 All right. And right now. Okay. Great. And we've got the transcript and the recording. Transcripts ready. Wonderful. All right. Here we go. Welcome everyone to the annual plan conversation series. Today we have the legal and talent and culture departments from the Wikimedia Foundation. I am Elena Lepin, senior movement communication specialist here at the Foundation, and I will be facilitating the conversation today. First, just saying hello to everybody who is here in the Zoom room with us and to those that are streaming live on YouTube and anyone watching also in the future. Thanks for coming. A bit first about how today will work. This is a series of open conversations between executives and senior leaders at the Foundation and the rest of the movement to talk about the Foundation's annual plan. For everybody to ask questions, give comments and get aligned on our work for the year ahead. This meeting is covered by the friendly space policy. So just a reminder to bring your openness and your curiosity and your civility to these conversations like you always do. In terms of the schedule, I will ask the speakers first to introduce themselves, and then we'll watch a few minutes of the annual plan videos that we made to give an introduction to the work being done under this annual plan. And so we also then will go to open conversation after the videos are shown. We have some questions that have been submitted ahead of time and will also be taking questions live from the Zoom chat and from the YouTube chat. Those that are here with us in the Zoom room are also welcome to add themselves to the queue and unmute to ask questions live. I do ask that if you could add yourself to the queue like this in the Zoom chat, if you are in the Zoom room, that way we can consolidate all of the different conversations on the chat rather than using the hand raised feature. We can just monitor the chat if you want to speak. If you do speak live, which we really encourage, we would love to have you speak live. Just a reminder to keep your questions and comments concise to give as many people an opportunity to ask questions and give comments as possible. This meeting is being recorded. It'll be posted to the annual plan meta page after the meeting. We will also be posting the transcript and if there are questions that we're unable to answer during the meeting, we will be posting answers to those questions on the meta page also. If the people in the Zoom room first, if you all could make sure that your screen name is what you would like to be called during the meeting, that would be great. Just hover over your screen on Zoom and click the three dots in the top right hand corner. Make sure your name is what you want to be called and add your pronouns if you feel comfortable. With that, I will turn it over to our speakers today. If each of you could just say your name, where you're based, and what your title is to get the meeting started, that would be great. I will start with Amanda. Hi, sorry, trying to get off mute. Amanda Keaton, General Counsel, and I am coming to you from San Diego today. Really happy to be here. Thanks all. Thanks, Amanda. Maggie. Hi, I'm Maggie Dennis, the Vice President of Community Resilience and Sustainability, and I'm coming to you from the East Coast of the US. Great, Vignesh. Hi, everyone. My name is Vignesh. I'm coming to you from London in the United Kingdom. My pronouns are he, him, and his, and I'm the VP for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Thanks so much, and last but certainly not least, Robin. Thanks, Elena. I'm Robin, Chief Talent and Culture Officer for Wikimedia. I am usually based in Oakland, California. Now, I'm here with my husband's family in Barcelona. They are Catalan. So, Ben Vigut, taught. Nice to see you all here. All right. Thanks, you all. So, we are going to watch just a short segment from the annual plan videos. It'll just be a few minutes to give everybody a high-level overview of what's going on under this annual plan for the Legal and Talent and Culture Departments, and then we'll get to the open conversation. These segments of these videos, the videos in full are available on the annual plan meta-page with subtitles in seven languages. So, I encourage you to go check out those videos in full and share them with your communities if you think that they will be of interest. Let's show a little bit of those right now. I am Amanda Keaton, and I'm the General Counsel at the Foundation. There are a few things that are new. I am really excited that this year we will be working directly with the folks who have been supporting movement strategy. And as the movement develops the recommendations around how to move forward in a strategic way, we are catching recommendations, and we're trying to pair them with the right capacity and resources on the family side as well so that we can breathe these things into life. So, for me, the biggest example of that is the recommendation to ensure equitable decision-making, and the idea that the movement really needs to develop the right systems, processes, and structures to govern the movement at large. And so, I love the fact that we will be working over the next year on governance and writing a movement charter, as well as eventually ceding a global council that can govern the movement matters and can share power more directly as a sort of centralized structure that exists outside of any, including the foundation, any entity currently exists in existence, including the foundation. And so, I'm really seeing that as a shining example of the kind of strategies that we want to see when they get ripe being supported by the foundation. And so, that process is going to be really, really fun to watch. I think it's going to raise a lot of difficult questions. And in my view, it is the biggest opportunity for us to stay ahead of regulators and really prove up and support with the right kind of systems, structures, and processes, the kind of governance that we need in order to avoid becoming that bycatch in the net of regulation, because governments are, in some ways, closing in. And so, for us to really be able to take that power back and demonstrate that our movement is ready to tackle the challenges, and there is a central way to coordinate with our communities is tremendously important. I am Robin Arville. I'm the Chief Talent and Culture Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation. What is new this year? So many exciting things. We have now