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 [1].
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 [2], some of which can be complex
and difficult to measure. These conversations covered topics like
conflicts of interest, fiduciary obligations of Trustees [2], 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 [3] 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:
> Hello Hannah,
>
> I'm writing this as a Wikimedian, relying solely on publicly
> available information. I'm sorry, but I will not reply to any
> questions, as the last time I tried, it didn't end well.
>
> It may sound counterintuitive, but WMF is sometimes too nice and
> careful about the reputation of wikimedians and this leaves room for
> speculation.
> In this case, the WMF left a lot of room for candidates who didn't
> pass the preliminary stages of the vetting process to withdraw with
> grace, but it didn't work, and now we have multiple petitions for the
> reinstatement of these candidates.
>
> Concerning Ravan, future candidates should be more cautious about
> what they post on social media, as some posts pose significant risks
> to the WMF's reputation, primarily because the press is particularly
> vigilant about the WMF board candidates at the moment. I'm supporting
> women (you may have noticed that I'm a woman too) and LGBTQIA+, but
> in this instance, I cannot support her candidacy, because the risks
> for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender
> equity.
>
> As for Lane, he
>
> * publicly stated in his candidate video (1' in) that WMF is going to
> replace some of the text in Wikipedia with the text written by AI -
> this is not true, as anyone who has read the WMF AI strategy would
> know.
> Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-
> Wiki [4]
>
> * Publicly written in the candidate statement:
>
> I set up a Right to Information [5] project on Meta-Wiki because
> years ago, I wanted information, and I could not find a way to
> communicate to the Foundation. As trustee, I encourage the user
> community to organize to make public information requests to me.
>
> To me, it looks like he's going to disclose the non-public
> information, especially as he emphasises that he's an editor of the
> Signpost and his duty as a journalist will come before his duties as
> a trustee. He also writes:
>
> I want access to Wikimedia Foundation financial records so that I can
> analyze them at my university, or otherwise, the WMF can just be
> direct in saying it does not want to share this info. Right now the
> WMF's financial reports are incomprehensible to the user community.
> We need transparency in those reports so that Wikimedians in each
> country can know what money the Foundation spends on their behalf,
> and what the development strategy for that country is.
>
> It sounds like he's going to disclose non-public financial
> information.
>
> All people who know Lane well state that he's an honest person who
> does as he says. As a Wikimedian, I cannot support a candidacy for a
> person who makes grossly unsupported statements. As a trustee,
> I cannot support anyone who wishes to disclose non-public
> information, which is in direct contravention of the trustee's duties
> and responsibilities.
>
> As you can see, my objections to the Lane candidacy have nothing to
> do with him being a minority or any other potential issue that he
> mentions in his communications; it's much more mundane.
[1] on Meta earlier here
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
[2] duties and requirements of being a Trustee
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legal_and_Fiduciary_Duties_for_Wikimedia_Foundation_Trustees_Public_Version.pdf
[3] Board's Code of Conduct
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Code_of_Conduct_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees
[4] Wikimedia Foundation elections/2025/Candidates/Lane Rasberry - Meta-Wiki
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Candidates/Lane_Rasberry
[5] Right to Information
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information
_______________________________________________
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/OKNCCC4USJ2YGU3H4OXI3OYEIUUGDMLV/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
