here today on this call. We also have some of the movement charter traffic committee members joining us for this open call with the communities. Today we have Seel, we have Daria, we have Richard Tharros at the moment. I think there might be some of us who will be joining us as a progress through the call. And we have also supporting staff here with Nuh, Merdad and Aida and myself, Ramzi also here on the call. There is also I think interpretation channel for potentially one of the French-speaking community members joining and here he is, welcome to George. And I also see Maggie Deniz is joining us for a first talk also part of the support staff. So welcome everyone. Let's get slowly going with this open community conversation. The general notes, safe space. The organization team of this open call is dedicated to providing a harassment-free space and experience for everyone. Regardless of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, physical appearance, age, race, ethnicity, political affiliation, national origin or religion and not limited to these aspects. We do not tolerate any form of harassment or of conference or co-participants. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference space or talks. Any participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the call at the discretion of the organizers. If you have questions or need to report an issue, please contact myself, Nuh or Ramzi, all present in this room call and also in the breakout rooms. If you are going to host any, you can message us on Zoom privately. We are all co-hosts, so you can do that. There is a live stream of the call. Not everyone can be your chooses to be on the live call here on Zoom, but they might still be interested in the discussions and the outcomes of the conversations and to ensure the transparency and accessibility to these discussions. We are live streaming on YouTube and we'll have a recording of a main discussion room that people can rewatch later. It's a disclaimer for you to know that if you are engaging in the main room, you will be on the live stream. Also, there is a disclaimer regarding the next steps regarding the conversations. It's an open discussion here about the informant charter drafting. However, there is a very small fraction of the movement present in this conversation space, so the ideas generated and conclusions made during the discussions need to be validated with wider audiences before we would be integrated to the charter draft. So these conversations inform the drafting work, but it doesn't give a guarantee that anything we will come to on this course will definitely be included in the final charter. The purpose of the call is to provide a platform to discuss the charter matters with wider range of people, not just the committee itself, not just the advisors who signed up with the wider community. This will help us to bring in fresh perspective into a drafting process and have a better and deeper understanding of thoughts and expectations of different stakeholders. The hope also for these calls is to start to develop a shared understanding and agreement between opposing or even contradictory perspectives that have come up in the community discussions. This wider open conversation space hopefully can facilitate this type of convergence. There are some crowd rules I would like to have in this space and propose to you to follow. First is entering the discussion with an open mind, secondly striving towards awareness regarding one's own biases. We all have some. The main thing for me is listening carefully to what others have to say. If you don't understand, please clarify. And before you jump to conclusions, try to ensure that you have all the information you need from peers. The grounding principle for me is it is not about being right as individual, it's about getting it right together as a group. Regarding the proposed agenda we have for today, we will again start with a welcome and short icebreaker. Then there will be an overview of the topic. The suggestion is to move away from the forum discussions based on the kind of deeper dive we did last time. And essentially we need to rather define the purpose and the function of the global concern first, have a consent regarding that. So it's more functional purpose discussion that we are proposing to ensure that we kind of open the pathway to this functional or purpose discussion. We will be doing a practical light commification exercise all together and then we move to the circle of convergence to come up with a proposal regarding the purpose and functions of a global council. Let's see how much of the agenda we can cover. Previously we have not made it through, it depends on where we get on our roads on this journey together, but that's the general tentative suggestion for the agenda of the call today. Let's start with the quick introductions we have also done this previously. Welcome everyone, thank you so much for taking the time to participate on this call. Thank you for being here and what I would do as we have done previously. Let's have everyone state their name, if they please, also the community or affiliate they are from, and then maybe two word check-in. How are you arriving today? I would say to myself that I'm Karel coming from the Wikimedia Foundation and my two word check-in is I'm arriving slightly energized. So that's my check-in and I'm opening the floor. Maybe let's start with the MCDC members first, so you can also see straight away who here on the call is from the MCDC. So the first one up in the alphabetic order for me is Anas, so passing it over to you if you can speak up. Yes, thank you Karel. My name is Anas and I am an MCDC member as you said. I just arrived, so I am late. I think that's the word I use. I am late, I had another meeting so I just arrived, but I'm looking forward to this discussion and I think I will send the ball to another MCDC colleague that I saw see. Thank you Anas. I'm Seel, Movement Charter Drafting Committee member. I am an admin on Dutch Wikipedia and on Commons and I am happy that Europe is now in winter time. I love the winter, I love the cold. Let me see if there are other. Richard, Richard Fados popcalling it to you. Hi, Richard Nipal, user Farros from New York City, member of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. We just had a fun and successful hacking night at Wikipedia in New York City last night, so I'm looking forward and eager to hack the charter and the governance today with everyone. So that's my watchword. Yeah, I don't know if I'm supposed to pass this somebody, I'm supposed to do something. But sorry. Let's continue with the court drafting committee members, so I see Daria next in the committee corner. No problem. I'm Daria Spulska and CDC, also Director of Programs at Wikimedia UK. I'm arriving a little worried and I passed to Georges. I don't know, you might all need to switch to English shuttle, for sure. Hello, everyone. I'm George, M.C. Beastie, member of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. OK, if you want to ask me, go ahead, go ahead. I'm George, M.C. Beastie. I'm here today like the others.  I think it's always a good thing to have another view, another way of voice, another thought, that's the one we have tonight. So I'm happy to be here and I hope that the month will be very promising. Thank you so much, George. I see, but Michao has also joined from the committee. Are you available to know your sound is all connected? So Michao is here, but maybe we can do the checking later. Let's go to the call participants. I will again start with alphabetically and I see Alec. Welcome, Alec. Hi, everyone. My name is Alec, Alec Tarkovsky. I'm a director at Open Future, where I think, thank you for the digital comments. I'm also on the board of creative comments. I've been involved as a representative of a partner organization in the movement strategy process, so this is for me a continuation of this engagement. Thank you. Welcome. The next one I have on my screen is Alhaji. Can you speak up? Can you introduce yourself? Hi, everyone. My name is Abdul Rafiou, sitting in Dagwanochimidian, Yusagur. I'm a member of NDC. Thank you so much. Next, I see Anders. Over to you. Hello, my name is Anders. I'm active on Swedish Wikipedia. I'm also a member of the Northwestern Grants Dissemination Committee. Thank you. Thanks so much for joining again. Antony, over to you. Okay. Hello, everyone. My name is Antony Mtawangu, and I'm a co-founder of Wikimedia Tanzania, as well as part of the co-team for the East African regional and ethnic hub. Nice to meet you all. Back to you, Karol. Thank you so much, Antony. Caitlin, you are up next. Thanks, Karol. I'm Caitlin Virtu, from the Wikimedia Foundation, and I'm arriving cautiously optimistic. Thank you so much for joining again. The next one is a bit difficult for me to pronounce. Then, Shitobu, are you available? Yeah. Thank you. My name is Mohammed Kamaldin Fuseni. My user name is Dian Shitobu. I'm from Ghana. I'm a member of the Dagwani Wikimedia NSF group, and I call it for the Gorone Wikimedia community. Nice meeting you. I'm curious here. Thank you for joining us today. The next one I see in my list is Eva. Over to you. Thanks, Karol. Hi, everyone. I'm Eva from Wikimedia Germany, and I am very curious about how today's school is going to go. Thank you so much. Thank you for joining again. Over to Frank. Welcome. Hi, my name is Frank Schulenburg. I'm the Executive Director of Wikimedia Education Foundation, and I come to this meeting energized. Thank you for sharing. Thank you for joining again. The next one I see in my list is Gerga. Over to you. Hi, I'm Gerga. I am mostly a media wiki developer these days. I am eager to see progress. Hello again, Gerga. The next one in my list is Hari. Over to you. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. I'm Hari. I'm Indonesian. I'm just a regular Wikidata contributor, and I'm arriving here in the midst of humidity of tropical country. Nice to meet you, everyone. Thank you for joining us today. The next one I see in my list in the similar region, Jonny. Welcome. Hello. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah, I'm Jonny. I'm Jonny Allegra from the Philippines, and I had a thematic community, and I'm with the ECUP Preparatory Council. I'm with you here tonight. It's evening here, midnight almost, with much interest. Thank you very much. Welcome again, Jonny. The next one I see is Jorge, who is actually a member of the movement charge of trusting committee. Over to you, Jorge. Hello. Sorry. I'm joining from my phone, having some internet issues. I'm Jorge Vargas. I am the director of partnerships from the Wikimedia Foundation and also a member of the movement charge drafting committee calling from San Francisco, California, and I'm coming to this meeting with expectations to move forward. Thank you so much for sharing, Jorge. The next one I see is Lorenzo. Over to you. Hello. I'm Lorenzo. I'm from active in the Italian Wikipedia. I'm a member of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation, and both I'm from CBC, and I'm coming with curiosity. Thank you for sharing, Lorenzo. Thank you for joining us. The next one in my list is Louis, over to you. Hi, everyone. I'm Louis. I'm from Wikimedia Canada. Well, just like most of you, I'm pretty curious, and I try to be optimistic about the result with this work. