Hello All,
It seems strange to me and anti-DEI to have removed the only openly Queer
and Muslim candidates. Please tell me i am wrong about this or that the
board already has strong representation from these communities?
Following on the Equity theme, if we remove people for saying bad things
about Israel, I wondered if we are also removing people for saying things
against Palestine or Russia or Ukraine? Or is Israel special in this regard
for some reason? If so, I would like a list of approved social opinions we
can share so that we do not make the same mistake by expressing wrongthink,
in case we wish to run for the board one day.
- If we punish people for voicing their true opinions, then it seems like
we will end up with candidates without any (public) opinions, and what kind
of leaders would they be?
Finally, I leave this ChatGPT here for all to ponder ;)
--------------
*what type of government is it where the elected have control over who can
be voted into power? *
That’s a great question — and the answer depends on the details, but
generally:
A *government where elected leaders control who can be voted into
power* is *not
a full democracy*, because citizens’ choices are constrained. Such a system
could be described as one of the following:
1.
*Authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regime* – where elections exist but
are tightly controlled. Leaders may allow limited competition, but only
among candidates they approve.
-
Example: *Russia under Putin*, where opposition candidates can be
disqualified or blocked.
2.
*One-party state* – where only one political party is legally allowed,
and the ruling party decides who runs for office.
-
Example: *China* or *Vietnam*.
3.
*Electoral autocracy / managed democracy* – a hybrid system where
elections happen, but the ruling elite manipulate candidate lists, media
access, or electoral rules to ensure their continued dominance.
-
Example: *Hungary under Orbán* or *Singapore’s PAP system* are
sometimes described this way.
4.
*Oligarchy* – if a small group of elites (not necessarily elected)
effectively control who can stand for election or hold power.
So, if *the elected have control over who can be voted for*, the most
precise political science term would be something like a *“managed
democracy”* or *“electoral authoritarianism.”*
--
In my mind it would be better if Wikimedia were not so easily described as
Authoritarian or compared to Russia under Putin, China, or other
problematic leaderships :))
With Best Regards,
Brett Buttliere
On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 12:27 PM Željko Blaće <[email protected]> wrote:
> OMG - so many generalizations here…
> Wikimedians come in all shapes and forms, with different backgrounds,
> cultures and expectations of governance.
> It would be good not to imply that constituencies are homogeneous and well
> represented by individuals on BoT (they are just current state of affairs -
> far from ideal obviously)…as once well documented by Aaron Swartz (bold BoT
> candidate) the biggest contributors in total are anonymous and without
> Wikimedia account with very few edits and they do not have any way to
> influence BoT selection.
>
>
> On Thursday, October 16, 2025, Gnangarra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> When we elect someone to the BoT or any other position within the
>> movement for that matter we do so for them to make decisions. As
>> individuals sometimes we'll agree, sometimes we won't. There are many
>> people on the BoT who will never interact directly with the community.
>> Being angry at those that do because they are one of us and chosen by us
>> does not change the fact that legally and respectfully some details will
>> need to always remain private. The complexity and depth of knowledge
>> required to understand a decision is not something we should want to
>> inflict on any member of the community, especially as even knowing many
>> will not like the decision.
>>
>> What we can do is ask for processes to improve, that our request has been
>> acknowledged and will be acted on before the next round. If we want the
>> BoT to do better, then we also do better at trusting our elected members.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 14:34, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Lorenzo,
>>> After reading your message, I would like to make a memory exercise,
>>> because asking the community to try to solve an issue (see next
>>> sentence) the BoT has created has great implications on the current issue.
>>> (*The
>>> Board's Governance Committee (which is tasked with overseeing the selection
>>> process) welcomes specific proposals and ideas for reform here on this talk
>>> page
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2025_update>.
>>> We have time before the next selection cycle (scheduled for 2027) to make
>>> both incremental improvements and large-scale changes. The Governance
>>> Committee and the Board will carefully consider them*.)
>>>
>>> As you remember in your message, you were selected four years ago. Many
>>> people voted for you, because you proposed
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/Lorenzo_Losa>
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/Lorenzo_Losa>some
>>> fundamental changes for the BoT. I'm going to cite your own words (not
>>> changing anything here):
>>>
>>> *Transparency in the board's processes.** Although I have been a highly
>>> involved wikimedian for more than a decade, I have always found it
>>> difficult to understand what the Wikimedia Foundation board is doing. Even
>>> worse, it is frustrating to see suggestions and concerns from the community
>>> that seem not to be taken into account. *
>>> *Having been on multiple boards myself for many years, I fully
>>> understand that many of the board's discussions are confidential – but not
>>> all of them. I also know from experience that when you get into a board, it
>>> is easy to overlook these problems. It is not due to bad will, it's just
>>> that when you have the information, it's difficult to consider the
>>> perspective of those who don't have it. But this is one more reason to
>>> strive for real two-way communication. *
>>> You already proposed more transparency, a real two-way communication,
>>> and you said that it was difficult to know that the BoT was doing. You
>>> already said that it was frustrating to see suggestions and concerns from
>>> the community not taken into account. We were there, you were elected, but
>>> the problem is still with us. Still, the community is asked for
>>> suggestions, but those are not taken into account. The Board still has the
>>> idea of Papal infalibility
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility>.
