 Okay, people are coming in now and we're recording and we're all set. Great. Are we live on YouTube yet? Yes. Perfect. All right. Mike, take us away. Okay, great. So hi everyone. I'm Mike Peel. I'm on the Board of Trustees. So this is the first call of the 2024 series of calls for conversations with trustees. So we'll have four of these. All the details for that are on the CAC meta page. And it's my first time hosting this call. We rotate hosts between each meeting. So each one will have a different host throughout this year. And the aim of this is really to have a general chat to make sure that we're being accountable to the community to get to know everyone and to provide opportunities to provide input. If you've got questions you want to ask about any of the work that the Board is doing. And this is a slightly different format from what we've done in previous meetings if you've come to one of them. So the aim here is really to have a conversation. And you'll see that basically throughout all these different sections we've got today. And there'll always be a time to stop and ask questions and provide input. And we've got much more time for discussion we had in previous meetings. This is a trial for this meeting. We're probably going to make further changes in the ones later this year. So please do let us know any feedback you've got about that at the end. And then I want to pass to Alina to introduce how this call will work. Thank you so much, Mike. I know that most people that joined these calls are pretty familiar with the Board of Trustees. But for those that may not be, do you want to tell people like when you were elected to the Board and kind of your background as a trustee? Or as a community member that was selected to be a trustee? So if I start and I can pass to other trustees, will that work? No, no, no. I just figured you'd say a sentence or two to introduce yourself so that they know who you are as the host of the call. Okay. So yeah, Mike Peele, I'm a long-term Wikimedean since about 2005. I was elected to the Board and to the elections 2020 to do you want to just do a quick call around for everyone else? Maybe Rosie next. I think usually I think maybe as people just a reminder to the other trustees as you unmute to speak for the first time just say who you are. And maybe when you were elected as a trustee, that would be great. That would save a little bit of time. And I will take the turn to introduce myself. For those of you that don't know me, I'm Elena Lappin. I am the lead movement communication specialist at the Wikimedia Foundation, normally moderating these calls. And I know that a number of you have been with us for these calls before, but I actually do see some new names in the Zoom room with us today, which is exciting. So I'll just go through quickly how these calls normally work. So we have a series of short updates that the trustees are going to be talking about, you know, different facets of their work. And after each update, we're going to go to a short open conversation, a short Q&A about that particular topic. So first we're going to cover some celebrations, things that we're celebrating right now in the movement and we'll open the floor then for anybody who wants to celebrate anything going on to contribute to that as well. And then we're going to go to board updates. The board met earlier this month, so we'll hear a little bit about what was discussed when they met. Then we'll open the floor then as well for Q&A for discussion on that. Then we'll talk about the board's perspective on the movement charter. And again, Q&A and open discussion on that. And then we'll talk a little bit about the foundation's annual plan and take any comments or questions on that. Ending the call with a long open Q&A where you all can ask any questions that are on your mind and have kind of a casual conversation with the trustees about anything that's going on for you in your community that you'd like to talk about. So really do want to try to cultivate that open conversation. So if you are here with us in the Zoom room and you want to unmute and speak, we really, really welcome that during any of the open discussion sections of the call. So feel free to raise your hand here in Zoom and we'll add you to the queue and then you can unmute and ask your question live. Everybody can be asking questions as well in here in the Zoom chat that we'll add to the queue or in the YouTube chat. We're also streaming live on YouTube and we'll be taking questions from the YouTube chat as well. We have a number of pre-submitted questions for this session, questions that community members sent in ahead of time. So we will do our best to get to all of those. And if there are any questions that come up here in the session that we don't have time to answer or if there are any questions that trustees might need input from more people on or might need to do a little more research on or get some more context on, we'll make sure to follow up with those answers on the event meta page afterwards. We also post an event summary like we usually do on the event meta page for people to catch up and there'll be a recording available on YouTube and on comments for anyone who couldn't make it live. As a reminder, this call is covered by the friendly space policy. So we will be as best we can taking any questions that are asked with civility and openness on this call. And with that, I will pass it to Rosie to talk about some things that we are celebrating right now across the movement. Well, thank you for that. Hi, for those who don't know me. I'm Rosie Stephenson. Good night. I've been an editor on English Wikipedia since 2007 and admin since 2009 and a board trustee since 2021. As a trustee, I chaired the talent and culture committee. And I also sit on this, the community affairs committee and in that regard, I am delighted to share with you some celebrations and milestones and honourings of this quarter. And let's start with in January Wikipedia celebrated 23 years. Also in January, Bengali Wikipedia and Ukrainian Wikipedia turned 20. Towards the end of that month, towards the end of January was the stewards election, and there are seven newly elected stewards. In February, Slovenian and Serbian Wikipedia celebrated birthdays. I don't have information about how many years. So if someone wants to add that to the chat, it would be great. Let's see, Wiki loves Africa just celebrated its 10 year anniversary and Wikimedia Australia turns 15 this month. We also celebrate a different Wikimedia through wiki celebrate recently celebrated the following three. Salisena, a wiki source admin and commons contributor. Donatean co founder of the Wikimedia community user group cut the war and a Wikipedia trainer. And let's not forget Alice keep on the hashtag one live one rep organizer and active librarian who trains other librarians. The community affairs committee this year, we set gender gap as a priority. And that party is especially timely this month, women's history month. For a decade, this has been a particular area of interest and focus from my wiki work and that of many others on this call. So again, this year on wiki meta, we have the celebrate women page where we list events happening during the month of March related to wiki women work. Maybe someone can put a link to that in the chat. Some examples of the different events that are happening this month. Women's National Women's Day Bengali wiki editor on feminism and folklore campaign wikipedia needs women campaign. Also, moheras haciendo Historia campaign, and many more. Back to you Alina. Thanks Rosie. Is there anything else that anyone would like to celebrate here on the call happy to have anyone unmute or drop something in chat for us to recognize there's always so much going on and so much to be celebrated. I'll leave a moment in case anybody wants to say anything on that. You did a pretty thorough job Rosie. Nice work definitely covered a lot of terrain on that with a lot of corners of the movement so with that we can move on to not to talk about some board updates and what was discussed in the recent board meeting over to you now. Hello, thank you. My name is Natalia. I'm user Anton Anna from the Ukrainian Wikipedia, and I'm the chair of the board of trustees. As Helena mentioned, we just met two weeks ago and two days ago I sent a pretty long letter with all the updates here I just mentioned like the highlights. I would like to thank Shanee and Isra for being vice chairs for three years and working hard in supporting the board and me as a chair. And welcome Kathy and Lorenzo as new vice chairs that the board has approved this meeting. We also had a strategic retreat where we talked about not only the goals that the foundation has, the financial model, figuring out how we can support the organization, the activities into the future, broader technology of course and roles and responsibilities but we are also more strategically thinking about how to make the projects multi-generational as this might be the next big challenge. And we also had a governance workshop for trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation sharing best practices and also worst ones. I also want to say that yesterday we just finished