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much for sharing. The next one in the list is Maggie, over to you. Hi, I'm Maggie. I'm with the Wikimedia Foundation and also an English Wikipedia admin. I come with fear of missing out because I have to leave at the top of the hour, and I don't want to, but it is also heading into the winter break, and work is insanely busy, and I have a thousand things to do before the end of today. Welcome, Maggie. Thank you for being with us, at least for the first hour. The next one I see is Manav, again, the MCDC member. So welcome, Manav, with checking from you. Hi, Karun. Hi, everyone. I am Manav. I'm joining in from India, and I'm looking forward to the discussions today. So I'm hopeful. Thank you for sharing. The next one in my list is Nicole, over to you. Yeah, thank you. I'm Nicole Eber from Wikimedia Deutschland, and I'm first of all appreciative of everyone's time to come together here and curious of where it's going to go today and in the future. Thank you. Thank you for sharing, Nicole. Next one I see is Niki, over to you. Hi, everyone. My name is Niki. I'm also with Wikimedia Deutschland. So you have a whole team here today. We also organized the Wikimedia Summit, by the way. I am jet lagged, yet curious and interested, and I'm really excited that so many people joined us. I'm curious what they have to say. Thank you so much for sharing. The next one I see in the list is Paolo, over to you. Hi. Let me see. Okay. I'm Paolo from Mother Island, Portugal, and I'm active mostly on the Portuguese Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikipedia, and I'm very happy to be here with you. Welcome. Thank you for joining us. The next one in my list is Raisha, over to you. Hi, everyone. I'm Raisha from Indonesia, and I'm a contributor in Wikipedia, and I'm here for better governance and accountability for the movement. Welcome. Thank you for joining us. The next one I see in the list is Sandeep. So, over to you, Sandeep. Hi, everyone. My name is Sandeep. I'm from India. I belong to Punjabi community. Thank you so much. The next one in the list is Gilmaz, over to you. Hello. My name is Janer. I'm active on Turkish Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata. I'm a member of Wikimedia Turkey and Turkic Languages user groups. Also, I am the MCDC ambassador of Turkic Wikimedia. Thanks. Thank you for joining us. And I saw in the middle of the check-ins also the Viring joined, so maybe you want to introduce yourself? Yeah. So, in the chat, just listening to my introduction, welcome to this call. Maybe a brief introduction is also from the supporting team. The first one in my list is Aida, over to you. Yes. Hi, everyone. I'm Aida, joining from Beeshkek. I'm hopeful for the conversation. Looking forward to hear your thoughts. Thank you. I pass it to Ramzi. Thanks, Aida. Hi, everyone. I'm Ramzi from the Wikimedia Foundation. Yeah. Excited to have you here. And looking forward for a frank and fruitful discussion. Over to you. Thanks, Ramzi. Hi, everyone. I'm calling in from Washington, DC. And I am perpetually optimistic. It's really a flaw, but perpetually optimistic. Carl, I think that's it. That rounds us out. Yeah. That looks good. Let's get going with actual topic conversation. Time is of essence. I will share the slide deck in the chat, so you can also follow there if that is easier for you. And I will provide an overview of some of the topical framing. The core here is the current movement charter draft that we have. And I'm making some references to there. Like I said earlier, we are skipping away from the forum discussions. We dive deep into the purpose and function discussion so we can come to some type of agreement or consent regarding that to then define form based on this. And for this, I'm representing the definition as we currently have it regarding the Global Council. There is a strategic aspect proposed for the Global Council to be the body responsible for development and implementation of movement strategy, including an annual report on global strategic priorities for the committee movement. So there is this high level conceptual framing. There are points made regarding the setup that this body is composed of movement volunteers supported by staff. There is a point regarding diversity. The volunteers on the Global Council come from a diverse range of the committee movement stakeholders. So it is kind of a really high level strategic and people side as has been proposed in the draft. There is the purpose definition that it should improve accountability and transparency for movement wide decision-making. So that's one of the purpose aspects. There is a resourcing aspect, but it should simplify access to movement resources and empower individuals and communities, nurturing trust between stakeholders. And there is also the proposed oversight aspect of the Global Council to carry out its purposes by creating standards and objectives for committees across the movement, providing oversight and limited execution decisions and directives. So that's what is in the definition part in the current draft. And also there is a purpose statement itself, but the Global Council has been set up to promote sustainable work and growth within the movement. And it reiterates on the accountability to empower communities in an equitable way. There is a list of oversight areas in the purpose statement in the current draft. It's advising on securing finances, it's equitable resource dissemination, inclusive decision-making, overall governance of entities, simplifying access to resources and process and standard setting. So that's what we currently have in the Global Council draft. There is a list of functions that have been outlined there. Some of it are related to platform or projects. It's about approving new language projects. They're setting the standards for that, approving new system projects requiring sign-off, closure of lingual and system projects. Also it has been outlined that the Global Council should have a role in global site policies, also user safety. There is a particular aspect regarding the involvement in product and technology decisions in the movement with the Technology Council. And also there is a threat regarding the ecosystem functions, either related to recognition and derecognition of affiliates, recognition and derecognition of hubs, general affiliates and hubs advancement, and then functional areas of fundraising, fund dissemination, mediation. So there is a bit of overlap between different categories as outlined in the current charter craft, but this kind of lays out the overall landscape. What we are also interested in this call is looking at how these decisions have been made historically. So we do have the committee landscape. So many of these categories that I just outlined are actually covered in the existing committees. If you look at the committee landscape, there are committees that are intrinsically related to a committee foundation and it's board of trustees. So the governance committee, audit committee, talent and culture committee, product and technology committee are more related there. Then we have the community affairs committee, which is playing the function of connecting the media foundation to the community and the movement. But then we also have a number of committees that actually play a certain level of movement role. So while communications committee might also be functional, more like foundation positioning itself in relation to the wider movement, elections committee is actually serving to run the elections for different roles and responsibilities we have in the movement. So that's already more cross-cutting. And then we have communities that from the get go have been identified as community or movement committees. So these are accolations committee, languages committee, onwards commission, case review committee, also the movement charter traffic committee and you first see building committee but are dedicated to specific purposes. So their setup is somewhat different, still reporting in the impact to the board of trustees but really being established as kind of community and movement committees. There is a similar tendency regarding some of the specific committees like for resource allocation. We have regional grants committee and conference support committee related to the community resources team in Wikimedia Foundation. And then we have events committee, so Wikimedia committee dedicated to drive movement decisions regarding Wikimedia. So that's kind of the landscape that we have. And as you look at the landscape, the interesting thing here is that actually many of the categories and functions as I said earlier, currently related to also the global council are to some extent covered by these committees in our current landscape. So the question also is what will be the future landscape we are currently figuring out. The final point I would like to surface here is about the resolutions we have had in the movement regarding the movement why decision making and that is a frame that we'll be using to ground the conversation ahead of us. And I will be sharing a link to this spreadsheet I'm currently showcasing. And what we have done with the support team to the movement charter drafting committee is that we have mapped out the landscape regarding the previous Wikimedia Foundation resolutions that seem to relate to the kind of global areas or the areas that might be related to the global council. So there are platform decisions or project decisions regarding opening closing projects for terms of use. There have been some content decisions regarding for example biographies or imagery or media regarding living people or identifiable people. There are the user safety aspects privacy policy ombudsman or ombuds commission universal code of conduct. We're having brand or trademark decisions that have been made. There is a long list of the decisions regarding the ecosystem. There have been resourcing decisions either fundraising or funds dissemination. There have been strategic or very high level decisions for the movement, not just to meet the foundation. And they're having some equity decisions and they're having decisions beyond Wikimedia. This list is not complete but overall we try to analyze the decisions from 2006 up until the present time and map them against these different categories. So this will be also the basis of the discussion here today. And then also you can click on like every item there is a link so you can actually click to see the content of the resolution. So that's that's kind of the mapping that we have done and that we will use as a crowning for the conversation today. That was quite a lot. So that's essentially it for the general topical framing for the call. I'm opening the floor for questions and clarifications regarding any of the content that was presented before we moved to a practical exercise. So questions, clarifications, regarding the content I just represented. I'm complete, opening the floor. There is also a comment in the chat from Gerger. Maybe worth noting that the various resource allocation committees put together are responsible for maybe 10% of the movement resources the rest is allocated by Wikimedia Foundation leadership. So there is a contextual comment from Gerger in the chat. I take it as no questions at this point of time. We will be monitoring the chat if there are any follow-up clarifications anything like this. So we will do that. I would then move to the practical exercise that we have prepared for this call. So trying to pull the different threads together trying to ground us in the practice of movement-wide decision-making. So let's play a game. Basically a quiz show type of thing. We will present a number of resolutions from the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation from the past. The one I just walk you through with a spreadsheet. We will ask you to vote whether these resolutions will in the future belong to the Global Council or a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. So it's just your personal take. Like whether you feel this type of decision should be in the future made continuously be made by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees or do you think that this should be in the remit of the Global Council? We will also have the point like option of other that the decision should be made elsewhere. It would be great if you could also specify if you choose other maybe you can write it up in the either pad. So we can see like what is the other place for the decision to be made. I will have a bit of support from Ramsay if needed