[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Christophe Henner]

Am I the only one not shocked that in a time where there is a huge change
happening in Movement governance (Global Council) the board is actually not
committing to any sélection process?

I mean in two years time the whole movement power structures and dynamics
could be immensely different from today.

I prefer the options to be left open by the board for 2024 right now and
make sure the Global Council discussion to move forward properly :)

Le mer. 27 avr. 2022 à 6:24 PM, Andreas Kolbe  a écrit :

> Hi Dariusz,
>
> Many thanks for your reply. I wasn't really interested in having you
> confirm a commitment to conduct future (s)elections in any particular way –
> I was only interested in having you confirm the *absence* of any
> commitment to conduct a free community election in 2024, along the lines of
> the one conducted in 2021.
>
> You have indeed confirmed that there is no such commitment to holding a
> free community election in 2024.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:44 PM Dariusz Jemielniak <
> djemieln...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> a quick and short response: we do not provide a response on a thing that
>> has not been collectively discussed. That's a standard that should be kept,
>> and the organization of elections is definitely something that needs
>> discussing every time they happen (the procedure involves several months of
>> work of the governance committee, before going to the board discussion).
>>
>> In no way the "reluctance" should be read as a commitment to organize the
>> future elections in some specific way.
>>
>> Our approach to this particular, upcoming elections of 2 seats was
>> straightforward: we recognized the fact that the community input was
>> missing for seats historically reserved for affiliate-only nomination. Two
>> of these seats are upcoming for re-election, and we focused on optimizing
>> the process for these two seats, with no specific intent for the community
>> elections in the future.
>>
>> I realize it is difficult not to assume that we're secretly plotting to
>> take over the world, but the mundane reality is that much as we would love
>> to, we lack the bandwidth and to a large extent focus on things as they
>> come.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Dariusz
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:41 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dariusz and all,
>>>
>>> Since this thread started, I (and several others) have asked in multiple
>>> locations whether the WMF can promise that when the four formerly
>>> community-selected seats come up for re-selection in 2024, community
>>> members will be given a free vote.
>>>
>>> This question seemed particularly important, given that in the Call for
>>> Feedback on how affiliates should participate in elections[1] – where
>>> mainly affiliates were invited to respond, even though the result has
>>> clearly affected the community as well – it was explicitly said that *"the
>>> answers may refer not just to the two seats mentioned, but also to other,
>>> Community- and Affiliate-selected seats."*
>>>
>>> I have received no response, nor have any of the others. And if you
>>> think about it, the 2021 changes to the bylaws,[2] collapsing
>>> community-selected seats and affiliate-selected seats into a single, new
>>> category, "Community- and Affiliate-selected seats", only makes sense if
>>> you do intend to abolish community voting. After all, these were the very
>>> words, "community voting", that were removed from the bylaws.
>>>
>>> So, given that the WMF appears reluctant to confirm that the 2024
>>> selection process will be a proper, free community vote, along the lines of
>>> the 2021 vote, I think it is safe to assume that it intends for the 2024
>>> procedure to be similar to this year, i.e.:
>>>
>>> – either the community once again voting on a shortlist pre-selected by
>>> the affiliates,
>>> – or perhaps the affiliates voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the
>>> community.
>>>
>>> Either process could be "sold" to the community by saying that because
>>> the community was given a say in what used to be 2 affiliate seats in 2022
>>> (as was argued both in this thread and on Meta), it is only fair if the
>>> affiliates, in turn, get a say in the 4 former community seats in 2024.
>>>
>>> But while the shortlist method can be characterised as increasing
>>> community influence this year, its long-term effect will be a dilution of
>>> community influence on the board, because either way, the community vote
>>> will always be filtered through affiliate preferences.
>>>
>>> I believe Jimmy Wales recognised this dilution, when he argued
>>> strenuously against the bylaws change in late 2020 (and there was
>>> concurrently talk of removing him from the board), saying in the Wikipedia
>>> Weekly Faceboook group[3] (my emphases):
>>>
>>> *It is of course a bit awkward for me to comment here, but I think that
>>> I should.*
>>>
>>> *As is well known, I have no interest in being the boss of anything or
>>> the 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Dariusz,

Many thanks for your reply. I wasn't really interested in having you
confirm a commitment to conduct future (s)elections in any particular way –
I was only interested in having you confirm the *absence* of any commitment
to conduct a free community election in 2024, along the lines of the one
conducted in 2021.