affiliate strategy next phase of feedback, round of feedback. So I'm grateful to all affiliates, community members, staff who interacted and helped to have the conversation going and we are going to share some updates soon. Don't know when, just finished. I would need to leak through the input and with that I'm going to pass to Vicky. You're online. Yes, I'm online and I'm talking. So I want to update on the sister project taskforce, which is working on the question of new siblings project. And this is a page on Metawiki where I post updates and the taskforce consists of the trustees and volunteer advisory members. At the moment we are proposed a set of recommendations on how the new projects would be assessed. And then another recommendation connected to it, how the existing projects would be assessed. Because one of the problems that we have as a movement that once something exists, it will exist forever. So Wikimedia Foundation have to support it. At the moment, these recommendations are being considered by the Community Affairs Committee. And we hope that when it's approved, we will go to the community consultation. So all of you will be able to have a say in it on how we should open the projects and merge and maybe even close some projects. I would be happy to answer any questions if you have on the topics of opening the projects and how the taskforce works. But while you are thinking about the questions, I want to say thank you to everybody who is taking part in the taskforce trustees, which is sort of additional tasks because it's something new, we didn't have it before. Volunteer advisory members which were answered to the open call and to staff because again this is an additional task. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions? Yes, I see a question is the chat. Why not consulting communities before? Can you please clarify what do you mean why not consulting? Because we have a process for opening the new projects, not for the closing. But the process have not been working for a while, so basically what was happening, the Community Affairs Committee was supposed to do it when it was formed, before the board was supposed to do it. But there is no process, we don't know how to say people yes, we want to open your project. We don't know how to say to people no, we want more data from you. So there was not a process. And then we had consultations, we had Diori Vickimani, we had a session about this topic and then we had a session on the North America conference as well. So yes, there will be calls before we have a call, now we have a framework, but everybody will be able to add to this framework. If you don't like it, you can propose an alternative one. Just I have a problem of starting conversation without defining the topic first. For example, during the conference of North America, people were still confused between their different language projects and then different sister projects, which is, for example, Wikipedia, in English and Spanish, this is the same project, but in different languages. But Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons and Wikidictionary are different sister projects, right, and people want to open a new one. And you can understand that it's much more complicated than just adding more and more of the projects that still exist. Right, I am happy that I was able to answer your questions. Or not, I can see right hand. Yeah, it looks like Z-Blaze, I think you've answered the questions in the chat and Z-Blaze, it looks like maybe you have a follow up. Would you like to unmute and ask your question? Yeah, I was just curious, specifically about this confusion of sister projects and language versions. Is it possible to imagine that Wikimedia actually discusses different versions of a project that is not language differentiated? Because most of the criteria now are related to language and not to, for example, cultural significance, which I think is super odd, considering we are 2024 and we are still thinking in terms of, as we started with Wikimedia and languages, like there is no other criteria to discuss validity of a project. Yes, so obviously we will not also have comments, for example, it's all in English, it doesn't have different language versions. And there are ideas about making a common interface to the other ones as well. I understand what you're saying about the cultural significance and it's a complicated question, but we are working on it and we will do the community consultation. So thank you for asking. Thanks Vicki. If there are no more questions from that update, we may move to the next topic, which is the foundation and board perspectives on the movement charter. So I think we are ready to move to that topic, so over to you, Nat. Okay, so in, I don't remember, it was February problem that I posted on meta a letter from the board, which was sent to MCDC with the areas of responsibilities that the board considers. And that these are the responsibilities that it would be good and probably any newly created body like local council or what can be the name can be transferred to pass to some other words. And that's decision making of funds dissemination decision making on affiliates recognition and strategy and advice on product technology. And the page on matter actually goes a bit more into details about why there is already precedent about participatory involvement in these spheres and we probably can make it better. And it will try to work on that and also about areas of responsibility that are not under consideration for the movement charter, this at this point in time. And with the, of course, understanding that the changes are not like forever, this is going to be not under consideration and these are going to be under consideration. It depends on how the new created body would be able to perform with those duties and how we can evaluate iterate on the, on the work done, because everybody can agree. I think that the status quo is not ideal. Let's figure out what we can do to make it better and then look at it and say, yeah, we managed. No, we didn't. With that, again, don't want to go into the details because it's going to take a lot of time. The link probably should have been put somewhere in the chat if people didn't see it. And I'm going to pass on to Shani. Hi everyone. First of all, I introduce to those who don't know me. My name is Shani Evan Stein Segalov. My home wiki is Hebrew Wikipedia. And I've been on the board since 2019 and in the movement since 2011. Since Wikimania Haifa. I'm the chair of the Community Affairs Committee that is hosting these open conversations with trustees every quarter. And I'm happy to be here tonight. I just want to compliment what Nat is. She has shared before and just give a bit more context to those who don't know what the board has been doing or how we are thinking about them. And have been supporting the, the MCDC, the movement charter drafting committee. So, again, just for context, the whole idea of having a charter as a movement has a lot of resources went into that. It's been quite an investment from everyone's end from the foundation from volunteers from staff from board members from the whole movement supporting and commenting and interacting with it. The whole idea is that we, the board needs to ensure that the movement charter will be serving the strategic direction that as a movement we've agreed upon and give clarity, address current as well as future needs that we may have as a movement. And the board keeps, the board has liaisons. Nat has been a liaison and I've been a liaison for a long time. I've stepped down since October, I think last October and have been replaced by Lorenzo who is not able to be here tonight. That's why I'm speaking on the topic. And as liaisons, we have been following what the MCDC have been doing and trying to give advice to give feedback when we can. The board continues to review and comment any new draft that MCDC is producing. But we're already, we're not waiting, we're moving ahead when we see good ideas come through the movement strategy, we try to include them and act on it without waiting for things to be approved. As was mentioned before, maybe a good thing to mention is that we are trying to have really organized frameworks to how we approach any draft or actually any problem that comes to our table as a board. We are looking for what are the problems that we need we're trying to address. How are the issues being solved by what is offered? And this is the type of feedbacks that we're trying to always give the MCDC and again everyone else on any issue that we're working on. Specifically for the MCDC, there are some key principles that have been guiding the foundations approach to the movement charter, which we've already shared with the MCDC, and that includes that the structure must have clear purpose and accountabilities. We need to be able to know who's accountable for what, what is the purpose of every section of every entity in the movement that is described. The roles and responsibilities should be guided by where the decisions can be made. With adequate, again, accountability, resources and visibility for the movement. And there's also the given that certain responsibilities cannot be