prioritized what we call the Thriving Foundation, and core to our Thriving Foundation is our talent, is all of what we call the back-end support, finance, communications, legal operations, and talent and culture. So as we continue to dive deeper in support of our mission and our thriving community, our thriving movement, we cannot achieve this without ensuring our internal talent, our culture, and our structure are able to support the impact that we hope to continue to attain. We have had a focus on technology, on our product, and we want to now also, in equal stance, through greater resources and greater support, also focus on ensuring that the foundation, the talent supports and is elevated into our core strategic imperatives. So we are focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion. We're going to have this fiscal year formalized goals and measurement of accountability and progress. We want to continue to cultivate a workplace that celebrates all aspects of our employees as people that reflects our global community as well. We have a fantastic global data and insights team. We're going to have more dedicated approaches, tangible approaches to data and business metrics that will allow us to make really impactful decisions. We're also going to provide numerous innovative approaches to learning and development. We have over 100 people managers across the foundation. We have staff in over 50 countries and we continue to grow our staff. We have to ensure that we are ensuring the space for cultivating learning development pathways and collaboration for our increasingly distributed teams. Great. So the first question transitions a little bit from the videos. In the videos, both of you, Robin and Amanda, talked about high level things that are new under this annual plan. I'm wondering if you can pull out, you know, one concrete program or initiative or objective that represents a really big change for your department under this annual plan and then tell us why is that important for or relevant to the movement? We'll start with Robin. Thanks, Elena. What a wonderful question. I have the wonderful opportunity to actually present our global diversity, equity and inclusion vice president. We have elevated to a core strategy the first time in our annual plan what we call thriving foundation by elevating thriving foundation. We actually show the organization, the community, how important it is that we represent our community when we say human knowledge for all. We as a foundation want to represent that as well. And so our core focus on global diversity and inclusion is something that's new, exciting, tangible, accountable actions to create more inclusivity and belonging throughout the foundation. We'd like to speak more about it. I'd like to pick up on the accountability piece that Robin just highlighted. And I think something that's going to be particularly different is that we're going to take a very data-driven approach to diversity, equity and inclusion and driving accountability. I'm a firm believer that what you can measure, what you can track, you can change. And if we are able to articulate in clear terms, what is it that we want to see within the organization? Whether it's diversity of people, a culture of inclusion, and if we can have tangible measures against it, then we can prove progress over time. Can you just say quickly, Vignesh, and give an example or two of what metrics you could use or what measurement might look like in order to give people a concrete understanding? So the measures I would classify into diversity measures and inclusion measures. So when we think of diversity measures, we're thinking of things like absolute representation from different communities. We're thinking about what proportion of our senior leaders are women, what proportion of our senior leaders or managers are Black, what proportion of them come from different ability backgrounds, how many of them are neuro atypical. So those are the diversity measures. It gives you a flavor of how vibrantly constructed our organization is. But having this diversity is pointless unless we create a culture where these people feel able to be themselves, where they feel able to contribute and effectively perform. And that's where the inclusion measures come in. Inclusion measures are more about the culture of the organization. Do people feel that it's an environment where they can be themselves, where they feel comfortable voicing their perspectives, where they feel comfortable challenging other people's perspectives? So those are the other measures that are equally important that give a sense of culture. Together, we can then articulate clear targets, visions, goals for senior leaders and drive accountability through that. Great. Thank you for that context, Vignesh. So Amanda, same question to you. One project, initiative or priority that represents a big change for legal and why it's relevant for the movement? You're making me pick between all of my favorite children. I can't believe it. I'm going to do my best, and I'm going to caveat this by saying that this might be cheating, but it's where my mind went first, so I'm just going to go with it. This year, it is different that legal is going to be supporting governance in partnership with the movement. So let me tell you what I mean. This is the first year that we're describing how we will come to the process of building, co-creating, hopefully, a movement charter with the movement. And so it's the first year that we've named one of these pieces, at least in the legal department, from movement strategy and named it in our annual goals. So we had the universal code of conduct last year, but it really, that additional and expanded trust and safety mandate happened after the annual plan. So this year, what I'm super-jazzed about is that I'm seeing all my worlds kind of come together. So we've been asked to steward movement strategy in partnership with legal, in part because we have the fabulous, effervescent Maggie Dennis on our team who leads community resilience and sustainability, but also because legal is one of the ways that we primarily interact with our volunteers because anything that we can let them do from a legal perspective, we want to. We want to keep this movement as strong, as distributed, as leaderful as possible. And so in this moment, we're going to get the opportunity to develop in that movement charter and enshrine the way that we will share power with our entire movement. What's so exciting