You have indeed confirmed that there is no such commitment to holding a
free community election in 2024.

Best,
Andreas

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:44 PM Dariusz Jemielniak <
djemieln...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> a quick and short response: we do not provide a response on a thing that
> has not been collectively discussed. That's a standard that should be kept,
> and the organization of elections is definitely something that needs
> discussing every time they happen (the procedure involves several months of
> work of the governance committee, before going to the board discussion).
>
> In no way the "reluctance" should be read as a commitment to organize the
> future elections in some specific way.
>
> Our approach to this particular, upcoming elections of 2 seats was
> straightforward: we recognized the fact that the community input was
> missing for seats historically reserved for affiliate-only nomination. Two
> of these seats are upcoming for re-election, and we focused on optimizing
> the process for these two seats, with no specific intent for the community
> elections in the future.
>
> I realize it is difficult not to assume that we're secretly plotting to
> take over the world, but the mundane reality is that much as we would love
> to, we lack the bandwidth and to a large extent focus on things as they
> come.
>
> best,
>
> Dariusz
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:41 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Hi Dariusz and all,
>>
>> Since this thread started, I (and several others) have asked in multiple
>> locations whether the WMF can promise that when the four formerly
>> community-selected seats come up for re-selection in 2024, community
>> members will be given a free vote.
>>
>> This question seemed particularly important, given that in the Call for
>> Feedback on how affiliates should participate in elections[1] – where
>> mainly affiliates were invited to respond, even though the result has
>> clearly affected the community as well – it was explicitly said that *"the
>> answers may refer not just to the two seats mentioned, but also to other,
>> Community- and Affiliate-selected seats."*
>>
>> I have received no response, nor have any of the others. And if you think
>> about it, the 2021 changes to the bylaws,[2] collapsing community-selected
>> seats and affiliate-selected seats into a single, new category, "Community-
>> and Affiliate-selected seats", only makes sense if you do intend to abolish
>> community voting. After all, these were the very words, "community voting",
>> that were removed from the bylaws.
>>
>> So, given that the WMF appears reluctant to confirm that the 2024
>> selection process will be a proper, free community vote, along the lines of
>> the 2021 vote, I think it is safe to assume that it intends for the 2024
>> procedure to be similar to this year, i.e.:
>>
>> – either the community once again voting on a shortlist pre-selected by
>> the affiliates,
>> – or perhaps the affiliates voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the
>> community.
>>
>> Either process could be "sold" to the community by saying that because
>> the community was given a say in what used to be 2 affiliate seats in 2022
>> (as was argued both in this thread and on Meta), it is only fair if the
>> affiliates, in turn, get a say in the 4 former community seats in 2024.
>>
>> But while the shortlist method can be characterised as increasing
>> community influence this year, its long-term effect will be a dilution of
>> community influence on the board, because either way, the community vote
>> will always be filtered through affiliate preferences.
>>
>> I believe Jimmy Wales recognised this dilution, when he argued
>> strenuously against the bylaws change in late 2020 (and there was
>> concurrently talk of removing him from the board), saying in the Wikipedia
>> Weekly Faceboook group[3] (my emphases):
>>
>> *It is of course a bit awkward for me to comment here, but I think that I
>> should.*
>>
>> *As is well known, I have no interest in being the boss of anything or
>> the dictator of anything. My most keen interest is for the future of the
>> encyclopedia, with all the core values intact: that we are a
>> community-first project, that we are a charity, that we are neutral, that
>> we strive for quality, and that we work towards governance that means
>> safety for all these values in the long run.*
>>
>> *In the past few years, there have been several crises that have made it
>> increasingly clear to me: the biggest problem on the board is not a lack of
>> professional expertise, but rather a lack of community representation and
>> control. I am a steadfast proponent of that 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

Hi Andreas,

a quick and short response: we do not provide a response on a thing that
has not been collectively discussed. That's a standard that should be kept,
and the organization of elections is definitely something that needs
discussing every time they happen (the procedure involves several months of
work of the governance committee, before going to the board discussion).