transferred from the Wikimedia foundations. So these are some like very general overall overarching principles that guided us in helping the MCDC and supporting their work. And something we've already flagged to the MCDC is for the movement charter to really help us change the status quo of the movement for the better. We all have collectively to understand and in a sense align together on what the problems are. What are the things that we are trying to solve that need to be addressed? And then how are what the MCDC is working on in the charter are resolving the issues. So what are, what is, for instance, what is the purpose of the Global Council? What are the problems that it's supposed to solve? Could these problems be addressed by existing structures in the movement, even if that means changing a bit how they're operating currently? In light of all of these, what decisions the Global Council should be making? What is what is it accountable for? So these are the types of questions and thinking that the board is thinking about and trying for the MCDC to think about as well. And whatever changes we'll see the MCDC is supposed to share a draft soon in the coming weeks, I think. And whatever changes would particularly be possible, we should be able to evaluate them as a movement. Whatever changes they're hoping to make or they're offering to the movement in the charter. And there is a link to the recommendation that the board has made that the movement strategy is made for ensuring equity in decision making. Someone maybe can share that link. Thank you, Major. And with that, I want to open the floor to questions on the MCDC. I hope that was giving you some context on how the board is just thinking on the MCDC's work and supporting that work. Thank you for taking us through that. We do have a note here in chat that the draft charter will be published on April 2nd. So that is really upcoming and it'll be available in several languages if anyone is interested in taking a look. I know we do have a pre-submitted question on this topic. I think the question asker is here in the room with us. It's a question about the charter and the summit. I'll give that person a moment to unmute and ask the question if they would like to. And if not, I will ask it myself. Yeah, I can. I take it for my name is Althea Kosov. I'm from the Hague, the Netherlands. I attended a Wikimedia conference in Berlin and what's now called Wikimedia Summit multiple times until 2016. Then I was a dinosaur and I handed over to other people. There will be a Wikimedia Summit next month in Berlin. Will it be the last one? How does it take off the board on it? Could the Wikimedia Summit, which is a gathering of representatives of affiliates from all over the world, about 200 people, be a kind of a global council, a prototype for it, which could be codified in the charter? What's your take on it? I'll take that question. I don't view Summit as a proto-global council because in my experience, it was a place to have a discussion happening, like the movement strategy. We had some sessions or some other conversations. We had a meeting with the Board of Trustees candidates and also to have some capacity development, some trainings for board members of affiliates or actually for community members. It was not really geared to make decisions and also not entirely for how 200 people can make decisions. In that space, I mean, it should be changed. The summit that was is not going to work for that purpose, most likely. If there would be a need for an event to happen, which needs to be codified because it's going to be a place where something is going to be decided, of course, it's going to be probably codified somehow in the charter. I'm not sure how to put a card in stone because if you want the charter to be evergreen document, given too much specifics, it's going to be difficult. The other thing is that this is going to be the last summit of how we knew it. Whatever is going to happen next might be discussed in Summit itself, maybe some other conversations. But as the summit was organized before, this is the last of its kind, and Wikimedia Deutschland did. Wikimedia Italy at one point did a lot of work in order to be able to support it. How it's going to be used, not used, changed. I don't know at the moment, and we are going to find out April 2nd when the draft is going to be live. The board did receive a draft after, like I mean, a raw draft two days before we had a conversation with MCDC in New York. But it was still not a draft that we are going to see all of us on April 2nd. I don't know, but that would be it from me. I just hope that the goals are going to be considered first before we are talking about a forum. Should it be an event? Should it be a page on Metam? Should it be, I don't know, some new Wiki or something else? And first the goals, what we actually needed to do, who needs to be at the table, and then figure out what is a forum, what's an event, decision-making framework, and what are the decisions to be made there. That's it from me. On that, we've got some conversation happening in chat, so I'm doing my best to keep up with all of the questions. So if by chance I've missed your question, you know, feel free to ask it again. There's a lot of threading happening so sometimes it's hard to read everything. But we do have two questions that I've been able to pull out here of this discussion happening in the Zoom chat. One being, what does the board think should be fixed in movement governance? As this is your framework, it would be great to have that perspective. So that's the first one about what does the board think should be fixed in movement governance. And then the question about timing, why share these thoughts now? What was the impetus for sharing the thoughts now, as opposed to maybe earlier? I think that Dr. Schlimit wants to be in line. I'm going to answer the questions that are here in the chat. I see that there is also above the question about existing in the budget of the Media Foundation. No, it does not. And because it was the last one, how we are going to do it, we are going to figure out and probably it's going to take us some time. But the budget also has not been approved yet. And I guess if there would be a decision to have some kind of event for that, there is the grants budget. The money can be taken from it and can be repurposed. Christoph's question about what does the board think should be fixed in the movement governance. So, I'm not entirely sure if I understand the question, but the thinking is on a big level that how decisions are being made was not equitable enough or not participatory enough or not engaging the right people. How we can make sure that the decisions that are being made or have more input from people who might be affected. And that's not something that I believe is like easy to do, but hopefully with more people being engaged, more people feeling accountable for the decisions that they are making. We can figure out how we can develop this muscle in these three areas and then go to some other areas. And hopefully we can prepare the past, this moment for new challenges and for new, probably not very happy looking, comery looking perspectives overall, like the legal landscape, the generational change, the technological changes, the changes in technology that might just like make us irrelevant. So the whole thinking is what can we do, how we can make sure that we are not just, that we are prepared to take decisions, make decisions and the decisions are going to be better and irrelevant and in time and they would not take a lot of years. Martin there commented about why haven't we shared these thoughts at the beginning of the process. So it was not as if the Wikimedia Foundation was engaging in the strategy conversations. Okay, we already have a blueprint of what we want and the conversations that we are having with everybody is going to reach these conclusions. The Wikimedia Foundation didn't have the views, the Wikimedia Foundation didn't have a chance to look at its own operations and the landscape around and figuring out all this is a thing that we should get that we can transfer and these are the areas of responsibilities that we can't. While the MCDC was working on setting up its own internal procedures, the board and the foundation were also figuring out what are the goals and what are the things that the Wikimedia Foundation is best positioned to do. The three priorities or goals that I talked about at the beginning in the board update about financial, about roles and responsibilities and product and technology were like, you know, approved in 2023. And after that, there were also internal conversations about what would it mean and what were the responsibilities to transfer and what were the responsibilities that we would be able to try to support while the whole process is going to set up. I understand that for you like it's like two in the five years, but these were the parallel processes. We published it when we were like, okay, this is what we can do. We also learned a lot from like a pilot case of transferring responsibilities and figuring out how it can look like, which was the education case for us, because there are a lot of players