for me, from my perspective, is that this gets at what keeps me up at night, as general counsel. So I think the secret sauce that we have, which isn't that secret, is our community of volunteers. And so keeping them in the pole position when it comes to editorial decisions is really the thing that invigorates me every day when I get out of bed. And starting to see the world closing in on free knowledge and create really quick timelines where we have to make content decisions could threaten our ability to continue with our community-driven system of content moderation. Now, I think the antidote and the promise for regulators that we have to offer in this moment is if we can help organize, support, and co-create the right systems, processes, and procedures to govern that content with our community of volunteers. So in this moment, the movement charter and then ultimately the global council being contemplated by the movement, coming out of the movement strategy recommendations, is actually what will position us to stay strong and avoid becoming that sort of dolphin getting caught in the tuna net, if you will. That is when regulators are regulating and trying to push back against some of the challenges, some of the evils, if you will, of say a Facebook or Twitter, they could inadvertently mess up our ability to keep that community reliant system of content moderation strong. So for the first time, I'm starting to see my worlds come together in terms of the amazing community-focused work that community resilience and sustainability does, but also the work that the legal affairs and the global advocacy team does. And this, I think, there's a Venn diagram, so the movement charter is about much more than just these systems of governance related to our content, but there is a lot of really good overlap in terms of what we want to stay ahead of regulation. So that's what I would say. Maggie, is there anything that you would want to add from your perspective? I don't see how I can possibly effort best in comparison to what you just did, but I want to say I am in charge of thinking about what helps keep our communities resilient and sustainable in the face of the incredible work they're doing and in the face of the incredible work we've committed to doing in movement strategy 2030. One of the greatest powers of humanity and of our movement is the ability to work together. One of the hardest things to do is work together. So my goal is to help our communities pull together processes, protocols and procedures to encourage them to be able to work together as well as possible so that they remain resilient and we remain sustainable as we face the challenges of unfolding and sharing knowledge across an extremely diverse and, dare I say, not always knowledge friendly world. Thanks, both of you for that. I have a quick follow-up for Amanda and Maggie and then I have a quick follow-up for Robin and Vignesh from the YouTube chat. Amanda mentioned in her annual planned video the idea of taking power back and then you also mentioned in the answer you just gave the idea of regulation coming down and governments encroaching on free knowledge. What is it exactly that governments and regulators are requiring of the foundation now and what are the challenges with that? So in the European Union about two months ago there was a new regulation focused on terrorist related content and that is going to require that we get any so-called terrorist related content down from our platform and from our projects within an hour. So in some cases that might be easy if we have a really well-developed volunteer community stewarding a project in a language that we then got a valid court order for. In some cases we might not have community members that are staffing, you know, some of the volunteer, some of the volunteer email channels and other communication channels that we have to get that content down in one hour. So that would be an example of where, you know, in many other platforms it would simply be an office action. That's what we call them here anyway. In that the foundation would remove the content. However we like whenever possible to really give the community the ability to make all of those editorial decisions. We often work in very close relationship with them but that would be an example. There are also similar intermediary liability guidelines that have recently been passed in India not requiring an hour long takedown window but in many cases 24 hours and that could be problematic for some of our communities depending on their staffing abilities, the volume of takedown requests that they might see and the like. So those are just a couple of examples of the kind of editorial decisions that we really want to, you know, keep the community as the key decision makers on but that could potentially get threatened given the kind of timelines that we're seeing with respect to those takedown notices and the attendant windows. Hope that makes sense. Yeah thank you for that. I think those are really clear examples. Okay and a follow up to Vignesh and to Robin. The most recent community insights report shows significant under representation of Black and other minority groups in the volunteer communities in the UK and the USA. Is this under representation also the case within WMF staff? I'm happy to take that Robin. My answer is going to be in two parts. The first part is that we are currently not able to collect employee demographic information in all the countries that we would like to. This is something that I'm working very hard to identify and pin down where we are able to collect this data and where we're able to store it because of varying legislation around privacy, around data protection regulations from country to country. But in the US where we are able to collect this data we did a huge piece of analysis at the end of 2019 and we're going to do this annually going forward. We did see that the overall representation of Black staff was around 7%. In the manager community it was 5%. The overall representation of White staff was 67%. And in the manager community it was 69%. Now we have a lot more work to do to address the under representation of staff, particularly at senior levels. We've seen a few high-profile senior Black female departures from the organization and we're conscious that we need to create role models. We need to create people in positions of authority that reflect the diversity of the communities we want to serve. So that's something that's front