maybe also Ida can jump in a bit. We will try to document the percentages in the respective sections in the either pad. So the documentation is happening on the either pad. Maybe also one of the support sub members can share the either pad link in the chat. So you can see kind of every documentation will happen. And then later in the call we might be using this as the basis for the purpose combination because we can look at the different areas in informed data driven way or at least based on the general atmosphere we have on this call regarding the different functional areas of decision making. So that's the idea. Let's see how the game works out. So essentially in the spotlight Global Council or Wikimedia Foundation the gamified way of decision making or mapping the atmosphere of the room. I will be using a zoom poll for that. I hope it works out well for you. If not you can maybe add your response in the either pad but generally if your zoom is updated you shouldn't be able to just use a poll. I will be prompting to you. And the first question we have let's start with the category platform. So we start with a platform category and there is a question. They were approving new sister projects or closing existing sister projects. Something that the Board of Trustees has previously done. Do you think in the future it belongs to the Board of Trustees or the Global Council? I'm launching the poll now and you should be able to see the options of the Global Council, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and the other. So approving new sister projects closing existing sister projects should it be in the future the Global Council or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees? And if you're choosing the other option maybe you can add in the either pad this can be done anonymously. What should be the other category there we should hope? So maybe you can specify there. Can you maybe help us understand what sister projects are? Yeah, thank you so much for the clarification question. Sister projects are the different content projects that we run. Wikimedia is a most known project. There are other projects like Wikimedia Commons, Victionary, Vicky Source, Vicky Varsity, Vicky Species, Vicky Voyage. So all of them are sister projects. So it's a general content projects that we run in different languages. Vicky Data also there. So I hope that helps you understand what this is about. Thank you, Ciel, for clarifying. To be sure we are clear regarding the vocabulary. I will end the poll now. I think we have a majority of the votes in and I will be now sharing the results on the screen and I hope the support team can help us with documentation of these percentages. We have 23 respondents, 74% think that it should be with a global council. 17% that it should be with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and two participants that is 9% specified. That this decision should be made by some other entity. That's it for now. We can start discussing later, especially with focus on the rather balanced responses for the discussion. But let's move on with the next item in our category, platform, which is licensing. So we're having licensing decisions in the by the Board of Trustees what licenses are being used on our projects. There is also resolution for openness that has been accepted or voted on. So these are the different licensing related decisions that have been weighed. What do you think in the future licensing decisions should they sit with a global council or the Board of Trustees? I'm opening the poll for your participation. So licensing decisions, openness decisions should they be with a global council or the Wikimedia Foundation as you move towards the future. And I see responses coming in. We already have 13 responses, the number growing rapidly. I'll give it again, maybe 10 more seconds to see where we are heading. And we have 21 responses. Last time we had 23, can we get to 23? No, I don't think so. I'm closing the poll with 22. No, we got to 23. I'm ending the poll. I'm sharing the results actually quite similar to what was previously presented. So 74% go with the global council, 22% with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, with them around one person, one person, 4% is stating the other. So for the other, if you could add the perspective in the e-verpad, what should be the other body that could be appreciated. But let's move on with the game and we have final platform category question. This one is the terms of use. Should it sit with the global council? Should it sit with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in the future, according to your perspective? I'm relaunching the poll and time starts now. The terms of use. The responses are coming in. We currently have 21 respondents. It's 23 now. I think it's now safe to end the poll. Oh, 24. Yeah, I think it's safe to end the poll now for the results. And this one is really more split. I'm sharing the results now. We have 42% saying it should be with the global council. 54% actually state that in the future we should be with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. We also have the other one response for the other. So that's how things split. Let's mark it maybe for a discussion later because that one is quite even distribution. So I think it merits a bit of discussion as we move forward. Let's go to the next category. The next category in our game is the content policies. So in the history of the Wikimedia Foundation there are some content policies that have been voted on by the Board of Trustees. Examples are biographies about living people and media about living people or media about identifiable people. There is also resolution on a controversial content. So the question here is whether in the future such content policies should live with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees or with the global council. I have opened the poll so category content, whatever the content policies, for example, biographies about living people, media about living people or identifiable people, policies about controversial content, should they live with the global council or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees? And this is movement-wide, cross-cutting, across all the sister projects, across all the languages. Making key decisions, e-content decisions, there these decisions should live. I will give it maybe five more seconds. We are 24 people participating. So yeah, there have been, I think more people have joined the call. So actually we got to 26 this time around. I'm sharing the results. The response is global council 62%. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 19% and actually this time around, the other is the same. Probably I would assume that it would relate back to the communities themselves making that decision, but I would love a perspective on that. Like if you are telling other, what do you think where these types of decisions should live? So maybe you can comment in the e-verpad to harvest that information. Let's move on to the next. Category, user safety. So privacy policy, access to non-public data, data retention policy, anything related to the user safety on that level. Where do you think these decisions should live? Oops, I reshared the previous results. I actually restart the poll. Restart the poll now. And now you would be able to vote on the user safety category. The privacy policy updates, access to non-public data, data retention policy. Where do you think these decisions should live in the future of Wikimedia? Privacy policy updates, access to non-public data, data retention. I see the responses coming in quickly. We are at 22 respondents for now. Maybe five more seconds again. And I am closing the poll. This time with 25% participants. So here are the results. It's 16% voting for the Global Council, 80% for Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, and 4% stating for the other. So this seems to be rather related to the Wikimedia Foundation in the perspective of the participants of this poll. Let's continue with the user safety category. So the universal code of conduct, anything universal code of conduct, its implementation, its amendments, the future of the universal code of conduct, where should it live decision-wise? I'm relaunching the poll for you. So regarding the universal code of conduct, anything related to that implementation, its amendments, the future of universal code of conduct, where should it live, whether it should be with the Global Council or whether it should be with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. We have quite quick action. We already have 26 respondents. So I'm ending the poll here and sharing the results. 73% of these core participants think it should be with the Global Council. 23% say that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and the 4% say with the other. I'm interested like regarding the other again. So if you can share in the other path, but it seems to be more weight towards the Global Council to have this decision-making power among the participants of this call. The final one around the category use of safety is the Ombuds Commission. Never the Ombuds Commission should, oversight of Ombuds Commission should live with the Global Council or with the Board of Trustees. I'm relaunching the poll. So over to you to make a vote regarding anything Ombuds Commission. Never the oversight of that should continue to live with the Board of Trustees or should it start to live with the Global Council as they move to the future. So the voting is going. We currently have 18 participants late. Let's wait a bit more for people to make the decision on the Ombuds Commission. Where do you think that oversight of the Ombuds Commission should live in the future? Can you maybe, because there are so many commissions, can you maybe help us understand again the work of the Ombuds Committee? Yeah, so regarding the committees, there is a page regarding the different committees we have and the Ombuds should be there. It's Ombudsman Committee. And essentially the Ombuds Commission investigates complaints about the infringement of a privacy policy access to non-voluntary person data policy, basically the policies we voted about before. And it's the place where if anyone feels that the rights have been misused, they can turn to the Ombuds Commission. There is a neutrality aspect. And here you can see the assigned rights for the Ombuds Commission. So this is essentially anything regarding the Ombuds Commission. I don't know if someone else on the call, maybe Maggie, you want to specify if there is anything to add, if there is anything I missed. Presume it's fine regarding the clarification then. I hope so. And I will try to remember to provide the specifications also for the other committees we might be touching upon. I'm ending the poll. This one needs a bit more split. So it's 61% with the Global Council, 35% with the Committee on Foundation Board of Trustees, 4% with the other. So this is where we stand regarding the vote. 61% for Global Council, 35% with the Committee on Foundation Board of Trustees, 4% for other. Let's move on to the next category. Trademark. So let's start with only trademark related to specifically trademark policy, trademark management. These are the Wikimedia trademarks, the different logos we are using. Just that part, not the overall branding concept that will come next. So where should the oversight regarding the trademark sit in the future, in your opinion? I'm relaunching the poll. It's about the general trademark policy, it's about the trademark management, the logos that we have, all of that. So where should it sit in your perspective in the future of the Wikimedia? And they currently have 23 votes, 24. I will be closing the poll in about five seconds. We caught to 24 votes and these are split in a way that 30%, say the Global Council, 83, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, and again, one response on the other. You can again share in the year, but where do you think this decision making power should sit in the future landscape of the movement? Let's move on to the second question in the trademark category, the brand project. So we had the movement brand project recently in the history of the movement. And where do you think in the future any of these brand projects there, they should sit when it comes to decision making, where it should be the Global Council or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. So this is not directly like the particular trademarks, it's overall branding of the movement, brand project for the whole movement, there it should sit in the future landscape. You have 19 votes already. Let's give it 10 more seconds. And I'm stopping the poll now with 22 people participating. And this one is a bit different than the trademark management. So 59% actually say that the branding project should sit with the Global Council in the future. 