In no way the "reluctance" should be read as a commitment to organize the
future elections in some specific way.

Our approach to this particular, upcoming elections of 2 seats was
straightforward: we recognized the fact that the community input was
missing for seats historically reserved for affiliate-only nomination. Two
of these seats are upcoming for re-election, and we focused on optimizing
the process for these two seats, with no specific intent for the community
elections in the future.

I realize it is difficult not to assume that we're secretly plotting to
take over the world, but the mundane reality is that much as we would love
to, we lack the bandwidth and to a large extent focus on things as they
come.

best,

Dariusz

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:41 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Dariusz and all,
>
> Since this thread started, I (and several others) have asked in multiple
> locations whether the WMF can promise that when the four formerly
> community-selected seats come up for re-selection in 2024, community
> members will be given a free vote.
>
> This question seemed particularly important, given that in the Call for
> Feedback on how affiliates should participate in elections[1] – where
> mainly affiliates were invited to respond, even though the result has
> clearly affected the community as well – it was explicitly said that *"the
> answers may refer not just to the two seats mentioned, but also to other,
> Community- and Affiliate-selected seats."*
>
> I have received no response, nor have any of the others. And if you think
> about it, the 2021 changes to the bylaws,[2] collapsing community-selected
> seats and affiliate-selected seats into a single, new category, "Community-
> and Affiliate-selected seats", only makes sense if you do intend to abolish
> community voting. After all, these were the very words, "community voting",
> that were removed from the bylaws.
>
> So, given that the WMF appears reluctant to confirm that the 2024
> selection process will be a proper, free community vote, along the lines of
> the 2021 vote, I think it is safe to assume that it intends for the 2024
> procedure to be similar to this year, i.e.:
>
> – either the community once again voting on a shortlist pre-selected by
> the affiliates,
> – or perhaps the affiliates voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the
> community.
>
> Either process could be "sold" to the community by saying that because the
> community was given a say in what used to be 2 affiliate seats in 2022 (as
> was argued both in this thread and on Meta), it is only fair if the
> affiliates, in turn, get a say in the 4 former community seats in 2024.
>
> But while the shortlist method can be characterised as increasing
> community influence this year, its long-term effect will be a dilution of
> community influence on the board, because either way, the community vote
> will always be filtered through affiliate preferences.
>
> I believe Jimmy Wales recognised this dilution, when he argued strenuously
> against the bylaws change in late 2020 (and there was concurrently talk of
> removing him from the board), saying in the Wikipedia Weekly Faceboook
> group[3] (my emphases):
>
> *It is of course a bit awkward for me to comment here, but I think that I
> should.*
>
> *As is well known, I have no interest in being the boss of anything or the
> dictator of anything. My most keen interest is for the future of the
> encyclopedia, with all the core values intact: that we are a
> community-first project, that we are a charity, that we are neutral, that
> we strive for quality, and that we work towards governance that means
> safety for all these values in the long run.*
>
> *In the past few years, there have been several crises that have made it
> increasingly clear to me: the biggest problem on the board is not a lack of
> professional expertise, but rather a lack of community representation and
> control. I am a steadfast proponent of that - you can speak to James
> Heilman for more details (I've not consulted with him in advance but I'm
> sure he'll tell you about my concerns about the "professional" board
> members who don't seem to have our values at heart.)*
>
> *I am deeply concerned about the tone of some of the latest proposals from
> some quarters: a reluctance to be firmly clear that community control - in
> the form of voting and not just some vague "community-sourced board
> members" language that might mean anything or nothing - is not negotiable.*
>
> *I believe that we need to be moving in a mildly different direction with
> the board expansion. I don't want 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi Dariusz and all,

Since this thread started, I (and several others) have asked in multiple
locations whether the WMF can promise that when the four formerly
community-selected seats come up for re-selection in 2024, community
members will be given a free vote.