and center to our mind. The second part of my answer is that we're going to be quite methodical in the way we approach data collection going forward. So we've designed and looking to design very strong demographic monitoring questions that can be applicable globally. We're going to go country by country to do an assessment as to whether we can collect that data from each of those locations and begin the process of understanding what the demographics of our organization looks like on the international scale. So that's my overarching view. But Robin, anything you wanted to add? Yes, I wanted to share that we are aware that there has been a lack of representation from people of color and women. And it is something that the board and the C team is very conscious of. It is one of the reasons why we have elevated our work under the Striving Foundation Animal Plan. And we want to continue to seek to address these with tangible actions. We also know that it is essential that our leadership reflects the diversity of the world that we serve in order to fulfill our mission for free knowledge. So hopefully as you review our Animal Plan, you will see metrics and tangible actions that actually speak to addressing these. Great. Thank you. Next, we have a live question from Kevin in the Zoom room. Do you want to unmute and ask your question? Hi, thanks, Elena. And thank you for everyone for taking your time to talk with us. I think these conversations are really important. This question is for Amanda or Maggie, although it may also involve a talent and culture aspect, which is that on the operational side of T&S, like staffing. So, you know, we're really excited about all the new initiatives that are being put forward. And both those and the current mandate of T&S, you know, will require a lot of, presumably a lot of foundation staff to support. As a sitting Arbcom member, I know just how, you know, stretched a lot of the current team is. And, you know, with, you know, everything that is being put on your plate, not just by laws and regulations, but also by communities who want T&S to take on a greater role and buy also the, you know, day-to-day fires that, you know, need to be put out. I know that your teams must be incredibly stressed on that front. Are there plans to bring on substantially more people on the operation side? Is there, I know historically it's been somewhat challenging to find qualified operation staff? Is there going to be an increase in, you know, incentives or, you know, are you going to be making the jobs more attractive in order to increase the staffing? Kevin, I absolutely love the question. And first of all, I just want to say thank you so much. First of all, for your service on Arbcom, that is no small lift. I know that. And we really, really appreciate all the work that you're doing. So thank you. But also for the question and just recognizing how challenging those roles are. So really appreciate that. And I think the more that you know about them, the more that you understand really how challenging those are. So I want to say a couple things. First of all, yes, I think it really does depend on how we move forward in phase two and what the outcomes of that process are. How extensively our workflows will change. So we continue to be curious as we're engaging with phase two of the process. Second, I absolutely love some of the work. And let me just do a little bit of bragging here as a proud mama of, you know, one of these teams. I know that right now the trust and safety operations team is looking at their workflow and trying to understand how they can actually reduce the overall footprint associated with investigating each case. But the tension that they're trying to really work through at the same time is that they are so thorough and literally we've had people join from other trust and safety departments and say, wow, this is like literally the gold standard, you know, the absolute pinnacle of how you could do a thorough and thoughtful trust and safety operations investigation. So we really want to keep that richness, but we want to see what we can do to decrease the overall amount of time expended on each investigations operations. So this is all a pretty fancy way of saying it has yet to be determined. But it's something that we're absolutely keeping in mind. Now, Maggie, if you have any additional details that you want to share, or anything that you need to correct out of my answer, please do. Thank you so much, Kevin, for the question. I think your answer is great. There's a couple of things that I would note. The trust and safety teams grew a fair bit last year in the fiscal year, which is a little harder to track because we did, as many of you are aware, remove the names of trust and safety operations team members from the staff site, due to the fact that, unfortunately, their job often comes with harassment. That said, it's a larger team now, especially dealing with emergency workflows around threats of terrorism or suicide. And we have a pretty robust team dealing with the behavioral investigations. As Amanda noted, we're trying to streamline some of those workflows to make sure that we put the full amount of attention into those very complicated cases, which is a seated member of the arbitration committee. I know you're familiar with some of them require a lot of time. Some of them don't. We want to make sure that we are addressing them according to the needs of each individual case, which is a roundabout way of saying, right now, what they're doing is reevaluating their work streams, and then they will be assessing what kind of hiring may be necessary with those revised work streams. And there is also the question around whether UCLC phase two is going to ask the foundation to take more professional responsibility for some kinds of cases, or whether we're going to build more robust community processes for handling some of that. So I think that remains to be seen. Thank you for your answers. So I have a follow-up question about the universal code of conduct that was submitted ahead of time that plays off of what you just were talking about, Maggie. The question is, as the work on the UCLC continues, what will be the biggest challenges around enforcement, and how do you plan to address those? I think you just touched on some of them, but I'm sure there are many more. Yeah, I could probably fill the remaining time. So I mean, when you think about the challenge, I won't, when you think about the challenge of the