Устав Движения/Ратификация
 | Это был черновик или часть предыдущего черновика Устава движения Викимедиа. Для актуальных черновиков, которые открыты для консультаций с сообществом, пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь со страницей. Мы благодарим заинтересованные стороны движения Викимедиа за их отзывы и идеи при подготовке этого проекта. |
Устав движения подлежит ратификации четырьмя разными группами с правом голоса: отдельными участниками, участниками проектов Викимедиа, организациями, относящихся к движению Викимедиа (affiliates) и Советом попечителей Фонда Викимедиа. Отдельные участники будут голосовать на платформе для голосования ( SecurePoll или другой инструмент), которая определит голоса всех отдельных пользователей и проектных групп. Каждая аффилированная организация будет иметь один голос, и их коллективный голос определит голосование аффилированных организаций. Совет попечителей Фонда Викимедиа проголосует по ратификации последним, если все три другие группы проголосуют за ратификацию Устава движения.
Предложение
Группы с правом голоса
Устав движения подлежит ратификации всеми четырьмя группами:
- Отдельные пользователи
- Проекты Викимедиа (включая языковые проекты вне инкубатора, такие как de-wiki и fr-wiktionary и такие неязыковые проекты, как Wikidata и Wikicommons; также будут включены не относящихся к контенту группы, как, например, сотрудники Фонда Викимедиа и MediaWiki; дополнения могут быть добавлены по усмотрению Комитета по применению Устава и Комитета по разработке Устава движения; тестовые проекты исключены)
- Аффилированные организации
- Совет попечителей Фонда Викимедиа
Методология голосования
Кто имеет право голоса?
- Отдельные участники: индивидуальное право на участие будет определяться таким же образом, как и при голосовании на выборах в Совет попечителей Фонда Викимедиа.
- Проекты Викимедиа: большинство голосующих связаны с каким-либо проектом. Отдельные голосующие будут выбирать предпочтительный проект для голосования (из списка проектов, в которых они имеют право голосовать).
- Аффилированные организации: аффилированные организации состоят из чаптеров, тематических организаций и групп пользователей. Все организации, которые признаны Комитетом по присоединению и соответствуют требованиям Комитета по присоединению за 3 месяца до голосования по ратификации, имеют право подать один голос от имени своей организации. С обзором данных отчетности аффилированных организаций можно ознакомиться здесь.
- Примечание: пилотные хабы исключены из группы голосования аффилированных организаций для предотвращения двойного представительства.
- Совет попечителей Фонда Викимедиа: члены Совета имеют право голоса
Как голосует каждая группа?
- Отдельные участники: лица, имеющие право голоса, будут голосовать через платформу для голосования.
- Проекты Викимедиа: при голосовании участникам будет предложен список проектов, в которых они имеют право голоса, и им будет предложено выбрать один проект, в пользу которого будет засчитан их голос. Общее количество голосов в конце определит, проголосует ли определенный проект за или против ратификации.
- Аффилированные лица: Комитет приглашает сообщества принять участие в обсуждении методологии голосования для различных типов аффилированных организаций.
- Совет попечителей Фонда Викимедиа: Совет попечителей будет использовать стандартные процессы, в соответствии с уставом.
Каков порог в пользу ратификации?
The Movement Charter will be ratified or declined as a whole, rather than voting on individual chapters of the Charter. The ratification will not use consensus-based decision-making; it will use supermajority or majority voting within each voting group.
- Individual contributors: the MCDC welcomes community input on what percentage of individual voters is needed for ratification of the Charter
- Wikimedia projects: a vote in favor of ratification needs to have 50%+1 support
- Affiliates: a vote in favor of ratification needs to have 50%+1 support
- WMF Board of Trustees: a vote in favor of ratification needs to have 50%+1 support
| Who are the Voting Groups? | Who is eligible? | How do each Voting Group vote? | What is the threshold in favor of ratification? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual contributors | Individual eligibility will be assessed in the same way as election vote for the WMF Board of Trustees | Individuals will vote through the standard Securepoll/votewiki platform, or equivalent platform. | community input |
| Wikimedia projects | The majority of individual voters are associated with a project, and individual voters will select their preferred project to vote with (from a list of projects they are eligible to vote with) | When individuals vote, they will be offered a list of projects they are eligible to vote with and be asked to select one project that their vote will count towards. The total votes at the end will determine whether a certain project votes in favor or against ratification. | 50% +1 |
| Affiliates | Affiliates are composed of chapters, thematic organizations and user groups. All affiliates that are recognized by the Affiliations Committee and are up to date with the Affiliations Committee’s requirements as of 3 months prior to the ratification vote are eligible to cast one vote on behalf of their organization. The overview of affiliate reporting data can be found here, to help assess active status.