who are doing a lot of affiliates, a lot of groups, communities, whether they're involved in education. Wikimedia Foundation was also playing a role, and then there were like some bigger organizations like the user group and conversations about hubs. So, you know, that also helped to understand what it's going to actually mean to transfer things. You can't do it overnight, what's going to look like. So that's all the time. I think, thank you for that. Now, I think Shawnee has a quick follow up to some more of the questions. I know we also have a question in YouTube. So Shawnee want to go ahead. Yeah, just a quick reiteration that maybe the big issue that we all need to kind of maybe acknowledge here as well is that the foundation, because we've never had a movement charter and we've never had a global council and all these structures, essentially, the Wikimedia Foundation has always been the go to for everything. Now, our movement is huge, and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot do everything by itself. In essence, in terms of thinking what is missing, and what needs to be kind of changed is, first of all, the acknowledgement that we can't do everything and we need to better define who's doing what, what are the boundaries of what it is that we're doing. And for the things that we can take upon ourselves, find new owners and make sure that we transfer power ownership but also responsibilities and accountability in an accountable way to other structures, other forces in the movement and making it again really in a transparent and, and accountable way, because we just can't continue to think all of us that Wikimedia Foundation can do everything all at once. It's just huge and the budget is not enough for everything. So we need more players and to take ownership of different parts. And this is what Nat was referring to, to looking at education as an example but not only education, right. There have been other pilots as to not commenting or not sharing our thoughts. I also just wanted to quickly say that we were really trying to respect the process of the MCDC. There are a few members here in the room, maybe it's also a good opportunity to say thank you to all of them for their continuous work on this very complex process, and to the staff that has been supporting them. And it's just not an easy thing to do. There's no, there's no precedent for it. And it's been a long process to figure this out. We're all trying our best to make sure that, by the end of this, we have something that is really serving the movement well. So all with good intentions, but we were really trying as a board not to push it and as a Wikimedia Foundation as well, not just the board, not to push it and to give them space to have their process to not interfere with the way that they want to think about it and do it and just give support. So we stand behind this approach, and we will also share our thoughts on the draft publicly when it's out. So I hope that answers both questions. Thanks, Shani. Thanks, Nat. I know Dr. Aharoni Lear, I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing your name correctly. I know you have a question for the general Q&A. Do you have a question about the movement charter, the foundations perspectives on the movement charter as well? I think they may have disconnected by accident instead of unmuting. No, no, it's okay. I just wanted to present the report we presented in the UN and it has some suggestions that you can consider. And I really would love to hear your responses. It was a report issued by the WJC World Jewish Council relating to the English bias in Wikipedia against Israel. And I suggest that we can look at it together. I can present it very quickly and their recommendation and regard what we consider as a breach of neutrality within Wikipedia and how we can address it. How can we improve Wikipedia and make sure that the principle of neutrality, and beforehand Rosie talked about the principle of inclusiveness, the principle of freedom, having less women, but I'm not dealing with it now. How can we make sure that this key principle is kept? Because we find that it's not kept. So I really would like to have your attention to this and the opportunity to look at the recommendation and think about them together as a way of improving Wikipedia through the board. Thank you. I see Maggie has a direct to that. I will just say quickly, we will have a section at the end of this call for open Q&A. So if you have a topic that you'd like to discuss that is besides the perspectives on the movement charter, we will be addressing those at the end, you know, the last half hour of the call. But I will let Maggie address this one quickly. Go ahead. Hi. Thank you for bringing this up. I'm familiar with the report, although I understand we weren't informed or consulted about it. It came out this week. So we've only just been able to look at it a little bit. It's currently in the hands of our disinformation team who do look at details when these kinds of allegations of bias come up. We're not allowed to address details at this point, but I do I do want to say that it's going to take some time for them to review. They need to check the references, the quotes, the links and understand it against the editorial policy. So I don't believe now is probably the right time for us to review the whole report together because we need a little bit of time to look at it. Yeah, obviously, but the thing is that there are concrete, concrete issues and, you know, the story about the Holocaust and the very profound research about bias on the Holocaust was written almost a year ago and the response is yet to come. And I really urge you to look at it and don't shy away from it. And obviously I can take five minutes to present the very alarming issues. And I think they should be on the table now and not as a group we can discuss it afterwards. I think it's very, very important for further thinking about neutrality and further thinking on how to protect Wikipedia from becoming a tool of propaganda rather than a free thought. Those are really important conversations and I care very deeply about making sure that our content is unbiased. It just takes more time. And there are a lot of people who've attended this call and there's a lot of things that are on the agenda. And I want to make sure that we don't squeeze something that important into five minutes without a chance to review it. I would really appreciate the time at the end of the last half to present the finding. I think this is the place and this is the time. And this is the events that are happening right now and may cost even life. So this is really of utter importance. Thank you for your piece on that. We'll certainly find the right venue to have these discussions and thank you for bringing our attention to the important matter. We do have a question on MCDC from the YouTube chat but I think what I'll do is save that for the open Q&A at the end because I think we need to move on quickly. We're going to cover the foundation's annual plan as the next agenda item. And I think we can do that pretty fast. And so we'll cover the foundation's annual plan. We'll take whatever questions there are about that. And then we'll get to the open Q&A. I believe the hand that is up is related to the open Q&A. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. So we will take the next agenda item, which is the foundation's annual plan. And I think I'm passing to Shani to kick us off on that one. Thanks, and I'll try to be very quick on that. Before we actually delve into the annual planning process, I thought it was worth sharing some context again from the board's perspective. And on that I can say that since its inception, the Community First Committees work on trying to support engagement with the broader community to make sure that we have good communications between all stakeholders in the movement and to have better transparency about what the board is doing and also what the foundation is doing. Part of it has been the annual planning process and overall strategically just supporting whatever the foundation is setting for itself as goals every year. Now the foundation plans its work for the upcoming years through multiple processes. And one of them is the annual planning process, which sets the budget and the priorities for the coming year, starting in July 2024. So our fiscal year is between July 2024 and the end of June. That's how we are working, operating. And then the board, once the foundation is doing, when it finishes the plan, the board reviews it and approves the plan by the end of June. This year the process began a bit earlier with community conversations and input through a new thing that Mariana spearheaded and I'll move to her in a second. But it's called Talking 2024 and it was a series of conversations between foundation leadership, trustees and community members to basically just talk and listen, learn, share what we're all worried about, what we've been doing, etc. The community first committee have been supporting this and trustees have been interacting in these different conversations that we had over 130 of them with from individuals to groups in the movement to affiliates to organizers to