universal code of conduct, and just as a background for those who don't know, last year, the board of trustees ratified a universal code of conduct that applies to all movement spaces. This year, we are talking with communities about how to create an enforcement pathway that provides a fair and equitable system for people all across the movement. It's all a big part of our effort to help provide more equitable systems across the entire movement as we work together more globally. So the biggest challenge is, well, this is really hard. It is not easy to determine what the causes are of behavioral challenges or even to identify what behavioral challenges are. It is difficult to determine if somebody is, you know, we all can blow our stack when we get frustrated. What's the best way to deal with that? How can you be humane with people who are stressed out because this work is hard and behave badly versus those who are trolling, versus those who persistently act out? How do you protect victims? And even just as you call them victims, we use as a state of art, victim refers to somebody in the immediate aftermath of the harassment attack. But all of us can be victims, depending on the context. And I daresay there are a few people listening who have not been targeted by harassment in some way or form online in their lives. So the big challenge is figuring out systems that are fair, figuring out systems that people feel like they can embrace that we can safely try. I think safe to try are important words and that we continue to evolve them as we go forward to make sure that we need the challenges that we make them better and that we continue to pull together to create a safe and fair space for everyone. Thanks for that, Maggie. So we actually have a follow up question about diversity. And this is about diversity on the board of trustees. There is one black board candidate in the current election. And this person thinks that the single black trustees term comes to an end this year. So the question is about how representation on the board could improve given that scenario. Yeah, great point. So it is true that Lisa's term ends on September 1st. We're currently in conversation about extending those terms in partnership with all of the trustees whose terms are renewing, which includes three community selected trustees as well as two independently appointed trustees, so Lisa and Tanya. It is true that we continue to seek additional forms of representation. And this is certainly one aspect of diversity that we care a lot about. So it will be prioritized in the current board search for the additional expanded seats and then for any vacancies that are left. So there are several chances to do this next year. We will also be expanding the board, again, adding two more community selected seats along with the folks, the affiliate trustees whose terms will be ending next spring and then two more independently appointed seats. And so in all of those seats we will be considering representation and diversity of identity, skill, experience at the same time. So thanks for the question. This is something that the board is very, very focused on. And we will take into account whoever gets elected and the kind of diversity that they do bring. So it's an evolving challenge and one that the board is very focused on and really excited to make progress on. So stay tuned. Thanks, Amanda. I have another question that's related to the diversity of the candidate pool within the foundation generally. The recruiting objective under this year's annual plan talks about attracting a candidate pool that represents all the regions that the foundation aims to serve, which would include bringing in more people from emerging communities across the board. This question states that surely you have to focus on a handful of regions in particular at a time. What are the regions you're focused on under this annual plan and why these? Thank you for the question. I can take this and you can add on as well, Vignesh. I do want us to continue to attract, to engage and to retain talent and staff across the regions that we serve in the foundation. So for us, what we look at is every role in the foundation is an opportunity for us to grow our staff outside of the US and Europe and particularly in emerging markets such as Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East. So similar to the goals and initiatives of increasing representation in articles on Wikipedia and in these parts of the world. So having our staff represent the population of the world more closely will set us up for more success in reaching these markets and our movement goals as well. So you'll notice that we have more region specific roles that we're hiring for lately, such as movement communications managers, communication specialists by region. So Africa, LaTam, Asia, similar with trust and safety and policy specialists. That said, even with non region specific positions, we are sourcing from target positions across all functions whenever possible. Exceptions do come in the form of accounting or legal where they're hired. The individual needs to be needs to be a specialist in the US because of US regulations, as an example. Pinesha, do you want to add more? The only thing I would add is I would almost think of it less in terms of which of the countries we're going to focus on and more in terms of what are the fundamental principles we're aiming towards. I think there are two fundamental principles here. The first is ensuring a consistent employee experience. We don't want our employees in North America to have a great experience while our employees in South Saharan Africa have a completely different one. We need to ensure that we are set up in a way that allows us to deliver on that consistent employee experience. The second is around the infrastructure and safety that our employees require in order to function. For us, number one priority is making sure that our employees have the infrastructure and support available locally, pension plans, medical benefits, etc. before they come on board, but also they have access to the internet in order for us to be able to work. We are a company that relies on that. That's the way I look at it. We do have an overarching priority to think about emerging markets, but it's the principles that I want us to focus on, rather than the locations themselves. Thanks, Vinesha. That's a helpful framework, principles over particular locations. Okay, great. I'm going to switch the topic a