Note: pilot hubs are excluded from the affiliate voting group to reduce duplicate representation |
[community input] | 50% +1 |
| WMF Board of Trustees (BoT) | Members of the Board may cast a vote | The BoT will vote for ratification under their usual processes. | 50% +1 |
Example of the Voting Methodology in Action
Below are examples of how votes would be counted and what the results are.
Voting groups: Individual contributors & Wikimedia projects
| In favor of ratification | Opposed to ratification | Results: no ratification for these VGs |
|---|---|---|
| 180 individuals | 300 individuals | 37.5% voted in favor (x) |
| 20 projects | 15 projects | 57.1% voted in favor |
| In favor of ratification | Opposed to ratification | Results: no ratification for these VGs |
|---|---|---|
| 300 individuals | 180 individuals | 62.5% voted in favor |
| 15 projects | 20 projects | 42.9% voted in favor (x) |
| In favor of ratification | Opposed to ratification | Results: ratification for these VGs |
|---|---|---|
| 300 individuals | 180 individuals | 62.5% voted in favor |
| 20 projects | 15 projects | 57.1% voted in favor |
Voting group: Affiliates
| In favor of ratification | Opposed to ratification | Results: ratification for this VG |
|---|---|---|
| 70 affiliates | 50 affiliates | 58.3% voted in favor |
Voting group: WMF Board of Trustees
| In favor of ratification | Opposed to ratification | Results: ratification for this VG |
|---|---|---|
| 8 Board members | 4 Board members | 66.7% voted in favor |
Order of Vote
Individual, Wikimedia projects and Affiliates voting groups will vote at the same time. Outcomes should not be published openly (especially on-wiki) until all outcomes can be published at the same time, to avoid influencing votes.
If all three voting groups choose to ratify the Movement Charter, the WMF Board of Trustees will then vote within 4 weeks.
Feedback & Ratification
The voting platform for the individual and project vote will utilize a built-in feedback option. Additional feedback options will be made available on Meta and other forums, as desired.
WMF will dedicate staff and support to provide a full, anonymized provision of all feedback comments. They can strike harmful or clearly inappropriate aspects of the comments (in part or in full) before sharing.
If the first ratification vote fails, the feedback collected will become the basis to improve the Movement Charter by the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC). After implementing the changes from the feedback, the MCDC will decide whether another ratification vote should be attempted. Considerations for the decision to conduct a second ratification vote includes the difference in support and oppose votes, and the level of improvement from the feedback. Any future ratification efforts within 12 months must use equivalent voting groups and thresholds. The new proposal may amend other parts, as deemed beneficial.
If the Drafting Committee has been dissolved, the successor body can use the collected feedback to improve the Movement Charter. This body will also be responsible for deciding whether another ratification vote should be attempted. If no successor body exists, the WMF Board of Trustees (BoT) may consult with the community and designate a body to update the Movement Charter based on the feedback. The BoT also has the responsibility of deciding whether or not to attempt another ratification vote.
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee specifically notes that multiple failed ratification attempts (especially by significant margins) may indicate that the Movement Charter lacks consensus, even as a concept.
Revisions to the Movement Charter
In the case that the Movement Charter is ratified but there is significant feedback that would impact implementation, an extra revision stage may be needed. If two-thirds of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) and the majority of the WMF Board of Trustees (BoT) agree to it, a revision stage will start to improve those aspects highlighted by the feedback. If the MCDC still exists, it can carry out these revisions. If it does not, then the successor body will carry them out. And if no such successor body exists, the BoT may consult with the community and designate a body to update the Movement Charter based on the feedback.
After the revisions to the Movement Charter have been made, a ratification vote will take place to ratify the revisions only. The ratification vote will follow this same ratification proposal, not the one in the Movement Charter for ratifying amendments to the Charter. The Movement Charter will include a chapter on Implementation and Amendments that could also provide guidance on addressing points not originally included in the Charter.