32% say that it should stay with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. And there are two people stating the other. I'm curious about what the other might be. So if you can, please share in the Europe, what is your perspective on this? Let's move on to the next category, ecosystem. So the general ecosystem, Wikimedia ecosystem that we have, the first one here is the affiliations. So general affiliations oversight, as we have in the current draft recognition and tier recognition of affiliates and advancement of affiliates. Also affiliations committee is here, currently reporting to the Board of Trustees. Where do you think the affiliations oversight and the affiliations committee oversight should sit in the future landscape of the movement? I have opened the poll and answers are coming in rapidly. 21 participants, 22, let's give it another five seconds to see where we can go. Quite high participation rate this time around. I'm ending the poll at 26. So we have 26 participants and 92% say that this should be the future function of the Global Council. 8% two people say that it should be the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees this time around. No other responses. So that seems to be quite clear. Let's continue with ecosystem points. So the next one, next item in the category of ecosystem is the language projects oversight and the language committee. So similar to the affiliates, let's go to the area of projects and different languages. Let's start to poll on now whether the language projects oversight and the language committee oversight should sit with the Global Council or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees as we move towards the future. We have quite rapid income offer responses again. We are at 23 people responding. 24, 25, I will end the poll and share the results. So the Global Council is 96%. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is 0% and the other is 4%. So again, quite clear results from this poll regarding the language projects oversight and language committee. Both of them also in a current Global Council draft for your interest. So that's how these ecosystem ones clicked. Let's move again over to the ecosystem question. So in the history, there has been movement roles project essentially redefining the movement roles. There has been also actions or decisions made regarding the committee and movement standards, movement accountability standards. So all these kind of standard setting, the role setting, there do you think it should sit in the future landscape of a movement, whether it should be with the Global Council or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Definition of movement roles, committee and movement standards, also movement accountability standards, previously approved, resolved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, where it should sit on the future landscape of the movement, Global Council or Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. We have 19 responses. Let's give it a bit more time. 24 people, 25, I'm ending the poll and sharing the results of 26 respondents. So 85% of the people say it should sit in the future with the Global Council. 12% say it's with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and four people go with the other. So this is where we currently stand regarding the definition of movement roles and setting standard setting for the movement in this group of people. I'm stopping the sharing and move on to the area of resourcing. So there has been a lot of discussion regarding this area around the potential future roles. And here first I would have Wikimedia fundraising policies. So this is the fundraising policy for the movement and definition of the future of movement fundraising. So previously there had been scenario planning by the Board of Trustees and different resolutions regarding the fundraising, including the Wikimedia fundraising policy itself. Where should it leave in the future? So essentially anything movement-wide fundraising there it should leave. There it should be with the Global Council or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees in your perspective on the future landscape of the movement. Anything global movement-wide fundraising policy or definition of how it should be done in the future. We already have 23 respondents, 25. This one seems to be more split so maybe we should return to the discussion later regarding this item. We have 56% think it should live with the Global Council in the future. We have 36% think that it should live with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and we have 8% stating the other. It would be good to hear from these two people there. Do you think they should live then? But overall it's a Global Council with 56% and Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees with 36% among the participants of this call. So I'm stopping this poll and let's move to the other part of the resourcing category which is global funds disseminations of anything related to the global funds destination. Previously there have been decisions regarding the funds dissemination committee or FTC sitting with the Board of Trustees. Where do you think that the future global funds dissemination decisions should live? Whether it should be the Global Council or it should be the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. What are your thoughts? We are 21 respondents now, 22. I give it maybe a bit more time. Let's see where it goes. 24. Five more seconds. I'm ending the poll with 27 respondents. So regarding this area, 74% say it should live with the Global Council, 22% with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and one person that is 4% say that it should be with other. So this is the thinking around the funds dissemination. There is one final item in this category which is the endowment. So so far the Wikimedia Foundation has made all the endowment key endowment decisions. There is a separate board for the endowment itself. I'm wondering what are your thoughts regarding the future resolutions regarding the endowment among the co-participants. So the endowment is essentially a separate entity collecting resources for the longer future of the Wikimedia and resilience and sustainability of Wikimedia. So it's separate from the Wikimedia Foundation. Where do you think the decisions regarding the endowment should live? Decisions about the endowment because endowment has its own board, making the decisions for the endowment. So the decisions regarding the endowment, like the movement-wide decisions, where do you think they should live? The Global Council or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently have 24 respondents on this call. 25, 26. I think it's good enough. I'm ending the poll now and sharing the results. So this one is really split. We have 38% of the Global Council, 35 with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, seven people that is 27% have said that it should live with the other something else. I would be interested again to see what do you mean by other? What are your thoughts? So maybe you can add to the either pad. This one is really split. So probably it's again an item for the discussion. I'm stopping the sharing of results and moving on to the next category, which is strategy. Historically, we have had decisions regarding the overall vision and mission statements of the movement, living with the Board of Trustees. I'm wondering, like that type of high-level decisions, where do you think they should live in the future when it comes to the movement? So really, top level, what is our vision? Imagine a world where every single human can contribute to the sum of all human knowledge. Where do you think, like, this type of statements should live in the future and not contribute to, of course, in the texts of its share in the sum of all human knowledge. So just to correct the language. And we have 24 respondents. I'm ending the poll here and sharing the results. So 71% of people say that it should live in the future with the Global Council. 29% say it should be the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. So that's the high-level vision-level statement of the perception of a co-participants at this point of time. Let's move on to the movement strategy. So we have a Wikimedia 2030 movement strategy. Currently, the oversight and resolution about the movement strategy has that with the Board of Trustees. Where do you think they should live in the future? I'm relaunching the poll for you to participate. So anything, the movement strategy related, implementation, oversight, resolutions about the movement strategy, where should they leave as you move forward to the future of the Wikimedia movement. And you already have 21 respondents. I'm giving it a bit more time. 24 respondents, maybe five more seconds. I'm ending the poll and sharing the results with 27 respondents. 81% say yes, it should live with the Global Council. 15% say the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. And 1%, 1 person, not 1%, 4%, that is one person, yeah, that it should be something else. So interested also to hear the other perspective, maybe you can add to the either part. This is the vote split among the co-participants for the movement strategy question. The movement-wide future strategy, anything future strategy, movement-wide, where should it live, whether it should be with the Global Council or with Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. So anything related to the future movement-wide strategy. So it's a bit lower level than a vision statement. It's more like a long-term planning for a movement, a strategic direction, strategic prioritization for a movement, very should live as you move forward as a movement. Currently have 23 respondents, giving a few more seconds to defy this seven. I think that's quite good. And regarding the distribution of the results, 89% think that this type of future movement-wide strategy effort should be coming from the Global Council. 4% say the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and two people that is 7% say that it should be somewhere else. So quite overwhelmingly, it's seen as a function of the Global Council. There is an interesting area of equity. We are nearing the end of the category. This one is about the decisions regarding diversity, equity and inclusion, also non-discrimination. Where do we make decisions movement-wide regarding this? I think so far, these have been more foundation decisions that have been sitting with the Board of Trustees, not so much movement-wide decisions. But where do you think decisions about the equity, diversity, equity and inclusion, also non-discrimination should live in the future? So maybe a bit more weight category, but at the same time, very important regarding the knowledge equity pillar and also the diversity commitments we have. Where should these movement-wide diversity, equity and inclusion-related resolutions sit in the future? And probably that means cross-cutting regarding the projects and the movement entities or organizations. There wish decisions in the future should be made. We have 22 respondents so far, 34. I'm ending with Paul here and sharing the results. 