little bit. This question is for Maggie or Amanda. Where does the work around disinformation fit into this annual plan? Disinformation on the projects. This person didn't see it as an objective that is explicitly called out, so they want to know where this workflow fits. If there were any lessons learned from the Croatian language Wikipedia disinformation assessment that you'll be carrying forward? Yes, is the answer to that last part of the question. We did learn a lot of lessons, both from the Croatian disinformation report in an attendant investigation, as well as from the disinformation task force that we had run last fall. One of the key things that we learned coming out of that is that we need to understand the context of disinformation in various languages across Wikis before we attempt to develop tools and other interventions to assist with fixing some of the disinformation that we do find. This year, what we're engaging in, we have staffed up, so we now have, I believe, four different languages of trust and safety disinformation specialists who will be doing really deep dives in those languages to understand the problems. We've also teed this up with our research teams to really understand the scope, scale, and size of the problem. Then we phased in for consideration in the second half of the year the kind of tools and interventions that we might need once we get that information a little bit more deeply outside of just the one language that we started with, which was Croatian Wikipedia. It was more about sequencing and staging this work correctly and less about us moving away from this as a top priority. Maggie, I don't know if you'd like to clarify anything else. Yeah, I wanted to note because I also heard that there was a question about where this was in the annual plan. So I am helping to support the thriving movement medium term plan and annual plan, and this sits under our primary objective too. Our platform and our contributors will be better protected with improved movement management and curation tools both software and practices. So the trust and safety disinformation team is committed to KR3. Contributors will be empowered to protect the reliability of content across the community of projects. It is a brand new team. The Croatian report was really their first big project, but they're going to be looking to help, especially functionaries across the movement, to identify patterns of disinformation, disinformation campaigns. Also, I will just give it a little plug. I put a page on meta, but I haven't figured out yet where to link it so that people can see which teams are working on which goal. So I don't know if there's a way to easily share that link, but I'll figure out how to link it up to the annual plan at some point. I just put it up last Friday, I believe, maybe Thursday. Do you have the link now, Maggie? You can put it in the Zoom chat and then in the YouTube chat. I do. I'll put it in the Zoom chat now. Okay, great. And I'm going to pass it along. I think that could be shared in the YouTube chat. That would be great as well. Thanks. Cool. Yeah, and we can figure out how to integrate that into the annual plan page. Thank you for that clarification. Next, I'll go back to Kevin, who has another live question in the Zoom room. Thanks, Elena. I have another question about sort of the capabilities of T&S, which is we've seen that more and more we need qualified people on the foundation side with expertise in languages that we don't have covered. I'm not exactly sure what the language capabilities of the T&S trust and safety operations team are, but I know, for example, that we support, there are 200 languages or so that Wikimedia Wikis come in and I know that most of them are not covered by a foundation staff member. Are there plans to increase language capabilities, either in response to direct issues as they come up, for example, the recent article about the Chinese Wikipedia or in general proactively staffing up to have people in place to respond to problems that may come up, either routine or exceptional. Okay, I'll take that. Thanks, Kevin. So I'm going to do the same problem of both that Amanda did and say that one of Jan Eisfelt's great contributions as global head of trust and safety has been expanding its linguistic coverage and its global representation. So I'm very happy to say I can't tell you which actual languages we have right now, but for example, we do have Chinese. We have Persian, we have, there's a lot coming into our team at this point. And we are also kind of toying with new approaches to community consultations. We have a growing group of community facilitators in different languages who are part of the movement strategy and governance team who are also available to provide support on an emergency basis to trust and safety if languages come in. We obviously have a long way to go to cover all the languages that are present in our movement. But I think we will also need to understand how we level up to support people in areas that are not currently well covered as once again the UCIOC phase two moves in and we determine what is the role of staff versus what is the role of volunteers. Just for an example of what I mean, especially for community members who may be concerned about this because this sounds scary. Right now, we most email to the Wikimedia Foundation goes through info channels which are directed to volunteer responders who triage them and they have volunteer responders from many different languages. It may be at some point we have a universal reporting system for behavioral cases that also goes through a triaging system. Who is the first to touch it? Who triages it? Will that be a volunteer role or a paid staff role? It makes a big difference in terms of language coverage. And if it is a volunteer role, is it possible that we provide trainings? Do we move into a contractor system? There's just so many open questions. Did that cover your question, Kevin, or is there more? I think it definitely helped my understanding. I guess are there any particular indicators that would push you to try to expand staffing in a particular language? Are there ways in which community members can ask for expanded capability for supporting a particular language? That's a good question. We generally have responded to where we've seen increasing demand and where we have recognized gaps in coverage. For example, at one point, concerns coming out of Asia, we had very little ability to address because we