This question seemed particularly important, given that in the Call for
Feedback on how affiliates should participate in elections[1] – where
mainly affiliates were invited to respond, even though the result has
clearly affected the community as well – it was explicitly said that *"the
answers may refer not just to the two seats mentioned, but also to other,
Community- and Affiliate-selected seats."*

I have received no response, nor have any of the others. And if you think
about it, the 2021 changes to the bylaws,[2] collapsing community-selected
seats and affiliate-selected seats into a single, new category, "Community-
and Affiliate-selected seats", only makes sense if you do intend to abolish
community voting. After all, these were the very words, "community voting",
that were removed from the bylaws.

So, given that the WMF appears reluctant to confirm that the 2024 selection
process will be a proper, free community vote, along the lines of the 2021
vote, I think it is safe to assume that it intends for the 2024 procedure
to be similar to this year, i.e.:

– either the community once again voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the
affiliates,
– or perhaps the affiliates voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the
community.

Either process could be "sold" to the community by saying that because the
community was given a say in what used to be 2 affiliate seats in 2022 (as
was argued both in this thread and on Meta), it is only fair if the
affiliates, in turn, get a say in the 4 former community seats in 2024.

But while the shortlist method can be characterised as increasing community
influence this year, its long-term effect will be a dilution of community
influence on the board, because either way, the community vote will always
be filtered through affiliate preferences.

I believe Jimmy Wales recognised this dilution, when he argued strenuously
against the bylaws change in late 2020 (and there was concurrently talk of
removing him from the board), saying in the Wikipedia Weekly Faceboook
group[3] (my emphases):

*It is of course a bit awkward for me to comment here, but I think that I
should.*

*As is well known, I have no interest in being the boss of anything or the
dictator of anything. My most keen interest is for the future of the
encyclopedia, with all the core values intact: that we are a
community-first project, that we are a charity, that we are neutral, that
we strive for quality, and that we work towards governance that means
safety for all these values in the long run.*

*In the past few years, there have been several crises that have made it
increasingly clear to me: the biggest problem on the board is not a lack of
professional expertise, but rather a lack of community representation and
control. I am a steadfast proponent of that - you can speak to James
Heilman for more details (I've not consulted with him in advance but I'm
sure he'll tell you about my concerns about the "professional" board
members who don't seem to have our values at heart.)*

*I am deeply concerned about the tone of some of the latest proposals from
some quarters: a reluctance to be firmly clear that community control - in
the form of voting and not just some vague "community-sourced board
members" language that might mean anything or nothing - is not negotiable.*

*I believe that we need to be moving in a mildly different direction with
the board expansion. I don't want to make a specific proposal but I will
say this: rather than an expansion that keeps community in a slight +1
position, I think we need an expansion that gives the community an
absolutely dominant role.*

*I've not spoken yet about my personal role, because I want us to focus on
the long run. But my preference is not to step aside until I am sure that
the "professional" appointed seats are absolutely always in service to the
community, by making sure that their numbers are - relative to the
community numbers - reduced.*

*Removing my voting seat - yes, it's a good idea in the long run, as I am
just one person and not that important in the grand scheme of things. But
for now, I feel that my role is to represent the moral conscience of the
movement and to prevent takeover by outside interests who do not understand
our values. So for those who ask when, I would say: when we are safe. And I
don't think that's true just yet.*

He had said earlier[4] that he would "personally only support a final
revision which explicitly includes community voting and I believe it is
abundantly clear to everyone on the board that this is mandatory."
Unfortunately he was mistaken on both counts; in the end, community voting
was struck from the bylaws by a unanimous board resolution, supported by
both James and 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

 Last year the community voted that way putting diverse candidates at 5th and 
6th position because the election method could not work properly, even assuming 
(as it was) a general attempt of diverse choice by the electorate. The main 
issue was in the low threshold for the candidatures. As soon as I figured out 
with a simple set of simulations I tried to warn and I was semi-harassed on the 
telegram chat. One person told me to shut up because I did not understand how 
STV worked, another one accused me of being in bad taste.
However, my analysis was probably right. I expected the output to be gender 
balanced but not geographically balanced because of dispersion among 
candidates. Unfortunately people were probably too ideologically oriented by 
how good STV system was and how great was to have so many candidates. Just to 
be clear, I don't dislike STV, but at least I understand how to simulate an 
election. If you want to use STV for a diverse output, put a clear selection of 
candidates after studying how people usually vote.