83% say that we should sit with the Global Council in the future, 8%, but it should be with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. And also two people, 8% say that they should be the other entity or other body in the movement. There is a category of human rights policy that has been accepted for the Wikimedia Foundation. If anything like this comes up in the future for movement, human rights policy, there it should be voted on or there the resolutions should take place. So anything related to the human rights, quite significant topic looking at the social political landscape in the world, where do you think any human rights resolutions should sit in the future of a movement? We have 21 respondents at the moment. I'm ending the poll and 57% think they should live with the Global Council. 39 that they should live with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. One person 4% say other. So that's again maybe more split, maybe an item for the discussion. So where the human rights policy decision should be in the future. I'm closing the poll now here, but yeah, maybe let's mark it for the discussion. And then there is a final category of beyond Wikimedia. So the first one is about movement joining a signatory of any public letters that have not been that many instances in the past regarding that. But if you were to join any public letters in the future, would that live with the Global Council or with the Wikimedia Foundation in your perspective? There should such decisions leave. So in the past, if you look at the spreadsheet I shared earlier, there is the Cape Town Open Medication Declaration, for example, where we have joined in a signatory. So there are not too many examples, but there do you think where this type of signing should leave in the future. We have 20 respondents, maybe a few more seconds. I think that's it. I'm ending the poll, sharing the results. It's 70% saying that they should live with the Global Council. 20% that they should live with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and 10% state the other. So that's the vote split on that particular question. Let's do the final question then. So still the category beyond Wikimedia, this is about commitments of the movement to the environmental sustainability. So so far it's again been more about the Wikimedia Foundation making these commitments. Or if you were to make movement-wide commitments to the environmental sustainability, there these decisions should be that the Global Council or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees or the other. So question regarding our potential future commitments to the environmental sustainability probably it will continue to be a global topic. And probably there are expectations related to our stance as a movement regarding this particular area. So there the commitments should live on the future landscape of the movement. We have 24 participants. We'll far give it a few more seconds. I'm ending the poll here and sharing the results. We have 67% of people saying they should live with the Global Council. 25% that they should live with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. And two people, 8% say other. So that's it for the slide communication, the quiz show, going through the historic decisions of the movement and trying to map them against the future landscape. I would love to have a bit of discussion regarding some of the items, but I'm also very conscious of the time. So I would actually go for a five minute break here and then start discussing as we return to the COVID. So five minute break, let's convene 17 minutes past the hour or 47 past the hour, depending on your time zone. Let's do a small break and real convene in five minutes to start the discussion and actual conversation between the open co-participants. So it's five minutes now. I hope that you can slowly start to reconvene from a break. I hope you have a bit of maybe rest winding down time, but now it's time to bring the focus back to the conversation. We tried to document as well as include all the poll results in the either part. So you can browse it, check it, what is in there, and maybe it might be possible to start a bit of a conversation regarding what you saw, what are your thoughts related to various patterns that you saw, the general purpose of the global council. I also understand that this was kind of a historic travel through the historic media that we are currently thinking about the future. So maybe there are some evident gaps that seem to be missing. For example, there is a proposal regarding the technology council from a women's strategy recommendations. That's not really related to a past resolutions. So maybe there are also some of these areas. So I'm opening up the floor for the general comments, for the general discussion, and I already see a comment from Gerga in the chat. I understand this list was made based on what past resolution the board made, but the lack of product and technology decision making, half of the total movement budget goes there, still feels like a big omission. The Wikimedia Foundation, Port of Trustees control over the Wikimedia Foundation and implicitly the movement today is not limited to resolutions. It also approves the Wikimedia Foundation annual plan, and that's the mechanism for some of the most impactful decisions about the movement's future. Transparency, accountability, oversight of those decisions is very much in scope for the global council discussion. So maybe Gerga, you also want to speak up on the main floor to get us going, and then we can hear from some of our people regarding their general take on what they saw in this quiz game, gamified approach that we took. So Gerga, do you want to share? I think I have much to add. Thanks for presenting that comment. I just think that yeah, the currently the Wikimedia Foundation spends like 90% of the movement budget, or 80% or something like that, and how that is spent is less directed by both resolutions and more directed by the annual plan and the board having discussions with Wikimedia Foundation leadership. And I think we should think about whether some of that should be controlled by the global council or the technology council or whomever in some way. Thank you so much for highlighting this, Gerga. Very, very valid point. And as I said, we are discussing the future landscape. So history has some relevance to it and helps to serve some things, but there might be things that we need to need to look forward regarding the future, definition of our future. You can use the raise hand function to step into the main space, or you can also write in the chat. I'm monitoring the chat. So are there any further reflections from people regarding what we just went through, the patterns you see, some particular points you want to raise, opening a thought for comments? See you. I see your hand though too. Yes, thank you. Gerga, what would that mean in practice in your opinion? Would that mean that it all would go to global council, or would there be a shared decision making on the topic, or would it be specific topics like, for instance, the WMF annual budget? How would you see that in real life? My minimalistic position is just that this should be part of the discussion. I don't have, don't really have a position, and I don't think this is an easy question. I think a good general principle is that when implementing something is a significant amount of work, then whoever does the implementation should be included in the decision. So the global council should not be in the position of just making up what should happen, and then it's somebody else's job to make it happen. And if it's a completely impossible request because the global council didn't have any idea of how hard it is, then things get bad. So that's in general a situation to avoid, and it's a situation very much to avoid with technology questions where this can happen easily, but also with a lot of other areas. So I definitely think a lot of things that have been listed here should be in some way shared. But then what exactly shared means is always, it's easy to say that word, but that doesn't really define how things should happen. But yeah, I think in general, the global council decisions should depend on someone agreeing that they can actually do it. Did that answer your question, Sil? Not really. I think Ergo is struggling with the same things as I am. I agree that on several of the statements that were presented for us to vote on actually the collaboration between the two makes more sense in exchange of opinions and taking the decision together. But it's difficult to split up all topics. So yeah, I think the question was answered as good as possible. Yeah. So yeah, in a way it was of course kind of a simplified travel to the future. And the realities are more complicated. Also something related to what Gerego was saying from the phase two discussion. So what was referred to several times was the motto by disabled people's organizations that nothing about us without us and involving, like Gerego said, the implementers or the people who are touched by the decisions in a way that would make sense. So that's something that was several times highlighted in the phase two discussions as a point of reference, which also probably invites to collaboration conversation as decisions are being made. Potentially also relating to the subsidarity principle that even maybe the decisions can be delegated from a global level to the most local level. So there are these complexities that I would bring from the previous discussions also here. I'm wondering if there are any further reflections from people regarding this aspect. Anders? Yes. When I looked at the result, I was surprised over the trademark issue. I thought the trademark was absolutely for the board of trustees. I would like to hear some comments why it should not be on the board of trustees. So we get to the first a bit contentious area regarding the trademark. So when we were running the polls, I think regarding the trademark itself and trademark management, it was more clear with the board of trustees, like 83% saying with the board, but it's more relating to the brand projects. They're actually 59% said it should live in the future with the global council. So the question is to the people who voted in that way, like leaning more towards the global council, why do you think it would make sense to have kind of a bigger branding projects with the global council rather than the board of trustees of the foundation? Let me try and kick us off. I think some of the thoughts around this might have come from the previous rebranding that was tried to change the name of the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikimedia Foundation and that actually got a lot of resistance from communities and it took a lot of effort from the people in the communities to get WMF, to convince the WMF to not do that and that it be as it is. So again, we have engagement from Gere Gere Medchat, an example of a trademark question that the Wikimedia Foundation should not get to decide completely one-sidedly is whether Wikimedia editors are allowed to use derivative logos on the Wikimedia projects. So there is a practical example in Medchat from Gere Gere. Anyone else wants to jump in here regarding the trademark and branding question? I think maybe it might still be difficult to understand what the difference is between the trademark and the branding and correct me Carol if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the trademark is the usage of the logos and the word marks as agreed in for instance the affiliate agreements like affiliates get recognized and that's at that point they get the right to use to carry the trademark. The branding is what the message that comes along with a certain topic is that right? Yeah, so generally the