Ratification Oversight
Charter Electoral Commission
- The Charter Electoral Commission will consist of 5 election commissioners drawing from at least 3 different home projects to oversee the ratification vote.
- The MCDC welcomes community input on how to recruit the candidates and who will make the final selection of the 5 commissioners.
- The Charter Electoral Commission (CEC) will decide on unclear or unexpected circumstances. Along with the rules contained in this document, the remaining rules of the vote will be decided by the MCDC in consultation with the CEC prior to the statement of the ratification. The CEC can override these agreed upon rules only when significant harm would happen otherwise. This decision must also not negatively impact the overall ratification process. Once made, the decisions must be made public alongside the justification.
- The Charter Electoral Commission candidates must demonstrate experience that would be beneficial in their role on the Commission.
- The MCDC welcomes community input on what those experiences should be and if there are any formal minimum criteria for eligibility.
- To avoid potential conflicts of interest, as well as to mitigate against excessive work obligations, neither scrutineers nor commissioners should be selected from the current Elections Committee.
Scrutineers
- There will be 3 scrutineers (who must not also be commissioners), selected from volunteer stewards. The Stewards mailing list will be notified of the request well in advance, and either Stewards will pick 3 amongst themselves, or we will follow a “first come, first serve” selection process.
- Instructions and purpose of scrutineers will be based on this process from the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.
Support
- One member of the MCDC will be selected by a majority vote within the MCDC prior to the commencement of the election to be responsible for unlocking the voting results when the election is closed.
- Technical, Legal, and other relevant teams from the Wikimedia Foundation must give full support to both the Charter Electoral Commission and scrutineers. The MCDC, WMF, and Charter Electoral Commission will endeavor to name the most likely teams needed for ratification process support at least 4 months prior to the ratification vote, but it is noted that unexpected requests may be made.
- In particular, during the ratification vote(s), WMF teams must share the names of the responsible staff members available to answer urgent queries and requirements. Teams should ensure that the work schedules of the named staff members permit this prioritization.
- The Charter Electoral Commission, scrutineers, support teams, and interested voters can engage in a post-election review and lessons-learnt process. Issues (and utilized resolutions) should be documented on an ongoing basis throughout the process.
Community Input Questions
Below is a summary of the questions the MCDC welcomes community input on.
With regards to the voting methodology for chapters and thematic organizations:
- Question: To ensure a fair and inclusive election for a vote that impacts the whole movement, what methodology should chapters and thematic organizations use to vote on the ratification of the Movement Charter? (Please select one of the following options.)
- Their entire membership (as of 3 months prior to the vote) cast a vote.
- The decision-making body of each chapter and thematic organization cast a vote on behalf of their respective entity.
- Some other way – please share proposals.
With regards to the voting methodology for user groups (UG):
- User groups, as self-governing bodies, are able to determine their internal governance as they see fit, without requirements being specified from other bodies. In other words, every user group makes decisions differently and there is no agreed-upon process that applies to all user groups.
- There is also no pre-existing agreed-upon mechanism across all user groups for reaching all members of all user groups (for example, not all user groups have mailing lists) to ensure that all user group members are able to participate in the voting process.
- Question: To ensure a fair and inclusive election for a vote that impacts the whole movement, what methodology should UGs use to vote on the ratification of the Movement Charter? (Please select one of the following options.)
- UGs will determine the voting method themselves and report back only on the results of the vote.
- UGs will submit to the Charter Electoral Commission evidence that their full membership has been consulted when they report back on the results of the vote.
- The Charter Electoral Commission will specify the voting method to be applied to all UGs.
Regarding the individual voting group and their ratification threshold:
- Question: What percentage of individuals should vote in favor of ratification to ratify? (Please select one of the following options.)
- 50%+1
- 55%
- 60%
- Other – please share what percentage.
With regards to the Charter Electoral Commission (CEC):
- Question: How will the members of the CEC be recruited?
- Question: Who will select the 5 members of the CEC out of all eligible candidates?
- Question: What types of experience would you like to see from members of the Charter Electoral Commission? Should there be any formal minimum criteria for eligibility?
Community Engagement
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee, with support from Wikimedia Foundation staff, will be hosting conversation hours to hear your feedback on the questions above as well as any other feedback you have regarding this initial proposal. We will also be present to offer clarifications and answer any questions to the best of our abilities, acknowledging that this is just a first draft.
Learn more about those conversation hours and sign up here.