stewards technical volunteers, all sorts really. It's been quite diverse. And the goal is really to listen and to understand the challenges that people are facing to share the foundation's priorities and to inform about what we're working on and what's ahead. The takeaways from these conversations which Mariana shared in a letter to volunteers last month, in a sense helped inform our planning and our board meeting in March. And it's also including thinking about the needs of affiliates on a multi year, in a multi year way. Certainly in in grant making and the needs of volunteer to develop and improve the technical infrastructure that we have. Last, I'll just say that the whole idea of talking 2024 continues to be open so if you want to talk to us to talk to Mariana to staff to trustees, just talk to us. There's a meta link that will be shared in a second. And I now turn to Mariana to talk a bit about the annual planning process and and the way that you can all get involved in it. Thank you. Hi, my name is Mariana is Scander. I'm the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm mindful we have a lot of questions so I will also keep this quite brief and happy to answer questions about this topic on this call or in other forums that are comfortable. I'll also leave my email in the chat. I just wanted to reiterate a few points about the annual planning process as it's evolved over the last few years. My colleague Meyer will put links in the chat just to help you find more information as we go. The first thing that has been consistent over the last few years is that our planning is trying to begin by looking externally and outwardly at the changes in the world that we have to be paying closer attention to. We invited community and volunteer input on those trends in the last few years and that continues. I would highlight the things that are probably top of mind for most of us, shaping a changing internet, how generative AI is making Wikipedia in in our view more vital but less visible future audiences that we know we need to reach on other platforms. There are quite significant implications of changing regulatory and legal landscapes around the world. And so it's critical that our work and our planning is constantly looking outward at the world and what it needs from us. The second point is that the plan continues to anchor itself in the 2030 strategic direction. It has been quite explicit, especially in the role of becoming the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge. And we see that as more than an aspirational statement you will have seen in last year's plan those of you familiar with it commitments to knowledge equity. And this year we will be trying to lift up and celebrate progress that has been made on the movement strategy recommendations not only by the foundation by others across the movement. We're going to continue to improve the process based on the feedback we get centering around the foundations role, particularly in supporting the technical infrastructure as well as the human infrastructure of our movement. You'll see a lot of consistency in trying to build on progress made last year, so that we can build momentum and actually move things faster. The last points that I want to make is that we have been attempting to put as much information in the open as soon as possible. Both last year and this year, our product and technology colleagues put their objectives and key results out published on meta and on village prompts ahead of the annual plan. There's a link for that if you have input or questions for this year. I do want to note that a shift that has been made this year is that the community wish list will have its own key result. That's going to allow us to bring more engineering teams to support and publicly track progress in partnership with volunteers. The community tech team has been already working to improve the intake process to try to make the submission of wishes less time consuming and we'll have colleagues here to answer questions on this topic if you like. I do want to say that in all of my communications since I started this role, I have been talking about the reality that we are looking at multi year projections and seeing that our rate of growth is slowing. And the need to be clear with each other about trade offs when we don't have enough resources to do all the things that need to get done. As I think, again, those of you who have been on this journey with us know we're seeing a slowing rate of growth for our movement, even as we work hard on new revenue channels which include Wikimedia Enterprise and the endowment. The foundation has slowed its own growth significantly over the past two years and last year we made a series of expense and staffing reductions. Since 2022, the rate of funding to movement entities has outpaced the rate of growth for the foundation itself. We anticipate that will be true for this year's plan as well. My sense looking ahead is that that will probably even out in future years. I do want to say that even though a big part of this process is the foundation's plan itself, we are using the Talking 2024 initiative and other spaces to also learn about the plans of others. And that is an intent that continues with affiliates with user groups with individual contributors with technical developers. So as I said I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have and we'll leave it there in the interest of time. Thank you, Shangyi and thank you, Mariana. What a feat consolidating all those months of planning into a five-minute update, but that was great. Thank you for taking us through that. Quickly, if we have any questions here in chat or anyone who wants to unmute to ask a question about the annual plan specifically, I would like to welcome that for just the next couple of minutes. And then we can turn to the open Q&A section. So just a call specifically for any questions that are about the annual planning process for the foundation's upcoming annual plan. And then if not, we can move to Q&A. Yeah, Z Blase, go ahead. I'm curious in division of resources, we are still sticking to this geographic regional distribution as it was always present. While we have huge discrepancies within regions, so for me it makes sense to create a new region that is not geographically consistent, but actually includes all the countries and all the areas that were underrepresented under resourced historically. We had the really pervert situation of overrepresentation of super small entities in events, in structures of Wikimedia. And we have areas that didn't get any resources and because Wikimedia Foundation was not proactive to work in them to solve the issues why this was happening. We had like 15 years of gap in between these countries and the most developed ones in each of the regions, not just one. Thank you for that. Mariana, you want to take that one quickly? I mean, I think the short answer is we agree that there has been an imperfect way of trying to understand how best to divide resources, not only across regions, but within them. And the point that you make about not only small countries, but thematic areas which don't necessarily fit into a regional construct. This has been a very active conversation. My colleague Yael, who is on the call and maybe can follow up if you want to offline or after the call, is really trying to get very direct input. It's a conversation that she and her team are starting not only with the regional grants committees, but with others. I'm sure we're never going to get it perfect, but we can improve. And so I do want to acknowledge that. And I think that like it's, I'm not hand waving that is actual real conversation happening at the moment. And it would be great to get more input. Yeah, I can just jump in really quickly and say that you'll see when we publish the annual plan on meta in a few weeks that this is a particular area of focus for the team and we want to be doing designing those strategies together with the movement. One idea we've been thinking about particularly around convenings is there are some organizations and convenings out there that have been happening for a long time that have a particular focus that could teach us about how to do this more strategically. So an example is the Celtic knot convening that has happened for five or more years at least they really are developing some expertise on how to think about minority languages, for example. So what might it look like for the Celtic knot to help lead a global conversation about how minority languages are both represented in grants, but also in conferences so Zelko I'd be happy to continue the conversation with you, and I actually have an email and draft that I'm about to send to you about a different topic so nice to see you here. Thanks for the question and thanks Marianna and yeah for those answers. I haven't seen anything else come in specifically about the annual plan. Oh, there's one thing from YouTube that will take quickly and then we'll move right on to the open Q&A. The question from YouTube says I love the focused on experienced editors, but are we devoting enough resources to maintenance for readers, such as the grass bug. I'll pause if there's nobody better I'm happy to