didn't have the language capability. We saw the need to cover that. As the disinformation team begins to be able to use tooling to understand where there are problems that we currently don't have insight into because the communities don't even know how to tell us that they have problems, I think we're probably going to get even better at identifying those gaps. But at this point, we definitely try to be aware to make sure that we have enough coverage for areas where problems are arising and are known. Thanks. So we have two back-to-back questions related to leadership and representation at the Foundation for Robin and Big Nesh. One was pre-submitted and one just coming in from the YouTube chat. The first one. So under this annual plan, you talk about building a thriving foundation, also referred to as a resilient inclusive foundation in some of our documentation. How will your work under this annual plan account for the recent high volume of turnover in senior leadership? What obstacles do you think this is going to present and how are you going to overcome them? Thanks for the question. With grants and Heather's departure, we actually felt that their leadership structures were in place that brought confidence to us in still delivering the animal plan. We did talk at length to both Grant and Heather, kind of what are the things that should be in our radar? What should we worry about? Where should we course correct or review and evaluate or recalibrate for now with the three VPs in technology and strong leadership in both departments? We feel fairly confident that the work can continue and we will lean in as a transition team, Amanda, Jaime, and I, and review workflow efficiencies, work streams, and the teams as well. So we feel fairly confident, but always we will lean in. We will course correct as necessary. We are also addressing these in other ways where we see opportunity for us to bring in more diverse leadership, continued focus on representation, diverse backgrounds, experiences, and ensure that we are also looking at the management structures, the leadership structures within the teams and supporting them as well. Okay, great. And then related to that, we have a question from the YouTube chat about whether the foundation plans to implement a kind of employee representation system such as work councils that represent employees and have some rights regarding implementing rules that affect employees. The timing of the question is impeccable with the arrival of Luciana Oliveira, our new vice president of talent and culture. One of her mandates, one of her priorities is to actually create what you say like a staff council, a work council, what we're calling right now a people board. This will happen within the first quarter of this fiscal year. So the team will be formed to provide input and feedback to senior leadership and also a direct link to the board. I know that there has been a desire here to have sort of an ombudsman role. We haven't had that structure before, and we're going to try it out with this kind of people board structure. It's a consultative body. They will have access to the board. They will have access to senior leadership. And we are going to do more of a thoughtful deep dive into what problems would this body help us solve that the current structures that we have are failing to solve or not being able to solve. What would decision making procedures look like? I am a fan of having an advisory staff council when we're piloting or experimenting new processes, new programs to help benefit staff. Are we on the right track? Do we need to pivot, course correct early? Is it safe to try? So I really want to have an organization where we grow into a learning organization where we can experiment and we can pivot and we can learn together and having this consultative body I think would really help us with implementation and various change management approaches as well. Thank you. We have a follow-up question from the YouTube chat about the disinformation work. Are the WMF disinformation fighting efforts documented somewhere that we can reference? This person would like to show the kind of Wikimedia involvement in media literacy. They'd like to document that in presentation. Are there resources that we can direct people to? I'm not sure. I don't know. We can look at that and try to get back to you. I'm not also exactly sure what resource you're looking for based on the question. I thought I knew and then the last two sentences that you mentioned about the media. Yeah. Well, I think in general, I assume this person is looking to present on the topic of media literacy and understanding disinformation in that context, being able to identify disinformation. But I think any resources for disinformation would be welcome, anything that we've put out about disinformation. Agni, do you have any thoughts? Yeah. I can speak. So as I said, some of the disinformation work is slotted under thriving movement, which I've started documenting out on meta a little bit. However, individual teams have not all yet published their plans, which are in some cases still undergoing community consultation. So there may be and should be more evolving in some of that work in the weeks to come. That said, the focus that my team is doing, and I'm not going to speak to all across, the focus that my team is doing is less around media literacy training and a whole lot more, well, maybe it's media literacy training, it's a whole lot more about helping functionaries and users who combat issues to identify problems from specific campaigns. So I don't know if I've answered the question any better, but I will say that there will be more documentation about our work in the weeks to come. And you think that documentation will be linked from the page that you've already shared? Oh, it looks like there's another there's another page that's being shared in the zoom chat. Okay, it's the room. Yeah, it's not. I'm going to just go out on the limb and say I don't think it's actually the resource that the person is looking for based on the way that the question has been asked. We are happy to share what we're doing and what our plans are, but I don't actually think it's on point in relation to the question, given what I'm understanding of the question. Okay, thank you. Okay, so we have one more follow up from YouTube quickly, then we also have somebody in the zoom room that wants to ask a question live. This question, I believe, is referencing the movement strategy