In general, this community has no literacy on electoral process but more 
importantly, it does not want it. That's why discussing this topic seems almost 
useless. People could mix up everything together, sometimes they just take a 
concept and put it to the extreme. 

The direct elections was poor because of the lack of understanding of the 
voting behavior. I am sure even now somebody thinks we have elected so many 
"white people" because of the "racist" (or more nuanced adjective) electorate, 
but it would have happened with an honest attempt of diversity by voters, which 
I think it actually occurred.
As for this issue, these other seats with this system. in the end it looks that 
the power of the generic users might have increased, we are switching probably 
from a totally affiliate-oriented election to an election where the community 
in one step of the process cast a vote in a open at-large election which is 
generally good. If you have a good selections of candidates, the result might 
be balanced.

The ASBS2019 election was already an improvement enlarging the electoral base, 
it was more transparent and public the previous elections of affiliates seats, 
but it still had to face some issues. One is that some affiliates cast the 
actual vote among few people with no real participation of their members (even 
suggesting them to at least inform their members they were casting a vote was 
"too much"), the other one that a small fraction of active users could be more 
involved in the process in two or more UGs. 

Giving a power of selecting candidates and not final votes to affiliates force 
them to care more about that step, producing convincing figures while the 
at-large election still has some issues but it's more democratic for the final 
choice. It might work, if correctly calibrated.One issue of the at-large 
elections  is the threshold for candidates, but delegating to the affiliates 
might lead to both strong and diverse options, without excessive dispersion.
Another issue of the at-large elections are the votes of institutional account 
that are not properly handled. Usually people here make some weird comparison 
about civil servants voting but it has nothing to do with it. You just expect 
people to reach voting right by themselves and not as a result of c.o.i paid 
activity, and you should be more careful about it in the case of close results. 
If the internal process of affiliates select the candidates, than that would be 
a good moment to decide the weigh of this type of votes at the next step if 
it's an at large election. Again, you probably don't want to deal with  this 
problem with a close call.

In any case, again, electoral literacy is hard, while taking one concept and 
enlarging it for a "soapbox moment" is easy. just to clear I have nothing 
against one position or another per se. For example I disagree with the merge 
of the two types of seats because it might lead to some functional results if 
correctly handled but for sure with the strong ideological positions we face, 
it can only lead to more chaos. So far, I might say that both processes might 
end up to more open globally than in the past. Although they could have been 
much better. 

Like everything, we will deal with the data at the end for those who want to 
care.

Alessandro


Il domenica 24 aprile 2022, 14:58:23 CEST, Andreas Kolbe 
 ha scritto:  
 
 
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:40 AM Chris Keating  
wrote:

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:32 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

There is no longer any distinction between community and affiliate trustees. 
For reference, see the "Type of seat" column in the current board member table 
on Meta, as well as the footnote under the table.[1] 
What Dariusz has announced here is a new process for determining 
"community-and-affiliate trustees". This new process is being "implemented on a 
trial basis for the 2022 election".  



I don't think it follows 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Todd Allen]

No. I would prefer them to be selected in open, at-large elections, as they
should have been in previous years.

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 04:25 Chris Keating 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 1:13 AM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> Yes, and let me say it in stronger terms: This is unacceptable.
>> Community-selected seats have nothing to do with affiliates; affiliates are
>> absolutely not the community. Community-selected seats must be an at-large
>> election from Wikimedia editors from any candidate who cares to run, not
>> taken from a "short list" of affiliate-approved candidates.
>>
>
> So - just for clarity - would you prefer these 2 seats to be selected only
> by affiliates, as they have been in previous years, without any involvement
> from community members who aren't in affiliates?
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YUHJCW66YEZWXJJAQI24QWV6OL6K743C/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6OVUYLAS7XWIQPWZ3KRPSI67JW6TVCAR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:40 AM Chris Keating 
wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:32 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> There is no longer any distinction between community and affiliate
>> trustees. For reference, see the "Type of seat" column in the current board
>> member table on Meta, as well as the footnote under the table.[1]
>>
>> What Dariusz has announced here is a new process for determining
>> "community-and-affiliate trustees". This new process is being "*implemented
>> on a trial basis for the 2022 election*".
>>
>>
> I don't think it follows that the Board intends to use this model for the
> following (2024?) election of the four seats elected last year. Indeed, I
> am virtually certain they won't, given the significance of the movement
> governance changes that are going on, and the level of change we have seen
> in WMF board elections in the last few years.
>


You don't say you "trial" something if you're planning to do it only this
once.

