View source for Wikimedia Foundation Community Affairs Committee/2024-03-21 Conversation with Trustees

===Questions answered after the call===

'''What is the reasoning behind the willingness to give the Global Council advice scope on Product & Technology but for example not topics like fundraising strategy which seems a logical complement to dissemination?'''

* The [[Talk:Movement Charter#Wikimedia Foundation perspectives on the Global Council|letter from the board to the MCDC]] about the Wikimedia Foundation's perspectives on the Global Council covers the reasoning behind why certain changes are under consideration while others are not currently. The changes that are under consideration are decision-making on funds dissemination, affiliate recognition & strategy, and advice on product & tech. Changes not under consideration are that the Foundation continues to serve as technical platform operator, that the Foundation’s current legal structure is maintained, and that the Foundation continues to serve as brand steward and retain the current principles for banner fundraising on the Wikimedia Projects. The Global Council would be a logical fit for advice and strategy on technology, both because they are and would represent users of that technology and because of the precedent of successful collaboration on this front. Fundraising strategy will likely center more on donor needs, because they are the audience for fundraising and are, as it stands, not represented on the Global Council. In terms of ongoing and embedded community involvement in fundraising, however, the Foundation’s fundraising team will continue to run [[Fundraising#Community collaboration pages around WMF's fundraising campaigns 2023/24|open, collaborative processes around fundraising banners]]. 
* Additionally, as stated in the letter, any changes not under consideration have the potential to be disruptive to operations, and would thus require extra consideration. They are not necessarily off the table forever, and if the GC proves effective, there may be other opportunities.  
* Next fiscal year, the Foundation, in line with the [[Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Increase the Sustainability of Our Movement|Movement Strategy recommendation]] to “distribute the responsibility of revenue generation across Movement entities and develop local fundraising skills to increase sustainability” we will be partnering with affiliates to support their individual fundraising strategies, through the support of a fundraising consultant. Fundraising is contextual to specific markets, and this consultant will be working with affiliates to create and implement localized fundraising strategies. 

'''Is it possible to have an abridged version of the Charter? - Something that will simplify the whole topic to newbies and other Wikipedians who may not be interested in the administrative area of Wikimedia.'''

* The new version to be published in April 2 is much shorter than the initial first and second drafts. The MCDC is working hard to consolidate to have a document that is simpler and more concise.

'''The perspectives on the Movement Charter represent recommendations by the WMF hired lawyers; how can we be sure that this is a neutral reflection on possible changes within our movement to reach more democratic decision making?'''

* The Board looked at things holistically and practically, the perspectives were not solely informed by legal guidance.
* While Wikimedia Foundation Legal department provided feedback from their side, which can be found here: [[foundation:File:Movement_Charter_Drafts_Legal_Feedback_to_the_MCDC.pdf]], there were other lawyers involved as well. These were not Foundation-paid lawyers, the set up was pro bono. While the agreement was with the Wikimedia Foundation, it was only because MCDC is not a legal entity itself. The MCDC functioned as the client in the relationship, without intervention of the Wikimedia Foundation.
* Their report can be found here: [[foundation:File:Wikimedia_Movement_Charter_Global_Council_and_Decision-Making_-_Public_Review.pdf|foundation:Wikimedia_Movement_Charter_Global_Council_and_Decision-Making_-_Public_Review.pdf]]

'''How do we enforce the UCoC to a very experienced community member who continuously violates the Friendly space policy and UCoC?'''

* We are at a transitional point in UCoC enforcement, with the [[Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|appeal out now for applicants for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordination Committee (U4C]]) and with reporting [[Incident Reporting System|software in development]]. However, at this point, we rely heavily on existing structures, particularly using local processes to begin review when possible. Where possible, the reporting structures detailed in [[foundation:Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines#3._Responsive_work|the Enforcement Guidelines]] should govern, so - for instance - friendly space policy violations should be reported to the organizing team of the conference or, in some cases, Trust & Safety. On wiki violations should be handled by local administrators and other processes whenever possible, unless their severity dictates other handling. 
* Concerns of systemic failure which are somewhat implied here - that a person is continuously violating these policies and nothing is being done about it - will eventually be managed by the U4C, but at this point may be appropriately reviewed by [[Requests for comment|broader community consultation on Meta]] or by forwarding to [[Trust and Safety|Trust & Safety]] at the Foundation. The Foundation’s Trust & Safety staff has intentional limitations on their mandate to act, but can often advise if action falls outside of their remit. We know there are limits to the usefulness of both Meta and, given their mandate, Trust & Safety in such cases, but hope to help as we build out the new process to support.

'''Regarding the Arabic Wikipedia banners, wouldn’t the safe approach be to ban, for the duration of the discussion, any banner not directly related to Wikimedia’s actions? Better worded of course but to create the space for discussion?'''

As [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuaNdf_mqSM stated in the meeting], the banner approval process currently relies heavily on local community consensus with limited policy frameworks, resulting in some vagueness that can be potentially problematic. At present, neither the [[foundation:Policy:Terms_of_Use|Terms of Use]] (that govern all user activity on the site) nor the [[CentralNotice/Usage guidelines|CentralNotice guidelines]] (that govern usage of banners) draw this particular distinction. However, a goal of the Foundation under the upcoming Annual Plan is to lead a discussion to add more clarity to the policies, as was stated on the call. This question would be under consideration by communities and the Foundation during that consultation, and we encourage anyone interested to be part of posing questions and proposing solutions. 
[[Category:Community Affairs Committee]]