recommendations. Many affiliates are mapping their yearly plans towards the movement strategy recommendations and the initiatives around that work. Will we see any mapping like this for the WMF annual plan? And if not this year, maybe we'll see it next year. I can take this. So as some of you may be aware, movement strategy came to me and my team just a couple of months ago, as we had an executive transition. So we did on officially, we did not take the time to do great documentation, look at the annual plan to see what mapped to movement strategy to understand where gaps are and where work doesn't seem aligned. That said, we have made a commitment this year to make sure it's sort of buried in the language data. We're going to put data out about the work that we're doing about opportunities, about the initiatives and where they are, we're trying to map who's doing what so that it's easier for everybody to see where everything rolls up. I will say one of my recent favorite kind of buzzword slogans or something around this is if it doesn't relate to movement strategy, we should be asking ourselves why we're doing it. So I kind of feel like everything in the annual plan has better connected movement strategy in one way or the other. Now I'll stop because there's another hand in the room. I just want to respectfully just caveat what Maggie said in two ways. Number one, I think there's, we have to really guard against as the foundation co-opting the movement strategy. The movement strategy is the movements and as we get agreement on each of the recommendations and start co-creating the path forward, that's exciting and we want to lift that up every time that we can. Number one, number two, I will say the movement was written by the movement that we have now and our mission and it requires bringing more people in. So in some cases, there are certain things that we should be doing as the foundation to hold that future perspective for communities of emerging contributors to join us. And so those are the two ways that I think we need to be really careful about saying the movement strategy is the foundation strategy because there's a little bit, it's not quite the full story I guess and I just, as a lawyer, had to get that caveat in although I roughly agree with everything that Maggie said. I think what I'm hearing you both say too is that in the annual plan, there are echoes of obviously movement strategy and the work that we're doing in the annual plan supports the movement strategy. So as we track the progress of the annual plan through the quarterly tuning sessions and all of those things that we make available publicly, people should be able to follow the work that we're doing in support of movement strategy. Yes, for the win. Love it. All right, good. Okay, you have three minutes left. I want to get to the last question here in the Zoom room. Captain Eak, do you want to unmute and ask the question? Sure thing. I just want to add very quickly, I loved what Amanda said there. It is really important to the community that we work together with the foundation, that the foundation doesn't co-opt us and that we don't co-opt the foundation. I loved hearing that. My question is, there was some mention of how the foundation is planning for past legislation, but I would like to hear how the foundation, since this is a medium term plan, is preparing for upcoming legislation and what legislation is most feared or least prepared for by the foundation? Okay, so just to paraphrase the question, you want me to hone in on what all of our legal vulnerabilities are in excruciating detail. I see what you're asking there, but in general, okay, okay, okay, taking a step back generally, we are seeing a lot of really exciting intermediary liability conversations in the European Union. We are also watching what's happening here in the U.S. with respect to section 230. I think intermediary liability is going to be one of those big issues. Again, I'll just remind you that this, in my view, is why the movement Charter Conversations and the Global Council are so important for us, because I think we have the possibility to really enshrine some of the practices, procedures, protocols, and systems that we need in order to ensure that we come out of those intermediary liability conversations on a really strong footing where we can preserve the secret sauce and really allow our communities to continue to make those editorial decisions. So that's one set. Second, I think in certain places, we're seeing copyright reform really coming to life. And in some locations, especially in Africa, we may have the ability to actually proactively shape what their entire copyright regime looks like. And so we really want to pay attention to those proactive opportunities to build and set up for decades to come the kind of regulatory schemes that would most benefit free knowledge. And of course, Wikimedia, Wikipedia, and other free knowledge projects in particular. I would say the third thing that we're seeing is really with respect to freedom of expression and anti-censorship. And we want to make sure that certain regressive laws that are happening in many locations around the globe don't threaten our communities' abilities to lift up the knowledge that they have. So those at the highest level are the things that we're looking at. With most interest, I would say, you know, after that, we're also keeping really abreast of privacy laws because of the implication that they have on the free knowledge work that we do as well. And we know that policy contagion is a thing. And in the wake of GDPR, we expect that multiple other jurisdictions will be passing similar laws as well. Hope that helps. Thanks so much for that answer, Amanda. And we did get some thanks also in the YouTube chat to Kristoff for sharing the link to the report that that was helpful in terms of resources for what the person was looking for for disinformation resources. That concludes our session. Thank you, everybody, for joining us. You brought some great questions to the conversation. Again, we'll be posting the video on the annual plan meta page as well as the transcript. And I don't believe we had any questions that went on answer today, so that's great. But if people have any questions after the fact, please feel free to ask them on the annual plan talk page and we'll respond to you there. Elena, you're awesome. Thanks for doing this. Thank you all. Thanks, Elena. Thanks very much, Elena. Thanks to the panelists. Bye. Bye.