branding is a larger container like it's a certain type of narrative building that comes. So yeah, essentially I think you cover that well. Trademark management is more a technical thing in a sense. Of course it has its implications and it also creates kind of united homogenous visual side and then like a layer of connectedness, but branding is more related to the narrative and visibility and then thing awareness, things like that. So overall yeah, I think you're right. But I also see Michal's hand so maybe Michal wants to talk about this, maybe something else. I don't know. Michal, please unmute you. I can ask you to unmute. Why it doesn't work? Because I think I can only force mute people. I cannot unmute, you need to unmute. I can ask you to unmute. That's where my power is end. Let's see if you can resolve that. Are there any other thoughts regarding the branding and trademark combination we're discussing? You can also try rejoining maybe Michal. Yeah, and there is a suggestion we're running in the chat to rejoin and grant permission for audio. So maybe that will work out in that way. So opening up for again anything else on the trademark and branding discussion, where we had differentiation between the two poles, one around the trademark, which really leaned towards the foundation being the one to resolve in the future and then the branding rather leading towards a global concept. I just mentioned that there are so many possible brand exercises and some are really positive things. Some are potentially questionable things. I mean, there's the audio branding exercise that was done. There's been licensing in the past to like commercial entities and should we pursue that? There's a board game. There's a Wikipedia board game that came out a few years ago. What if the foundation decides to do that again? There are all sorts of potential uses of the brand that go beyond the strict definition of the trademark. And so I think it might make sense to break that out or consider some of those a little bit separately than others. They might not all have the same process. Hopefully that eliminated some of it. Thank you, Richard. Michal, can you try again? Yes, I can. Thank you. So starting with what Michal said. So for me personally, the trademark is absolutely central thing because basically the trademark is the most important, tangible equity that we are having, equity in the financial term basically of the movement. And the trademark actually constitutes what is Wikimedia and what is not Wikimedia. So basically the trademark power is the power that says that any Wikimedia chapter affiliate or whatever is the Wikimedia affiliate and not just a floating group hanging around. So having the power over the trademark is very much power over basically the composition of the Wikimedia landscape. So this is very political, not only technical. And the second thing is about the branding, as Richard mentioned. So with the things how you can use or you cannot use the trademark and the brand, a lot of opportunities, including especially fundraising, they arrive or they disappear. So this is once again very, to be honest, very political, especially where you want to create or encourage revenue streams and resources within the movements. I'm done here. Thank you so much for sharing this perspective. Anyone else who wants to jump on this train before we move on to other areas? I'm taking it as a no for now. There is a point from Gergen with chat. Trademark management largely falls into free areas. How affiliates can use a trademark? For example, who can call themselves Wikimedia X? How the community can use a trademark? For example, can you put a Wikipedia logo with a map on your user page? But how third parties can use a trademark is mostly a fundraising and partnership issue. So again, we're trying to articulate the different aspects of the trademark in the chat. Let's move on to the product and technology discussions we started with. There is a point from a YouTube chat. I agree that the decision of product and tech should be made by Global Council or maybe other committees like Tech Council. For example, Vector 2022 is one of the examples of terrible tech decision making. I don't think these kind of decisions should be only Wikimedia Foundation itself. So a practical example of a tech decision made and rational why these decisions in the future should live with the Global Council or other committees like Tech Council. So any thoughts on the product and technology matters? Something that was maybe somewhat omitted in the historic retrospect review that we did as an exercise? I guess one thought I had is that sometimes there might be a change that people don't like, that maybe they use too radical. So the vector change was too radical or too much of a change at once. But also I think that there is a danger historically of not making changes, of not making decisions and that by the Wikimedia Foundation having this responsibility, they feel an inordinate desire to please everyone. And because they don't have quite as much community connection and quite as much community legitimacy, they don't necessarily have the moral authority in some cases to make some of these changes that might be necessary, might be helpful to improve the technology, maybe improve issues of technology related to equity, issues around notability, original research, and it might be easier for Global Council to make some of these decisions than somewhat more disconnected with the Wikimedia Foundation. Thanks. Thank you very much. Gerger, what are your thoughts? Maybe call out two things. One of them is that technology is an area where decisions require a lot of expertise. And I think it's bad to say that this decision requires expertise, so you common troops don't get any say in it, and it's going to be made by the experts. So that's an anti-pattern. And to some extent, that's what we have now. But if you just leave the decision making completely to non-experts, then you end up with very bad results, obviously. So I think this needs to be some sort of complicated process where you might still end up with decisions which most editors are not going to understand despite there actually being good reasons for it. So this is just a quite hard question. And I think to some extent, there sort of has been in a co-decision making process in the past, but it has been a very messy co-decision making process which manifested itself by the community running RFCs and organizing boycotts and that kind of thing. So I think it can be replaced by a more functional process that's maybe less about what the decision making process should be and more about how the communication lines could be better, and I think the global council could play a big role in that. The other point is that I think it's maybe worth considering that a lot of what the global council does is very affiliate oriented. And on the other hand, product and technology decisions are very editor-oriented, like more important for editors than for affiliates. So having the same governance mechanism for everything might be a bad thing because, well, I will maybe find a different, sorry, I don't want to get too long. Thank you for unpacking the thoughts. Still, I saw your hand for a brief moment. Is there anything you would like to add? Not so much? Well, it's merely so reading, listening to the comment from SCP-2000, the question arises if there would have been a tech council already, and they would have said yes to Vector 2022. They would have agreed. Would it have made any difference, like for you as a person? Or would you still be discontent, but only now with the tech council? Because I'm sure Wikimedia Foundation does not make improvements or changes to the software just because they like it. They do it because it is necessary. They do it because of reasons. And even if there would have been a tech council that would have been consulted on the matter, maybe with a few little tweaks, it would still have gone through the way it is now. Now, what would the difference be for me as a Wikimedia editor, for me as a community member? Just because I'm not really sure about the tech council and the implications. Back to you. So I have a hot tech answer here. Basically, whether Vector 2022 gets deployed or not was decided by which random English Wikipedia administrator got picked to summarize an RFC. I think that's just a very dumb and unreliable way of making decisions. It was like a coin flip if you probably know how English Wikipedia RFCs work. But for the benefit of those who don't, you make a big list of arguments and then English Wikipedia takes the position that you don't just make a majority vote because people might be wrong about things. You measure the weight of the arguments on the two sides of the RFC. But then there is obviously no objective way of doing that. So a random person just gets selected to do that. It's not a very nice position to be in for that person because everyone is going to hate them for making a wrong decision. It just really depends on like if you select a different person, they might decide the other way. So it's just a very, random outcome. And I think in the future we should try to avoid that, even though I think in this time it worked out all right. But RFCs tracked a lot of people, tens if not over 100 people, even more maybe on English Wikipedia. I'm not an English Wikipedia. But comparing that to a tech council of maybe four or six or maybe 10 members, why is that better? Because I've heard these arguments when we did consultations. I've heard these arguments. Why is a tech council of six to 10 members better than just having a global RFC or having an RFC on my Wikipedia that decides on these kinds of topics? And you are correct. It is for, I'm an admin myself and for us admins it's always difficult to be the one that actually summarizes and makes a decision, carries out this decision most of the time. I'm not sure if the tech council is the best approach unless tech council is going to coordinate RFCs and use RFCs as one of their decision-making mechanisms. But I don't want to write that into your charter. Don't misunderstand me. That's micromanaging. But yeah, still. Yeah, a bit theoretical contextual comment. So regarding the RFCs, essentially from the theory, they are not essentially a decision-making tool. It's essentially their proposal development tool. And in different ways, there are different ways how it has been, they have been used and the modifications. So for example, internet engineering taskforce, they become an initial request of comments, but then they become standards. So they are kind of a policy setting tool. In Wikimedia, they have become in a way a decision-making tool, maybe more aligned with majority decision-making, like when it comes to oppose or support voting than as they often do. But essentially, the design itself is not to be a decision-making rubber. It's the proposal improvement tool, like developing certain content in a certain way by requesting for comments to that. So that's an entire rabbit hole to dive into. And an interesting one and maybe something we should explore as we are defining the decision-making tools that the movement is using in the future. But now, let's move on. I see also a comment from Michal in English Wikipedia, it is a decision-making tool. And in many projects, RFCs are decision-making tools. In French Wikipedia, they are called Prise de Decision, making a decision. So there are kind of different approaches to that. I'm just talking from the theoretical aspect of what are requests for comments and from that. But yeah, in practice, in Wikimedia, I think at least in the project communities, they are used widely as a community decision-making tool regarding some of the topics. I also see Gergozanta, what's your? Yeah, just a very quick comment on that. RFCs are used by the Internet Engineering Task Force, which is where Wikipedia copied it from when it was a young and more geeky project. It's a decision-making process