take. I've got asked this question actually at an event that I did in California a few weeks ago so again, I just want to say that we have multiple audiences and limited resources it's always a trade off what are we doing for readers what are we doing for experienced editors what are we doing for newcomers and trying to be explicit about those choices and those resources is the best we can do to get feedback about whether we're kind of getting it right or not. I do think there's differences of opinion about what to prioritize with respect to readers and so what the product team is trying to do is at least make visible those choices in the OKRs and ask for input. I'm not equipped to provide technical answers on the graphs question but I understand that it's been one of a lot of debate, and not knowing who's asking the question from YouTube I would say if we could put the link to the OKRs, as well as the name of the team and and ask for some follow up is the best we can do here. Thank you, we can make sure we get those links here and passed along to YouTube as well. So now I'd like to turn to the open Q&A I know we have a number of different topics that people would like to cover here in open Q&A. Just as a reminder, if we don't have time to answer everything, or if the trustees or leadership feel that they need more context, more background, more information in order to answer the question fully, we will follow up on meta in both of those cases. But we will answer certainly what we can answer here in the next 30 minutes or so. I know Hari had his hand raised from the previous section so I'll pick Hari first and then it's like we'll take you right after Hari. Thanks. Okay. Good evening everyone. I am where I live. So I would like to apologize first if my English is a bit trusty right now. Actually, I have two questions about affiliates. My first question is, what would you do if you acknowledge that one of your affiliates using Wikimedia brand using Wikimedia movement grants money are committing in one chair, one member, one chair and one member of both executives and few other staffs harassing a staff by barging into her apartment alley, knocking her door without consent and proceeds to do unwanted talk again without consent. Number two, harassing a staff who are sick, lying in bed in the hospital, barging her with questions about her private life and talking about works. Number three, not paying salary since May 2023. Number four, hammering ex-staffs who demand for their rights to be fulfilled with expensive lawyers, again, paid using Wikimedia movement grant money, sent from Wikimedia Foundation, which should go to preserve knowledge. And one of the higher ups in the organizations harass community member from minority background with questions filled with stereotypes. These are just few of many things happen to us. And my second question is, what will guarantee that your answer will happen or conducted hopefully it's just not, it's just not another. Yes, I will give you follow ups or we will, we will get back to you then gun or emails that get costed. So my questions for all attendees, would you be okay if the foundations you are a part of with good faith and pure enthusiasm, of course, are okay or enabling this kind of behavior. And, and if they're yet I mentioned before is Wikimedia Indonesia. I also have additional info right now that I already reached out to a lot of trustees and affiliate committees through email, but there is still no answer until now. They, the Wikimedia Asia with their lawyer fully funded by movement money is forcing us to sign an NDA. I want to highlight here that I have no problem with NDA regarding private data. With a very uproar NDA will harm this process to be handed fully and also will make precedent for future case where our rights are being taken as hostage using NDA as bargaining chip to get our rights. This will also affect other if this will also affect others in the community members whose cases ties with us and this NDA will make our whole effort to address this goes to nothing. And I would like to this opportunity I would like to ask everyone here what do you think about me and my colleague signing an NDA where our continuous event to handle this matter within the movement never addressed properly. Thank you so much everyone for the opportunity. Thanks Hari so I know some really difficult situations some serious allegations of misconduct on behalf of affiliates so we can't. I know we can't talk about specifics on this call for many different reasons. But I do want to invite Maggie to respond to this call as the head of trust and safety and kind of overseeing some of this investigation to speak kind of on a broader level about instances like this and how the foundation engages. Hi Harry. Not our first time talking. So this is this is a complicated difficult kind of situation and yes you know I can't talk about specifics but I will say. And I think some of you already aware it's really challenging where international local employment law gets involved and where independent organizations like like chapters have their own independent responsibilities and their own. Their own legal identities. You know I heard you speak about a lot of things in here and just talking about what's been addressed here some of those things may be legal matters for example invading someone's apartment that local law would need to get involved with. But I do know because you and I have talked that there's also the question about movement values and how how the movement expects people to treat each other. I, some of you have heard me speak about the fact that I think there that we are currently facing a gap in the ability to pull together across the movement to talk about problems that emerge in local areas. We could offer many examples but this isn't my call. And I think the universal code of conduct coordinating committee may be able to help with with questions like this, although we haven't substituted them yet. Let me take a quick moment to say please please apply for that, especially you know functionary stewards people with a lot of experience get in there we need you. When we look across the movement when we look into areas where people are struggling at the local level how do we have accountability as a global movement to each other, and to these conversations. It's a big body of work. It's still very much in development. I know that's not the concrete response you want. I also heard you talk about grantees and the use of grants funds and the responsible use of grants funds and while that's not my area of work. I do know that global standards that go beyond the governance best practices while it's impossible to foresee all the things that come up because of the many different legal jurisdictions and the fact that we can't reflect all labor laws and regulations it is still an area where the community can agree and hopefully come together for for better supporting. I think that's, I know I have I've never been able to give you or these things are very difficult we will continue to grapple with them I promise. But that's that's about all I have. Thank you. Thanks for weighing in on that really tough issue. And thank you Hari for for bringing that here. For the next question I want to turn to it sick who also has his hand up if you'd like to unmute and ask your question. Yeah, so for those of you who doesn't know me I'm the chairperson for committee Israel. I want to apologize my question is a bit long but for more than three months. Arabic Wikipedia has been hijacked the brand and reputation of the entire movement for their own political purpose. It's the longest use of a banner in our movement history, and it has not been used to promote a mission and event or a project related to the movement, but instead to spread political claims which is absolutely the least connection to the vision of the movement, which has been all decided upon. It is built around the basic principle that information should be neutral and backed up by reliable and credible sources, a thing which has been neglected neglected on the current banner text which runs by Arabic Wikipedia. But despite that the foundation and the board itself, which knew to raise their voice in past and other attempts to use Wikipedia by or for political needs has been gone silence for the past three months. And it is behind the whole other long standing community which feel offended by this message that not part anymore or unwelcome in this movement. So let me please clarify my question. First, how does the board view the current banner on our Wikipedia and how does it relate to the movement mission. The second one is where does the line cross on when and our community can use the brand and the most powerful tool that we have the site notice to address political acts of use. If tomorrow English Wikipedia decided to run a banner to promote Trump during the upcoming election, claiming that he is the right person to promote our agenda. Why wouldn't it be an acceptable use of site notice. How does, how does with this case will be different. So question about the banners on Arabic Wikipedia and whether this is an acceptable use of site notice how the foundation, how the board feels about