This whole change in process goes back to a "Call for feedback" that was
put out on December 23, 2021, i.e. one day before Christmas Eve.[1]

There is hardly a worse working day in the year to make such an
announcement, for most people in our movement, if the intent truly is to
attract widespread attention. Why not wait until the New Year, and make
such an announcement once people are back at their desks, undistracted by
holiday preparations?

(Announcing potentially contentious items or U-turns this close to
Christmas should really be forbidden. A similar thing was done in the
Abstract Wikipedia licensing discussion.[2])

Subsequently this "Call for feedback" process seems to have consisted
almost exclusively of four calls or meetings between the WMF and a number
of affiliates.[3] The description of these meetings on Meta includes the
following item:

*"By Victoria: Currently, there are a range of options for affiliates to be
involved; e.g. the same way as before (ASBS) or; the affiliates could
select among the candidates, and the community votes on those candidates,
or swap it around, to have the community vote on a shortlist for the
affiliates to vote on."*

I assume that "Victoria" refers to WMF Board Member Victoria Doronina. If
that is so, then it is somewhat obfuscatory – although not altogether
incorrect, of course – to say on the page on Meta summarising these
discussions:[4]

*"One member of the community suggested that diversity (regional, gender,
expertise and others) could be ensured if the election process was modified
to allow the affiliates to choose a shortlist of 10-15 candidates. This is
in a way similar to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee selection
process. The community would later vote and select their representatives
from that shortlist."*

Of course Victoria is a longstanding community member, but she is also
presently a WMF Board Member. If a WMF Board Member suggests changes to the
way the WMF Board will be constituted in future, then I think it would be
proper to identify this suggestion as originating from within the Board
itself. If another Victoria was meant, then this point is moot.

As for the question in your other mail, Chris, the two seats in question
are not affiliate seats. For better or worse, they are now
community-and-affiliate-selected seats.[3] They should be selected by a
method that is equitable. The method Dariusz announced is not.

A couple of people on the Kurier Diskussion page in de:WP and on Meta have
made comments to the effect that volunteers always end up voting for white
men living in the West. It's worth noting that the people placed 5th and
6th in last year's community vote were a woman from Ivory Coast (who lost
out by the slimmest of margins) and a Brit living on Tenerife, a Spanish
island off the coast of Africa.

Andreas

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/ZJZQDVRN6KARSVYJJAJIQ4S2ED5IG3YP/
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia/Licensing_discussion#Decision
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Affiliations_Consultation
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Reports#First_question
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DFPXDHE6VVCI3BFDJPZNBFUPSGLD7UZ7/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Uwe Herzke]

I've asked for the reasons to mix those two totally different type of seats in 
2021 on the discussion page of the board[1], but I never got any answer besides 
''the board decided this way'', which is in no way a valid decision process for 
community matters in the Wikiverse.
I've asked again on the page, where such things should appear at first, the 
board election committee[2], where to find the process for the election of the 
affiliate seats.

The mix-up of those two very distinct type of seats is in no way useful, nor 
has it anywhere discussed with the ultimate ruler of the Wikiverse, the 
community.

I'd rather see any answers on-wiki in those two threads then here, in this 
slightly off-wiki venue of a mailing list.