where everyone involved in the discussion comments on the issue and then the chair of that committee determines rough consensus, whether most people agree or whether people agree and make good arguments. So it's very similar to how English Wikipedia does it. But I think the crucial thing is that it is an expert decision-making process. So it's a working group consisting of experts, and then they make this commenting and rough consensus process. And it's mostly how it's used on Wikipedia as well. So when they are making decisions about editorial policy, then everyone involved is by definition an expert on that, and it's an expert decision-making process. I think really bad things start happening when RFCs are used for things where the participants really have very little expertise on it. Yeah, thank you for that clarification. I see the point you're making. So yes, having the specification that it's expert decision-making tool based on the comments, I think that was the one I was missing. Thank you so much, Gergo. See you. Yeah, just one more comment about the tech council from my side, because Gergo, I attended your talk in Singapore at Wikimania, and I vividly remember your breakdown of the technical decision-making process. And the RFC and the question of whether or not to implement Vector 2022 on Wikis is one of the last stages. And if I remember correctly, in Singapore, you mentioned we should be ahead. The tech council should be in the front stages of decision-making. What are we going to develop? How are we going to do that? What is actually needed? And that is actually where I see a value for a technical council that can advise on those topics and make sure the community side is in those decisions. I just wanted to put that out there as well, because it is not only about RFC, it is not only after the fact of development. Okay, we got a bit stuck there, but I think it is an important uncharted area, as it was highlighted, and I am glad we could tell them this a bit. I also saw a comment regarding the privacy policy and the On Boots Commission. So, Thirang has shared in a chat, a comment from a friend. People voted to keep the board as controllers of the privacy policy, but give the policies enforcer the On Boots Commission to the GC. That makes zero sense. So, this is also commented in the other part. I wonder if people have any comments or reactions regarding that split vote between voting the privacy policy to stay with the Board of Trustees and at the same time having you enforcer being overseen by the Global Council in the future. So, any comments or any thoughts regarding this? I take it as no immediate reactions. So, we are just surfacing this type of contradiction that might exist in the perceptions to be discussed in the future. I would love to move us to another area. There we had a comment in the chat regarding the affiliation part, and essentially there was no affiliation strategy mentioned in the discussion. So, there the strategic approach regarding the affiliation should be taken. So, that was shared while we were going through the poll. So, I'm wondering if there are any reactions to that, like the strategic decisions regarding affiliations? Where should they leave? I assume based on the voting that it would go to the Global Council from this constellation of people, but I'm wondering if people want to speak to that particular point, the general affiliation strategy, and there it should leave in the future. So, opening the floor for any comments regarding that, picking that up from the previous chat. Nicole, over to you. I see your hand. Yes, thank you. So, I put this in the chat because I was wondering, I don't know, or hoping that it's not like only about our conversation and the decision making and so on, it's not only about the administrative tasks and the burden that is put on volunteers, like for example, the FCOM about the, I don't know what the exact terms were that we were using, but also about the strategic approach to the movement's affiliates. And in my, I don't know, one option could be that the affiliates become affiliates of the Global Council, or of that global entity that represents the movement. And so that the affiliate strategy then will also, of course, need to sit with the Global Council. And that's why I would love for it to be added to the conversation that it's not only at the moment the Foundation makes decisions about, because at the moment, of course, all affiliates have contracts and agreements with the Foundation. And should this remain as it is in the future? Or is it also something that should be laid out in the charter that affiliates get the different like set up and strategy and so on? That's why I added it then. I'm happy to hear others what others think about it. Thanks. Thank you so much for elaborating. So opening a floor for any further comments regarding the affiliates, affiliate strategy part in the future. So what are your thoughts? Johnny, how about you? Yeah, I'm kind of wondering what the dynamics would be between the Affiliations Committee, for example, and the Global Council itself with regard to recognition and so forth. Not only of the affiliates themselves, but hubs and other entities within the movement. What would the dynamics be? What kind of changes are we foreseeing in this matter? So on the slide deck, I shared some of the committees that are in existence. There seems to be connection or overlap regarding the outlined areas for responsibilities of the Global Council. Affiliations Committee is one of them, but I think it's relatable to also our committees. So how do you see the connection between the Global Council and these existing movement-wide community committees as they exist now? What are your thoughts? So opening the floor regarding the connection between these committees and Global Council, the question that Johnny asked. And then a specification from Brima, how about as both an affiliate of the Foundation and the Global Council. So positioning the affiliate as keeping the relationship to the Foundation and adding the relationship to the Global Council. So that seems to be a suggestion. Regarding the committees, as it is currently outlined in the human charter draft, it probably seems that there will be committees, but essentially it would be then reporting to the Global Council. So regarding the Affiliations Committee, the recognition and de-recognition would go to the Global Council. That means that there will be Affiliations Committee reporting to the Global Council. So that is the current charter draft text, the same for the Language Committee. So that's where we are currently. I'm wondering if there are any thoughts or reflections in this group regarding this? I have a question for Nicole. I'd like to hear your perspective on, as Johnny also mentioned, on the position of hubs when it comes to that strategic development. Because the hubs will be a new player in our movement landscape. And while of course affiliates work on strategy, can hubs be those that bridge between, for instance, Global Council and affiliates and all the other communities? I think we see something like that happening in CEE at the moment where actually several affiliates are in contact with the CEE hub, but also over 20 communities. So those that are not recognized as an affiliate by the Wikimedia movement, but still do work in the region. And the hub is connecting them all? Yeah, so in my perspective, hubs have more of a support function for the affiliates in the region. Support in terms of expertise and learning and peer learning and so on. And potentially also funds distribution on a regional level so that it becomes actually really decentralized. And I think when we talk of affiliate strategy that cannot be done by the hubs from my perspective, because if we are like globe affiliates to a governing entity, then we should be all united under this global entity and not, I don't know, I'm not sure if I understand your question. I wouldn't put that too much of a burden on the hubs. That's why I say I think they have more of a supporting role and they can of course be consulted on those affiliate strategies because they know the affiliates quite well, but I wouldn't add another layer of decision making for those affiliate strategies with the hubs probably. But this is not the hill I'm going to die on, I will add to my comment. I think I understand that reasoning from the European perspective, but looking at Central and Eastern Europe, but also Asia and also Africa, there are a lot of communities that cannot organize themselves as a legal affiliate. And that actually is where a hub can come in and at least make sure that they combine and coordinate and everything also on strategy. So I'm not sure how affiliate strategy would have a separate position or like other than you as an affiliate, other than Wikimedia Germany working on the strategy. So what I think that is in line with what I said, because the hub can be like a support structure that they can gather the voices and support those communities who don't have the structures that the more privileged organizations have and so on. I think this is exactly where the hub can step in and also amplify the voices of those communities. But I still don't think that it needs to be an additional layer in the decision making matrix of governance of the movement. I agree on that last one. Yeah, absolutely. But what was your question about affiliate strategy exactly? What was my question? I mean, I would have loved to add this question to the poll as well, so that it's not only who should make, I can't remember how exactly the wording was, but who should make the decision on the FCOM and so on. Recognition and derecognition. Exactly. And I would love to add another, have added another question on who should make decisions on affiliate strategy. And then the affiliates themselves. Does that really the affiliates are the affiliates of that global entity? And they they of course they have the affiliates and the community send a representative in the global council. So the global council makes the decisions on behalf of those those that they represent. Oh, God. I think no, no, no, I think now I understand because you're actually getting into the structure of global council. I missed that that link. Thank you for for for for wording that connection because I missed that one. Thank you. Yeah, so we are already over time. So we just got into the weeds of the conversation. I think Nicole's point is also similar to the trademark discussion we had. So there is a kind of technical aspect to the trademarks to be managed. Like there is a technical aspect regarding affiliate management. And then there is a kind of overall strategic approach to it. Like how do we generally approach the affiliate landscape? And like like a branding is. So there is a difference there. But I think we need to dive deeper regarding the connections between these different ones. Like like Charlie's question, how do the committees relate in there? And then the whole global council hubs affiliate big media foundation, how they all interrelate. So that seems to be a different conversation to be had. There is a similar meta level conversation point brought up in the ever pad regarding the accountability of the global council itself. How is it the accountability of the global council ensured are the standards that the global council needs to meet? What happens if the global council itself commits violations? So these meta level questions come in. Also, I'm clear about the fact that we didn't get to a deeper dive regarding the resourcing and fundraising and endowment from topics that had a split vote in our poll. I think that merits a separate time because that seems to be a deeper dive. The movement seems to be a bit split. So I'm closing it here. I will be following up with a recap. We tried out the straw polling idea this time around, which was suggested at last open community call. So maybe we can also run something like this, our synchronicity to