this. I think possibly the best person to kick us off on the answer to this question would be Stephen who I think is here on the call general council. And then we can have a word from the board as well. Thanks Elena and thanks it's it for the question. I, so I'm Stephen LaPorte for everyone who doesn't know me. So I lead the legal department within the Wikimedia foundation, which is the department that oversees some of the policies like the trademark policy and others that answer the question that it's here. You know when I when I think about how Wikipedia is tackled challenging topics historically. It's often through open dialogue among volunteers with incremental revisions over a long period of time. I feel like there isn't really a place to do this currently for many reasons, and that as a result, we see different communities speaking Arabic and speaking Hebrew reaching different interpretations of principles like neutrality. I don't think a policy alone will fix this but I do think that policy improvements can make spaces for conversations that might be able to. So I wanted to talk a little bit about some of the policies that that respond to particularly your second question on when the brand can be used and how we'd respond to other such cases. So the action on Arabic language Wikipedia contains two questions that are currently subject to slightly different precedents and policies. I think it's valuable to discuss them separately and and look at the policies that apply. The first is the puzzle globe logo on the Arabic language Wikipedia. It was modified to have colors of the Palestinian flag. And the second was the banner that was placed at the top of the page concerning the war in Gaza. On the first the modified puzzle globe logo is governed by local community approval, as well as the Wikimedia trademark policy that trademark policy was written and adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation in 2014. It was based on extensive discussion with volunteers about the principles that should govern modification and use of Wikipedia logos. A principle that volunteers strongly requested at the time was that the policy give volunteers wide latitude to use and modify the logos on the Wikimedia projects. The long history of the puzzle globe being modified for different purposes and multiple cases where the logos were changed with national colors. But this wasn't the sort of use we really anticipated at the time. The examples that I looked at when we were writing the policy were logos that were modified to celebrate article milestones or local holidays. And I think the issue that we're seeing today raises a number of other questions, a very different set of considerations. The most prominent example that I've seen is the modified puzzle globe logo on the Ukrainian Wikipedia that has Ukrainian colored the Ukrainian, the colors of the Ukrainian flag. And this was also based off of a community decision. I know that other language Wikipedia's have had a conversation about changing their logo and have decided not to take this step, sometimes raising concerns about if it's appropriate for Wikipedia. So we sort of see this gap of a place to have a unified conversation about what's appropriate, resulting in different communities around the world reaching different conclusions on when it is appropriate. At a policy level, this type of usage is currently permitted under our trademark policy as long as the logo is used in a way that relates to the Wikimedia site, promotes the Wikimedia mission, and complies with the Wikimedia terms of use. The second question that I raised was about the banner on the top of Arabic language Wikipedia. And this is also governed by community determined policies. We strongly support principles of community self governance for content related decisions, which means that volunteers determine the content that goes up on Wikipedia and determine how to implement Wikipedia's core principles. The foundation usually does not get involved in content decisions or decisions made by the community. So members of the Arabic language Wikipedia had a conversation on wiki about the steps they were taking and they reached an agreement on posting the banner based off majority consensus of those who participated in the conversation and the foundation wasn't involved at all in making that decision. The local banners on Wikipedia are still generally expected to follow all applicable policies and are governed by local community consensus. The applicable policies might include the central notice guidelines as well as other policies around advocacy actions. Ultimately, it's the Wikimedia terms of use that are applicable to all activities on the Wikimedia platform. The terms of use are based on our obligations as the host of the Wikipedia projects, as well as the input that we receive from the volunteer communities. So I agree that there's some vagueness around how banners can be used. And the reality is I don't think we have a firm policy that answers this question. I think in order to make this clear for everyone, the foundation alongside volunteers who already managed these policies should look at how they all fit together and how we can improve them over the coming year. So we're putting in our annual plan a commitment to have these conversations in order to identify the changes that are needed. So I understand this might not feel fast enough and I think we have a range of different fact patterns we need to consider, not just this one. I think it's important to have a clear plan about how we hand that is rooted in input from volunteers on how we handle these kinds of topics. And so in the meantime, I think the proper way to address concerns about banners is either openly on Arabic language Wikipedia or on meta wiki and one of the places we have for global conversation. Thanks, Steven. So a commitment to prioritize this under this upcoming annual plan and acknowledgement. This is an important discussion to have around policy. I want to see if there's a trustee that wants to just voice anything really quickly. I don't know if maybe not or another trustee would like to say anything before we move to the next question. I fully acknowledge that this is not a satisfactory answer, but this is the best answer that I can give at this point or at least nuance. The board hasn't discussed this topic because as Steven was talking about, we are still figuring out if the board is the best position entity to deal with that because it's a policy change, it's not a policy change, it's actually a stance. It's what we consider to be the role of the projects and this is like basically the first time that we are dealing with it. So, yeah, it's an acknowledgement that this is not an easy topic, and this is also not something we just like come here with a prepared answers. Yeah, that's it for me. Thanks, Nat. So I do want to make sure that we have time for some of the other pre-submitted questions that people sent and then also we'll go back to the room once we do a couple of those. There is a question that came in. Elena, just a follow-up question to back to Steven, can I ask? Sure, if you've got a quick follow-up, yeah. I just didn't really understand the Steven response because according to your legal analysis, as long as a community decided on a banner or an action or a use of the Wikipedia brand and the use of side-notice, so they allowed to do anything. So I mentioned before, we have different policies that apply for a banner versus the logo, but I think in all cases, they need to follow our terms of use. So there are some things that are, I think, legally very clearly outside of the bounds like hate speech or something that is, you know, outright illegal. I think when it comes to interpreting values like neutrality where there's room for debate on what is neutral and what is not, that's the sort of content decision that is left up for volunteers and one where we entrust volunteers to have the sort of conversations necessary to reach the right conclusions. Now, I do think that these policies are not adequate. As I said before, if you look at them all together, there's many hard questions we can ask ourselves that I do not think get the right answer based off our current policies. So I think we need to look at them all together. But for now, that's what we have, the terms of use, the central notice guidelines, the trademark policy and community judgment expressed through dialogue. Thanks for the clarification. I think there's definitely an opportunity to follow up via email if we want to continue this discussion and, you know, have as Stephen mentioned, it's going to be worked on under this annual plan. So yes, more opportunities for that to continue to evolve. I did want to just turn quickly to a question that was submitted earlier this week for this call to make sure we didn't miss it. It's from the LGBT plus user group. I believe the question asker is here on the call with us. So I want to invite them to unmute and ask the question live if they'd like to do that. If not ask it but. Hi, thanks Elena. Hi, good. So, as many of you will know, I'm one of the board members of the Wikipedia LGBT plus user group. I know I've asked you the board questions similar