Grüße vom Sänger

[1]: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees#Why_mixing_up_community_and_affiliates
[2]: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections#2022_affiliates_seats
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/K56EY6FA2WCDHTYQXBETOG75TVVZECSA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Chris Keating]

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 1:13 AM Todd Allen  wrote:

> Yes, and let me say it in stronger terms: This is unacceptable.
> Community-selected seats have nothing to do with affiliates; affiliates are
> absolutely not the community. Community-selected seats must be an at-large
> election from Wikimedia editors from any candidate who cares to run, not
> taken from a "short list" of affiliate-approved candidates.
>

So - just for clarity - would you prefer these 2 seats to be selected only
by affiliates, as they have been in previous years, without any involvement
from community members who aren't in affiliates?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YUHJCW66YEZWXJJAQI24QWV6OL6K743C/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Chris Keating]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:32 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Chris,
>
> There is no longer any distinction between community and affiliate
> trustees. For reference, see the "Type of seat" column in the current board
> member table on Meta, as well as the footnote under the table.[1]
>
> What Dariusz has announced here is a new process for determining
> "community-and-affiliate trustees". This new process is being "*implemented
> on a trial basis for the 2022 election*".
>
>
I don't think it follows that the Board intends to use this model for the
following (2024?) election of the four seats elected last year. Indeed, I
am virtually certain they won't, given the significance of the movement
governance changes that are going on, and the level of change we have seen
in WMF board elections in the last few years.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/I6A53AW6RPJDU2GCL3FULYC3X23WKPZR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Todd Allen]

Yes, and let me say it in stronger terms: This is unacceptable.
Community-selected seats have nothing to do with affiliates; affiliates are
absolutely not the community. Community-selected seats must be an at-large
election from Wikimedia editors from any candidate who cares to run, not
taken from a "short list" of affiliate-approved candidates.

Affiliate seats are NOT community seats.

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 4:32 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Chris,
>
> There is no longer any distinction between community and affiliate
> trustees. For reference, see the "Type of seat" column in the current board
> member table on Meta, as well as the footnote under the table.[1]
>
> What Dariusz has announced here is a new process for determining
> "community-and-affiliate trustees". This new process is being "*implemented
> on a trial basis for the 2022 election*".
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/April_2022_-_Board_seats_in_2022_and_2023
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 9:19 PM Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 1:32 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Dariusz,
>>>
>>> I am surprised your post has not attracted more attention. It's probably
>>> because you did not spell out what the adopted recommendation involves. It
>>> says (my emphases):[1]
>>>
>>>
>>> *The Board of Trustees wants to improve the set of skills and the
>>> diversity contributed by newly selected trustees. For this reason, the
>>> Board has approved a new process to select two community-and-affiliate
>>> trustees this year. The objective is to have two trustees confirmed by
>>> October 1st. Affiliates will vote to pre-select 6 candidates. A community
>>> vote will decide who from these 6 candidates will be recommended for the
>>> two seats.*
>>>
>>> This is a fundamental change to the WMF board election process. Many
>>> people will feel that this further disenfranchises the volunteer community.
>>>
>>
>> The effect of this is that the two seats which were in the past solely
>> elected by the Wikimedia Affiliates will now be elected through this
>> combined model where the affiliates shortlist 6 candidates and the
>> community elects two of them.
>>
>> That is, to my mind, enfranchising the volunteer community to a greater
>> extent.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/X23XT2PEFSQKN2WPJZOEY64EMC27GZSH/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/SCRZ2KNGMCOW7NXN6FA5WF66LCXNO5MP/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/HDQZPM6TG37M5RXTZZ4GEGEGC7RSMBAS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Andreas Kolbe]

Chris,

There is no longer any distinction between community and affiliate
trustees. For reference, see the "Type of seat" column in the current board
member table on Meta, as well as the footnote under the table.[1]

What Dariusz has announced here is a new process for determining
"community-and-affiliate trustees". This new process is being "*implemented
on a trial basis for the 2022 election*".

