that I don't know if we spelled this out. The reason we're doing a survey is so we can get feedback from many places and that we can receive possibly thousands of bits of information about this. So the survey is not kind of to the exclusion of other forms of feedback, but it is a way for us to make sure we're open to lots of feedback from lots of places and we can act on it. We also promise as part of this process to show you exactly what we heard. So the report that Elena just mentioned is a part of this. We are going to share out the findings from the survey. So what we learned we could remove, refine and recombine. We're gonna share that out with everyone. Great, thank you. So we have a handful of other questions that we don't have time to get to today, but they're all great and thank you all so much for bringing your very thoughtful questions today. We are going to be having an upcoming office hour where we can answer a number of these questions and any of the other questions that you bring. I will post the questions that we answered and also the remaining questions on Meadow for reference for people. And with that, I'll turn it back over to Essie to close out and talk about the upcoming office hours. Screen has some frozen. Essie, you seem to be going a little bit slow. Elena, are you still with us in moderation position? You got it. I am still here. I'm not sure that if we're on the right slide, but I think we are. So to recap, the community review starts today. The survey is going to go live in one hour and the survey will be open until the 30th. Again, we can talk about timelines if that's of concern. We've linked here to the Meadow Wiki main page to the project FAQ. If you go on Meadow Wiki now, you will find an entire set of pages about naming specifically, including the three proposals for you to review. The office hours that are coming up, I will post the details on Meadow as well, but we do have one, let's see, we have one on the 23rd and we also have one on the 25th and those are open to everybody to join. Am I missing anything to wrap on, Zach? No, I think that sounds like the whole of it. We know that this is an ongoing discussion, so we really do look forward to learning from you and to hearing from you, to finding out everything that's not working. At this moment in our process, the great scrutiny and reconsiderations, the ways you can make this stronger is by bringing your thoughtful, powerful minds to it. And as Elena said, communicate with us, the project team, you can communicate via Meadow Wiki or on email or on the brand network group that's active on Facebook. And I know we're broadcasting to there just now. Thanks again to Butch for suggesting we do a Facebook Live and to shout out to some teammates, Brendan and Leticia for making it possible for us to get this live stream going across 12,000 kilometers from Cairo to Oslo to New York to San Francisco and joining you all across the world as well. So thank you all. Everyone, bye. Thanks everyone, bye.