On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 18:41, Lorenzo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear all, > > I want to clarify some details following Victoria's email as I know it has > caused confusion. This email was not sent in any official capacity - it was > Victoria's personal opinion, as she noted there, it was sent "as a > Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly available information". This email > should not be seen as an analysis of the Board's decisions on the candidates > for this year's elections process. > > I understand that for some, emotions are at an all time high, and people will > want to fill in the gaps of what can be shared publicly with their thoughts > and opinions. I acknowledge that there is no ideal solution here. > Nonetheless, I hope to clarify some things to the extent possible under the > circumstances. We have also responded to some of these questions on Meta > earlier here. > > The Board considers a wide range of criteria in evaluating eligible > candidates and future leaders. That is why the process includes many inputs, > such as background checks, media checks, reference checks, and interviews > with the candidates, as we have done in past years. Consistent with the > values of our movement, the board has always been committed to free > expression, diverse viewpoints, and a range of perspectives, backgrounds and > experiences. The Board has always had members – historic and current – who > have been critics of the Foundation and of the Board itself. This is the > nature of our governance system, and this will not change. > > Nat's original message outlined the reasons for how candidates were assessed, > including more subjective criteria like a candidate's judgment, discernment, > discretion, and ability to engage in the duties and requirements of being a > Trustee, some of which can be complex and difficult to measure. These > conversations covered topics like conflicts of interest, fiduciary > obligations of Trustees, a track record of commitment to Wikimedia's core > principles and values (e.g., upholding NPOV, managing COIs, etc.), as well as > a candidate's understanding of the Board's Code of Conduct and other > governance policies, and what these policies require of Trustees. > > Our decisions were based entirely on these factors, and no others. > > We have made a difficult decision as a collective of Trustees, each of us > with our own views, and after an active debate, we reached a unanimous > agreement. We understand that this has raised questions and concerns that are > being taken seriously as we all consider future election reforms to improve > this process for all stakeholders, including for the Board itself. > > We offer a public apology to any candidate who has felt singled out, as this > was never anyone's intent. It is an act of commitment and courage to run for > the Board of Trustees – our goal is always to encourage active Wikimedians to > grow in their leadership, whether that is service on the Board or in other > ways in our movement. > > I hope you will vote in the election and continue to share your questions on > Meta. We can collectively learn from this process to continue strengthening > our movement in an era when we are needed more than ever in the world. > > Lorenzo > > Il giorno gio, 09/10/2025 alle 10.18 +0100, Victoria Doronina ha scritto:
Lorenzo, in your rush, you re-quoted the misleading allegations, so that's hardly an apology that makes sense no matter how much good faith you have. Your background on free speech is impeccable, apart from this current non-democratic fiasco, so it's surprising you are shouldering any of it. With "I hope you will vote in the election", you're overlooking the point of the boycott, the right of the community to be free to elect its choice of trustees to represent them. As for the reasoning you have given, this totally ignores that if you want to apply a kind of vague perception test to reject candidates, you (the WMF Board) could and should have done that before the Affiliates invested time in voting to whittle the candidates to a definitive final best 6. Re-start the election process out of respect for the judgement of the Wikimedia community you were elected to represent, or resign over this incompetent chaotic election that will permanently tarnish any "not queer advocate", "not woman" that happens to get elected because the community of voters can only vote for the 4 men you appointed for seats that by resolution not appointed, but now effectively are. I suggest that these remaining candidates, Bobby Shabangu, James Alexander, Michał Buczyński and Wojciech Pędzich withdraw from the election based on their own public stated ethical values before any are handed a board seat from a corrupted election. == Previous position on free speech == In line with my earlier checking of trustee values, here's Lorenzo Losa during the election to Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 4 years ago: "I live in a reasonably democratic country, but even here, even in the US and in the EU, laws that would restrict users' freedom are proposed every day. Protecting users' rights matters for everyone, everywhere." https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/Lorenzo_Losa _______________________________________________ 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/LGBLV6XYQAWGFNTK3GURIASG5H5ZMBIE/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