Andreas

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/April_2022_-_Board_seats_in_2022_and_2023

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 9:19 PM Chris Keating 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 1:32 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear Dariusz,
>>
>> I am surprised your post has not attracted more attention. It's probably
>> because you did not spell out what the adopted recommendation involves. It
>> says (my emphases):[1]
>>
>>
>> *The Board of Trustees wants to improve the set of skills and the
>> diversity contributed by newly selected trustees. For this reason, the
>> Board has approved a new process to select two community-and-affiliate
>> trustees this year. The objective is to have two trustees confirmed by
>> October 1st. Affiliates will vote to pre-select 6 candidates. A community
>> vote will decide who from these 6 candidates will be recommended for the
>> two seats.*
>>
>> This is a fundamental change to the WMF board election process. Many
>> people will feel that this further disenfranchises the volunteer community.
>>
>
> The effect of this is that the two seats which were in the past solely
> elected by the Wikimedia Affiliates will now be elected through this
> combined model where the affiliates shortlist 6 candidates and the
> community elects two of them.
>
> That is, to my mind, enfranchising the volunteer community to a greater
> extent.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/X23XT2PEFSQKN2WPJZOEY64EMC27GZSH/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/SCRZ2KNGMCOW7NXN6FA5WF66LCXNO5MP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Chris Keating]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 1:32 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear Dariusz,
>
> I am surprised your post has not attracted more attention. It's probably
> because you did not spell out what the adopted recommendation involves. It
> says (my emphases):[1]
>
>
> *The Board of Trustees wants to improve the set of skills and the
> diversity contributed by newly selected trustees. For this reason, the
> Board has approved a new process to select two community-and-affiliate
> trustees this year. The objective is to have two trustees confirmed by
> October 1st. Affiliates will vote to pre-select 6 candidates. A community
> vote will decide who from these 6 candidates will be recommended for the
> two seats.*
>
> This is a fundamental change to the WMF board election process. Many
> people will feel that this further disenfranchises the volunteer community.
>

The effect of this is that the two seats which were in the past solely
elected by the Wikimedia Affiliates will now be elected through this
combined model where the affiliates shortlist 6 candidates and the
community elects two of them.

That is, to my mind, enfranchising the volunteer community to a greater
extent.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/X23XT2PEFSQKN2WPJZOEY64EMC27GZSH/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Dariusz,

I am surprised your post has not attracted more attention. It's probably
because you did not spell out what the adopted recommendation involves. It
says (my emphases):[1]


*The Board of Trustees wants to improve the set of skills and the diversity
contributed by newly selected trustees. For this reason, the Board has
approved a new process to select two community-and-affiliate trustees this
year. The objective is to have two trustees confirmed by October 1st.
Affiliates will vote to pre-select 6 candidates. A community vote will
decide who from these 6 candidates will be recommended for the two seats.*

This is a fundamental change to the WMF board election process. Many people
will feel that this further disenfranchises the volunteer community.

Moreover, this pre-selection of electable candidates is performed by
functionaries who are financially dependent on the Wikimedia Foundation.
Arguably, this builds further conflicts of interest into the process – at a
time when the Wikimedia Foundation already asks the public for more and
more money each year.[2]

The WMF simply no longer represents the volunteer community, and no longer
even considers that to be its role – if it did, it would hold free
elections.

Personally, I think that is a shame. I guess if volunteers would like to
have an organisation representing their interests, they will have to form
one themselves.

Best,
Andreas

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/April_2022_Board_Election_process_in_2022
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics





On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 6:59 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees met between March 23-24 for our
> first in-person meeting in over two years. It was an opportunity to welcome
> our new CEO and several new trustees who have recently joined the Board.
> Further updates from the meeting will be shared soon, I am writing now to
> report on resolutions that the Board made regarding the upcoming 2022
> elections:
>
>
>1.
>
>We resolved to adopt recommendations related to the elections process
>
> .
>These recommendations have been developed as a result of feedback from the 
> community
>Call for Feedback
>
> 
>that happened in January and further discussions by a Board Selection Task
>Force. They will be implemented on a trial basis for the 2022 election.
>2.
>
>In service of maintaining continuity and stability in our leadership,
>we resolved to make some modifications to our plans to expand the Board
>
> 
>.
>
>
> You can read about the details of these resolutions on Meta. We are happy
> to discuss and answer any questions on the corresponding talk pages.
>
> Best,
>
> Dariusz on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ZLEFWZX2SWFX3LMZK4LSEZ2B6TNF34PZ/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DCK3ZIAPGSQGFAAF4JQKCAYUNACEJ4IQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org