Fri, Nov 25, 7:00 pm CAT: MCDC Community Consultation: Sub-Saharan Africa Conversation

There will be a community consultation for Sub-Saharan Africa to collect feedback on the draft of the first three sections of the Movement Charter. This conversation will take place on November 25, 2022 at 17:00 UTC (your local time)

  • Language interpretation available: French
  • Zoom link: [to be posted 48 hours before the call]

Zoom link to join the call is here: Launch Meeting - Zoom

1 Like

Notes from English Breakout Room 1(Meta)


  • Comment: The Preamble is good. It’s comprehensive.
  • Comment: Compliment the MCDC for this wonderful draft; this text resonates with me; I like the diverse nature of this doc, includes all aspects of the Movement.
  • Question: What are some examples of the “organised and informal groups” mentioned?
    Answer: There are some groups within the Movement but they are not official affiliates/user groups, but they are part of the Movement and they are volunteer groups
    ** FU question (chat): Pharos can you elaborate what the thinking was behind the term “formal social agreement”?
    ** Answer: I meant earlier that some programs will have a usergroup affiliation agreement (or similar agreement), and others will not
  • Question: First sentence of the 4th paragraph: “Supplementing these projects and groups is a comprehensive infrastructure with several roles.” – what does this mean? It’s a bit vague, and difficult to explain.
    ** Answer: Thanks for the feedback. We will share with the members of that drafting group; hopefully, we can make it clearer.
  • Question: What about the note left by Legal?
    ** Answer: The alternative sentence proposed by Legal is “The projects are built with systems of self-governance.”
    ** From chat: “I’m good with the replacement.”
    ** From chat: “The replacement look good to me.”


  • Question: Is there any value about security or safety, digital safety?
    ** Answer: It is touched on in “equity” with the mention of digital rights such as privacy to our users
    Question: There’s a lot of mentions of “equity” but we have no definition for equity.
  • Question: Is there a point on sustainability?
    ** Also in the chat: “I think the sustainability section as well should be added.”
    ** Answer: We touch on “sustainability” in “resilience” but it could potentially be built out
  • Question: I don’t know if “team spirit” is a value or if it should be reflected in this chapter, but if it isn’t mentioned, it can be overlooked.
    ** Answer: “Team spirit” is a value, and we allude to it in “inclusivity” by mentioned people-centeredness and the chapter also mentions collaboration.
  • Comment (chat): I think the values can be further more expanded to incorporate more information about how they relate to Movement Charter.


  • Question: About #2, how do we identify hubs vs. Global Council?
    ** Answer: The hubs and Global Council are two NEW entities that came from the Movement Strategy process. The idea behind hubs - at a high level - is a group of affiliates organized around regions or themes to allow them to coordinate and collaborate. The Global Council is “a global structure that responds to the needs of our Movement as a whole and represents communities in an equitable way.” (Global Council - Meta) We have not defined them yet; they’re ideas and chapters of the Movement Charter that we want to develop with community input.
  • Question: Clarity around the distribution of roles and responsibilities for hubs. For example, would the Foundation make rules around the board of the hubs that the hubs would have to follow? (Touching on #3)
    ** Answer: The hubs would be agents of subsidiarity and localization. The Foundation might be a bit removed from your local context, so the hubs would be more local. Not every hub will be the same or serve the same purpose. For example, the European hub is interested in lobbying and working with the European Union, but that’s not applicable to the ESEAP or Sub-Saharan African or the LatAm contexts.
  • Question: Also on #3, who will modify the Wikimedia Foundation’s roles and responsibilities? And what does “the MCDC will review the previous work by the Movement Strategy 2030 working groups” mean?
    ** Answer: MCDC will look at the roles and responsibilities established in previous phases, and we will make sure it’s still relevant today and potentially make some adjustments, based on community feedback. We will propose those modifications in roles and responsibilitie that might impact the Wikimedia Foundation. We don’t have details right now; we want to hear from communities.

General feedback

1 Like

Notes from English Breakout Room 2 (Meta)


  • It resonates well. it is a preamble, getting people in the mood of the Charter.
  • Question regarding the term “formal social agreement”. What does it mean, as it can mean anything and nothing?
    ** Why it is not included that it is legally binding? Preamble says what the document is, so it could be included there.
    ** Leave a note on the talk page, especially with alternative wording.
  • Even stating that the text is ok would be helpful. Essentially trying to understand what is the direction that needs to be taken.
  • Question as a follow-up to the social. How binding will the Charter be for all the individuals in the movement?
    ** Charter will not go down to the level of individual. It will define the affiliates, WMF, Global Council, i.e,. groups of people.
    ** It is binding in a way that we are working on a model of the movement wide ratification, where people can agree with the Charter.
    ** Once it is ratified by the majority, it will be binding.
  • It reads quite well. It is good for a Preamble. Covers all aspects.
  • Question regarding the need to read it many times. What improvements could be made?
    ** English is not the local language. The reason why re-reading was necessary. To align with the idea. At first a bit lost.
    ** The more it is explained, the more the paragraphs start to make sense.
    ** The part about infrastructure is difficult to understand.
    ** Agreement regarding having difficulties with this particular section with “infrastructure”.


