only 129 out of >180 affiliates voted and barely 2,400 individual votes were cast, which apparently meets their self defined quorum of 2% of eligible voters.
this new global council would take over a bunch of functions setting overall strategy, allocating funds, setting technical priorities (which the foundation would be responsible for implementing and maintaining), and overseeing affiliate organisations. the existing foundation would be left with running and maintaining the software, legal items (trademarks, organizational compliance, etc), and fundraising.
the council would be 25 members: 12 at-large, 8 from affiliate groups, 1 from the existing foundation, and 20% (four initially) selected by the council. then every 18 months to council could increase its own size by up to 25 new members to a max of 100 without any requirement to maintain the existing distribution of seats. as far as I can tell there's no term length or limits and no requirement for regular elections. just a self-evaluation every three years.
overall from this outsider's perspective, the charter seems to describe broad powers without many specific constraints or responsibilities. I can understand why one of the foundation board members called this a power grab. without recall votes, regular elections, or other accountability mechanisms, I can also see how this structure would make it relatively easy for a clique to take over the global council and entrench themselves. with all that funding on the table, it seems like it would be a ripe environment for corruption and nepotism.
not saying the foundation is good or bad, but this proposal seems like a half baked idea at best. it reminds me of the sort of power structure shenanigans I've seen from university student union boards and the like.
It appears to be entirely futile to contribute anything of value to any group project on the Internet. Every project is taken over by a group of apparatchiks and 80% of the energy goes into "who has power".
I definitely do not understand the internal structure, process, and politics of Wikimedia (either the community or foundation). But my feeling as a long time user and donor is that Wikipedia should remain a neutral and apolitical resource if it is to be the world’s encyclopedia. However, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend over the years with Wikipedia’s English content becoming more skewed. Various articles have significant biases, mostly leaning towards the American political left, and you can see how the edits and discussions in talk pages got things to that point. Wikipedia seems to be heavily influenced and controlled by a small set of highly active and powerful users who seem to treat control of Wikipedia as a personal mission. I see shades of that even here in this movement charter.
> Wikipedia seems to be heavily influenced and controlled by a small set of highly active and powerful users who seem to treat control of Wikipedia as a personal mission.
It's been like that for decades, contributing edits is a waste of time, because they will just get reverted.
Well I can’t know what you’re talking about precisely because you didn’t give any examples, but my sense is that people involved in things like Wikipedia are going to lean (American) left because Wikipedia is socialism and it embraces progress. Most of the rest of the world is left of the American left and Wikipedia is also international, so that would exacerbate things to some degree.
this new global council would take over a bunch of functions setting overall strategy, allocating funds, setting technical priorities (which the foundation would be responsible for implementing and maintaining), and overseeing affiliate organisations. the existing foundation would be left with running and maintaining the software, legal items (trademarks, organizational compliance, etc), and fundraising.
the council would be 25 members: 12 at-large, 8 from affiliate groups, 1 from the existing foundation, and 20% (four initially) selected by the council. then every 18 months to council could increase its own size by up to 25 new members to a max of 100 without any requirement to maintain the existing distribution of seats. as far as I can tell there's no term length or limits and no requirement for regular elections. just a self-evaluation every three years.
overall from this outsider's perspective, the charter seems to describe broad powers without many specific constraints or responsibilities. I can understand why one of the foundation board members called this a power grab. without recall votes, regular elections, or other accountability mechanisms, I can also see how this structure would make it relatively easy for a clique to take over the global council and entrench themselves. with all that funding on the table, it seems like it would be a ripe environment for corruption and nepotism.
not saying the foundation is good or bad, but this proposal seems like a half baked idea at best. it reminds me of the sort of power structure shenanigans I've seen from university student union boards and the like.