to this before and the board has previously reaffirmed its support for minoritized Wikimedians, Wikimedians, and those who work on minoritized subject areas. I know you're all aware of the extraordinary situation that we're seeing on the French language Wikipedia at the moment, where the last queer admins have stepped down in the last few days. For a long growing sense of mistrust has solidified into assumptions of good faith breaking down partly as a result of a vocal minority of editors overriding previous consensus on dead names and trans biographies using a slim majority in a disputed vote rather than forming a new consensus. There's also been suggestions that queer editors should not edit queer topics because we cannot be unbiased. And we've seen admin reviews and bands of dissenting editors. It's been a decade since we've been talking about countering systemic bias and 18 months since the open letter in support of the affiliate list on page, but the situation has only worsened since then. And while the francophone Wikipedia is the pot that's currently boiling over the situation in the wider world means the issues of hostility to minorities can be pretty universal. With respect, talk is cheap and visible actions seem few thus far. We believe that the French Wikipedia has become actively hostile to queer editors and seems in urgent need of office actions. But given that dissent is being suppressed and good faith is lacking all around such actions are unlikely to gain community consensus. After all, if a group could rely on perpetual goodwill from the minority, we wouldn't be minoritized. We believe that to keep your commitment to support marginalized communities, the board will need to be prepared to sometimes act to the benefit of the community in ways that do not always defer to the consensus of the majority. You've repeatedly committed to supporting minoritized Wikimedians and editors on minoritized subjects. Pending the outcome of trust and safeties investigations will you commit to supporting their findings, even if doing so is unpopular. Thank you for LGBTQ plus editors and other minoritized groups that we aren't expected to sit around and enjoy the ever increasing hostility and harassment that we're currently seeing across multiple instances. Thank you. Thanks, Owen for that and for the context of the question as well. I'll direct to Ezra to kick us off with an answer here. Thank you. You know, and thank you so much, Owen for articulating the gravity of this issue and the importance of keeping the board accountable to its commitments and protecting minoritized and marginalized communities that are of course, you know, often impacted by these situations. The board is aware of the issue and based on the trust and safety investigations will be prepared to stand by its commitments to support community health and inclusive and safe communities. And we also stand by the commitment the foundation made in 2020 and maybe my ear if you can maybe drop a link to that to be vigilant where individuals are targeted for identity factors in their trust and safety systems. The foundation has been closely looking into the situation in French Wikipedia. But for now, just want to reiterate that the board will commit to supporting trust and safety findings and if it comes to it, any related actionable steps towards protecting marginalized communities being targeted by this hostility and harassment, regardless of whether or not it's would be a popular decision. The right thing is the right thing, regardless of the popularity of it. So we are fully expecting the community to also hold this accountable to the commitments that we have made. We also have Maggie here and Maggie perhaps anything else that you'd like to add on this specific subject, considering the team has, you know, been responsible for these investigations. For those of you who might have seen me smile, it's been a day for me I've had a lot to talk about. So, yes. Thank you, Owen. I want to also put out another call for the u4c. Please please please apply for this committee, because we have a lot of things that we need to work on in our movement in terms of kind of globally addressing issues. So, the u4c is responsible for many of the things that we've talked about, but they don't exist yet. And since they don't exist yet, trust and safety does have an accountability. And we, we are investigating this it is going to take some time there's quite a lot of material, but we are going through it and we are putting resources into it and I promise we're taking it very seriously. I think it's important to hear zero tolerance for for this treatment of people based on their sexual orientation. And I really thank Owen for his courage to speak out and share this which must not be that simple. And I think we expect to hear immediately condemnation. Okay, we will examine it, but this cannot happen within Wikipedia. People cannot be singled out because of the sexual preferences. So this is, thank you so much for like sharing this but the greater question is how can we address issues like that. How can we make sure that people feel safe with within Wikipedia. I want to say the fact that there's between 15% to 20% and even less women show that there is a fundamental problem that is going on for years, and it must be addressed and the issue of being free and feeling safe within Wikipedia is of extreme importance. Sure, all extremely important topics and I think a lot of this is about partnership between the foundation and the communities and moving this work forward and what I did here as a say is that there is a deep commitment to this to this work on the board's behalf and on the foundation's behalf. Because the question is that the board itself diverse enough. Is there like a diversity within the board in terms of the race, in terms of ethnicity, in terms of it's this is so important because it's of tremendous importance Wikipedia is so important it has an amazing influence. So if the people who produce the knowledge are from a certain race from a certain origin, certain opinion, then the knowledge is not really a knowledge. There's a very important issue here that needs to be addressed. And, and I would really like to hear zero tolerance to treating people in a respectful in a respectful way because they are ABC. It's so basic. We can also drop a link to chat about the upcoming board elections where we're always always looking for more diverse candidates. And I don't know if anybody would yeah I think we've we've got to move on we are actually at the top of the call the the time has run out for the rest of this call so I would like to see I know shamas has their hand up. I'm wondering shamas if you are able to put your and I don't know if you're saying your name, if I'm saying your name correctly but if you're able to put your question here in chat. We can make sure to follow up with that on meta in the coming days. So, yeah, I would like to invite you to do that and I'm sorry that we ran out of time to to have you unmute and speak live we always do endeavor to do that. So he could leave it here that would be great. And we'll try to comb through the chat and get to any questions that we may have missed as discussion was quite lively. So, Mike, can I turn it to you to wrap the call I think we're going to run the poll like we usually do is that right. Yeah, that sounds good. I think there's been a lot of really difficult conversations and topics this evening so thanks for everyone for participating in the discussions and joining in so we have a mental poll we want to share in the chat. And so this is really simple. There's about six questions in there and just rate them on grades on levels from kind of one through five. And if you've been to previous ones and you'll have seen some of these questions before we have an additional one at the end which is kind of really optional about how you think this call being compared to previous calls. And then once you submitted the answers to the questions I think you'll get the opportunity to give us free form feedback in a text box as well. So please do fill that in and Alina's now posted that in the chat and we'll see the results from that shortly. Yeah, well can we get the results up on the screen for the first metrics question the second one that is open answer feel free to put in whatever you'd like we're not going to show that one publicly that'll be for internal feedback. But we can show the poll results up here on the screen so please, please vote as you can. If anyone just have any questions they haven't managed to get to please do send them to the ask CAC email address. Wonderful. Well thank you all so much for attending your questions your discussion your ideas, your feedback here in the poll is always useful to us we are trying to constantly iterate on these calls and improve them going forward so thank you so much for your time. We are going to be having the next call of these in June so we do hope to see you then and the one after that is going to be in Poland at wikimania and whoever is there online or in person with us for wikimania we also hope to connect with you then. So thank you all so much for for joining today and we'll see you soon. Thank you everyone.