  • Empowering communities through pragmatic decentralization. At this point of time we should talk about equality. Creating a level playing field.
  • Inclusivity is another one that stands out.
  • Not clear with the question of subsidiarity. Feeling of being lost.
    ** The most immediate local level means bottom-up approach. If the local communities want to decide something, it is up for them.
    ** The higher up levels come only into play when it is needed.
    ** We will not have one size fits all approach. There needs to be trust to be showcased in the practices. Allocating powers where they are needed and where is contextual understanding.
    ** What would be an example of most immediate?
    ** Example is “deletion policy” decided per project, per language, except for legal reasons no-one is telling how to do it.
    ** Intention document has been shared regarding Roles and Responsibilities. As a result, what it will mean in practice for each and every entity will stem from that.
  • Example of the deletion policy. Deletion policy is affecting editing from Africa. Is that something that Movement Charter can actually address…
    ** +1 from chat: I agree with you and the preamble talks about equity and inclusion too
    ** Movement Charter is a high level document, so essentially what is stated that we trust local communities to decide on that.
    ** Isn’t it support to create that enabling environment?
  • Like: Independence is added as a principle. Values and Principles are very brief.
    ** Closer connection to actual Strategic Direction. This also goes with the Preamble.
    ** Phase II developed Principles. There probably has been discussion about why not to build on Phase II or just take them forward.
    ** The values and principles seem to be focused on editing community, while Phase II ones are more focused on the organizational part.
    ** It depends on the perspectives of particular people. Cannot let go of the experience and perspective. Whether affiliate one or project community one. Neither MCDC participants have been involved in the drafting group.


  • One recommendation : The movement charter should clearly state the difference between a Hub and a Chapter. I don’t know if this has been done already (i haven’t taken a look at the current version)
    ** Movement entities includes the affiliates and hubs
    ** Also the difference e between the chapter and the hubs
  • Movement Charter will propose new roles for the movement. What does that mean?
  • The R&Rs will be clarified. We do not hold any power but when the charter is ratified, it will be applicable to the full movement
  • intention 5 you mean? This is about the committee. We, the MCDC, will be proposing the new roles and responsibilities (later in this process). Once they are adopted into the Charter they are definite, but until then we’d happily invite all to feedback on our proposals.
  • the sentence “The Movement Charter will be written in simple English to provide a low entry barrier to the complexity of our ecosystem.” should probably move to the preamble
  • The Leadership Development Working Group is already helping to define what leadership means in our movement. It would make sense to have this definition in the movement charter

Notes from French Breakout Room (Meta)


  • Le texte convient car toujours important d’avoir quelque de claire pour ĂŞtre utilisĂ© come rĂ©fĂ©rence.
  • Le texte mentionne bien l’objectif
  • Que veut dire l’infrasture ? Il faut dĂ©tailler
  • C’est quoi les “restrictions extĂ©rieures” mentionnĂ©es
  • On a spĂ©cialisĂ© le contenu. Il faut qu’il soit plus gĂ©nĂ©ral. Au lieu d’être spĂ©cifique. Pour l’espace techniqe est il spĂ©cifiquement mentionnĂ©. Il faudrait.
  • le travail est bien structurĂ©. Les termes ressortent dans beaucoup de discussions. L’agencement suffisant. Il faut Ă©claircir les termes.
  • MCDC Member - L’interventiond e Valentin. On rĂ©dige avec nos yeux et pas avec les yeux des autres. +1 sur des termes qui sont vagues et qui ont besoin d’être dĂ©finis.

Valeurs & Principes

  • Toutes les valeurs sont prĂ©sentes
  • SubsidiaritĂ© - De quel type d’autoritĂ© ont parle ici? Sur la gestion du mouvement local ou l’autoritĂ© sur les choses? Est-ce que c’est liĂ© aux articles? Les valeurs sont très bien mentionĂ©es?
  • MCDC member: les projets ont des responsables qui ont pleins pouvoir Ă  leur niveau. Ce sont des personnes qui sont Ă©lues par leur communautĂ©. la fondation est une autre structure qui ne s’interfère pas dans la vie des projets. Les communautĂ©s sont indĂ©pendantes.
  • C’est bien la rĂ©ponse du MDC est bien. La responsabilitĂ© n’est pas Ă©ditoriale ? Mais plus oranisationnelles et gestion. On essaie de documenter quelque chose qui se fait dĂ©jĂ  dans la pratique comme la gestion des user groups. Les UGs sont indĂ©pendants mais sont bien documenter.
  • Le mot interprete

Rôles et responsabilités

  • le contenu est très rudimentaire. Il faut qu’il soit plus dĂ©taillĂ©. Comment le comitĂ© va travailler n’est pas encore claire. Il s’agit des dĂ©clarations. Il faut reformuler le texte pour bien comprendre. Pour chaue chapitre, il faut la dĂ©finiton, les objectifs.
  • On s’atendait Ă  ce que l’on puisse citer ou Ă©numĂ©rer les rĂ´les et responsabilitĂ©s. Manque de temps de lire tout le texte. Les rĂ´les et responsabilitĂ©s seront listĂ©s dans un autre document. Manque d’être Ă©numĂ©rĂ©s.
  • Vraiment les HUBs et la Gouvernance mondial n’est pas encore claire pourquoi l’integrer dans un grand travail comme la charte du mouvement
  • Question: Pourquoi l’application de la charte est il rĂ©servĂ© Ă  l’espace technique et pas les autres espaces?
    ** Réponse: la charte est réservée à tout le monde. Il n’y a pas de catégorie