>>>
>>> In these four years we (the community and affiliates) have tried to
>>> improve the situation. We even had a Global Charter, approved by community
>>> vote and affiliates vote, that would change the way things are done. We
>>> already proposed a way forward. I'm going to cite again your own words:
>>>
>>> *Transition to a less central role.** The Wikimedia Foundation Board
>>> has always been seen a bit like a board of the movement – although we know
>>> that it is not. Now, with the Movement Strategy, the new Global Council is
>>> expected to finally give a body that is truly representative of our
>>> movement. We don't know yet how it will be shaped, but in order to achieve
>>> its potential the Wikimedia Foundation Board, and the Wikimedia Foundation
>>> itself, will have to learn a new way.*
>>>
>>> This were your words four years ago. There was a potential solution (we
>>> don't know if it would work, but still a proposed solution by the community
>>> and affiliates). You were in the Board that decided to dismiss it and close
>>> any possibility for change in how power is shared. You was elected to
>>> promote this change to happen.
>>>
>>> Now, after vetoing people for their points of view (per Victoria's
>>> message), you are asking us again, in the name of the Board, to give ideas
>>> to improve the situation. Ideas that will be "carefully considered".
>>>
>>> How can we trust that, in the future, any well stablished and good faith
>>> wikimedian can be a candidate for the BoT if we have already seen the
>>> results in this process? How is people going to propose changes, if every
>>> possibility of change is vetoed by the same BoT that holds the power to
>>> make changes? How are we going to discuss the ideal process for selecting
>>> members if the process is based in the very same idea of the Papal
>>> infability? How are we going to discuss what to change, if the board
>>> doesn't say which are the criteria for their secretly kept decisions?
>>>
>>> A potential solution to the problem was given by you four years ago, and
>>> you were elected for that. The solution is still there: more democracy,
>>> more transparency, more community. The BoT can still solve this issue
>>> lifting the vetoes and giving voice to the community. Let's end with the
>>> idea of infalibility.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Galder
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Lorenzo <[email protected]>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2025 11:27 PM
>>> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]>
>>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Additional perspectives on current and future
>>> board selection processes
>>>
>>> Hi everyone, I'm writing on behalf of the Board of Trustees.
>>>
>>> Since the announcement
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2025_update>
>>> of
>>> the final ballot and further
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2025_update#More_answers_on_the_Board's_decision_on_the_2025_final_ballot>
>>> messages
>>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/OKNCCC4USJ2YGU3H4OXI3OYEIUUGDMLV/>,
>>> we have been closely following conversations over the past week. We agree
>>> with the sentiments that we do not have an ideal process for board
>>> selection, and as such, we are continuously reviewing it and attempting
>>> improvements. This ranges from the role of various stakeholders in the
>>> short-listing process, the timeline of the selection, to the steps required
>>> by the Board's own bylaws, and to the most effective way of communicating
>>> decisions to our movement.
>>>
>>> The change we implemented this year - vetting candidates before the
>>> vote, instead of after - was made in order to ensure that we don't ask the
>>> community to vote for people that we will not be able to seat. This might
>>> not have been the best choice, and we will rediscuss it for future
>>> selections. The checks themselves, however, haven't changed: they are the
>>> same I went through four years ago when I joined the board, including the
>>> background check, media check and the vetting interview.
>>>
>>> We understand that some of you disagree with the decision we have taken
>>> regarding individual candidates. Unfortunately, it is not something we are
>>> able to provide more information about. Part of our duty is to protect the
>>> users and the projects, and sometimes that means not sharing publicly
>>> information that may harm them or the movement, even when the community
>>> demands it, or some of the people affected demand it. In this case, we have
>>> discussed the reasons with the candidates, but it's not appropriate for us
>>> or them to bring them here.
>>> I realize this is frustrating - it is also for us. Even before the
>>> announcement, we knew that this decision would receive harsh criticism, and
>>> we knew that we could not fully respond to it.
>>>
>>> The Board's Governance Committee
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Governance_Committee>
>>> (which
>>> is tasked with overseeing the selection process) welcomes specific
>>> proposals and ideas for reform here on this talk page
>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2025_update>.
>>> We have time before the next selection cycle (scheduled for 2027) to make
>>> both incremental improvements and large-scale changes. The Governance
>>> Committee and the Board will carefully consider them. We commit to work on
>>> improvements of the selection process, and working with the communities and
>>> the affiliates, to make this process better for all stakeholders, including
>>> for the Board itself.
>>>
>>> Lorenzo Losa
>>> Chair-Elect, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/F2KCC32ANKB6PHLNEH67MNBJN5R7XUJ4/
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Boodarwun
>> Gnangarra
>> 'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardon nlangan Nyungar koortabodjar'
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/4R7PJAZIBY7T3DA6LL3VQNLH3QY3AEWZ/
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/PYPVGONSZ55VRY3PRFJ5B2TQBWM4UANW/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