get more people involved, as we kind of have tested out the idea, we'll see. And also, we will probably open up now a light conversation space for some of these topics on meta and movement strategy forum and telegram, as you are building towards the in-person meeting of movement charge drafting committee end of January. So these are quite of the next steps regarding some of these conversations. And yeah, let's continue to have the discussions. Let's dive deeper. Let's try to clarify things. Let's try to converge. And let's close this call with maybe some of the points of appreciation in the chat or just the voice ones. I'm really appreciative for everyone participating in the poll exercise, the quiz show. It was really interesting for me. I'm also appreciative for people who spoke up on the call and got the conversation going. Also the people who silently put the comments in the other pads. We will continue to follow up on these aspects. Lots of appreciation for our interpreter today, thank you for providing a French language support and French channel. So if there is anyone who wants to share appreciation, you can do it in the chat. You can speak up and then we will then we will wrap up the call. So open it before for any week you love any appreciation before we wrap up. So this is my kind of my standard appreciation template for these things, but I just went to it. Thanks for the MCDC for staying with this process, which is like based on past experience with movement strategy process is a lot harder than it looks from the outside. And I mentioned by this point it has to be quite exhausting. So thanks for touching on and thanks especially for being very active in the deliberations. And thanks for the foundation board for I guess at this point it's present and past foundation board because the process has been going on for a very long time for making space of this whole transformation of power structures of the movement. And thanks for the foundation staff who helps facilitating it. I see some thank you messages in the chat. I see also the telegram link being shared for the continuous conversation. I think we are


Quinsolo asks, do you think there is potential for companies and exchanges to blacklist all-coin-joined Bitcoin? I hope one day Bitcoin will include a full privacy solution on the base layer. But until then, coin-joined seems to be the best way to achieve reasonable privacy when purchasing BTC through an exchange, or some other place where they have KYC. Most of my coins have been mixed and put back into cold storage using Wasabi Wallet. Wasabi Wallet is one of the wallets that has a built-in coin-joined capability. Do you think there is a possibility of not being able to sell or spend those satoshis due to them being tainted? The type of coin-joined that Wasabi does is what is known as an equal-output coin-joined, where all of the participants are mixing with the same output amounts, which is one of the most effective types of coin-joined. It is impossible to unravel after several rounds, so it is not impossible. It is extremely difficult to unravel after several rounds of coin-joined. There is an interesting thing here, which is, what exactly is a coin-joined transaction, and how does it look on the blockchain? A coin-joined transaction is basically a transaction where multiple parties join together. It is not one person making the transaction, it is multiple people signing a whole bunch of inputs that belong to multiple people, and creating a whole bunch of outputs in the transaction that belong to multiple people. That is all it is. There is no one implementation of coin-joined. In fact, there have been several implementations of coin-joined, with multiple people joining together to spend bitcoin in a way that is more difficult to track. If you have a transaction with two inputs and two outputs, is that a coin-joined transaction? Not necessarily. It could be a transaction from my wallet that pays someone and then takes some change. If the payment and the change are the same amount, again, that doesn't tell you it is a coin-joined transaction. What if there are three inputs and three outputs? Maybe that looks a bit more like a coin-joined transaction. What if it is ten inputs and ten outputs? That kind of looks again like a coin-joined transaction, but it is also the kind of transaction I would do to run payroll in my company when I have to pay ten employees in bitcoin. I am not going to do that in ten different transactions. I am going to do it in one. That is not a coin-joined, but it might look like a coin-joined. How would exchanges really know if it is or isn't a coin-joined? I guess they could do some kind of heuristic. Then they are going to catch a lot of people who are not doing coin-joined transactions, and they are going to have some real problems if they start tainting coins that way, especially if people start structuring their wallets to make more coin-joined transactions or make more transactions look like coin-joined. Then, of course, what if you did coin-joined in the past, and then they decide to change how they treat coins, and they tell you, oh no, those coins are tainted? What does tainted mean? Tainted means that at some point in the last K number of transactions, those coins were involved in a coin-joined. What value are you going to give to that number K? How many hops or how many previous transactions are you going to look at? If you look back more than a dozen transactions, you are going to run into something that is tainted, which means that you can't go that far back. If you are in exchange, you can't blacklist after 12 normal transactions, because the 13th transaction in the past was a coin-joined. If you have coin-joined coins, all you have to do is do 13 consecutive transactions to yourself, regular transactions, where you just bounce them from address to address to address to address to address, and then they are no longer tainted. In general, when it comes to tainted coins, this mostly catches those who are unaware of these situations involving exchanges, because no matter how many hops they look back, all you have to do is, if they look at K hops back, you jump K plus one. You create K plus one transactions to yourself, creating K plus one addresses, and the last one isn't tainted, because the last K are not tainted. K plus one is tainted, but they are not looking that far back. If they keep increasing K, eventually they reach a point where everything is tainted, and they can't use that heuristic, because then they have to shut down their exchange. How much does it cost you to make a new transaction with a new address? Remind me, oh right, just a transaction fee. You can do that whenever you want. You can do it when the network is really low capacity. In fact, you're not in a hurry. You're sending from your own address to your own address. How much in a hurry are you? I can wait 200 blocks for a transaction like that to go through. I'm going to minimize the fee, so it's not that expensive to do. Of course, you have to pay the computational fee for creating a new address, which is zero. This whole idea of companies and exchanges, black, listen, coin, join, BTC, very quickly runs into some serious practical problems. That will only drive an arms race. If they do this, then wallets will keep adding hops. For example, there are wallets today that add hops. One of them is samurai that does something called ricochet. You can say how many hops you want to add, and it bounces your coins from address to address to address, and then sends them to distance yourself from any tainting that has happened in the past. More wallets will do that, and more wallets will do more stealthy forms of coin join to avoid any problems with exchanges. I think you're okay, Quinsado. Your coins are probably fine. I don't think you'll ever see a situation where you can't spend them or make them clean enough to spend them with a bit of effort. One of them is the kind of fingerprint that your wallet leaves. Wallets can do various things that are very harmful to privacy. For example, many naive wallets always put the change transaction last. The change output lasts. If they put the change output last, then you always know which output has changed, which means you know that the other one or other ones are payments. That reveals far too much information. There are techniques to avoid that. One of the techniques is to simply sort the outputs by the address. Basically, it's like alphabetically sorting the address. The first output is always the one that has the address that starts with the lowest prefix. The last output is always the one that has the highest prefix on the address. If you lexicographically sorted the address, it gives you no information about which one is payment and which one is change. There are other things about how wallets set various parameters in the transaction. Some wallets, for example, set the time lock in the transaction to avoid fee sniping. If you do that in a very specific way, that leaves a signature. If you're using certain types of wallets, they can leave little fingerprints behind that are very characteristic of that wallet and how it implements certain things. Having standardization where wallets do things in the same way, produce transactions in the same way, reduces the ability to identify what type of wallet it is. You can't see the difference between an electron wallet or a trezzel wallet, or a wasabi wallet, or a samurai wallet, or whatever else you're talking about, a bread wallet. That's another technique that's really important for privacy. Another element of privacy is how you route transactions when your wallet prepares them, and then once you transmit them on the Bitcoin network, which is if you simply give them to one of the nodes you're directly connected to as a peer, and that node transmits it to all its peers, and you flood it out, which is the traditional way of flooding transactions out, if an attacker has enough nodes in the network, they can triangulate the origin of the transaction, and then they can deduce information about geography, for example, or even pinpoint the specific IP address, which was the first one to see the transaction, and use that to find out which node it came from, which could reveal a lot of information. A technique to overcome that is called dandelion. Now, imagine a dandelion that is being blown by the wind, and then at some random time it breaks open and all of the little seeds fly away. That's the image for dandelion routing. In dandelion writing, what you do is basically you route an onion to a transaction to some node out there without flooding and sending it to anybody else, and then when it reaches that intermediate node, it puffs out and floods from there. So if someone was triangulated, they'd find it came from there, but they don't know if it really did come from there, or if it was dandelion routed. So again, that's another technique to avoid being tracked. Another technique to avoid being tracked is, of course, using the onion router network, Tor, in order to both connect your node to other nodes, as well as do transactions with your node, or even connect your wallet to your node if your wallet is not running on your node. Using your own node instead of an SPV wallet or some other lightweight client, and certainly not using a third-party custodial service. So again, privacy is something you use in layers, and you need to apply several layers of privacy in order to achieve a high degree of privacy, and it's never perfect. It's never perfect. There is no silver bullet. It's an arms race, like any aspect of information security. You do more things to do privacy. The analytics and surveillance companies do more things to violate your privacy. And if you do things well enough, and enough people do things well enough, we start winning. We start winning our privacy because it becomes very difficult for the analytics company to really pin down the information they need to. A lot of the information is tainted.