Hi everyone, I'm writing on behalf of the Board of Trustees.
Since the announcement [1] of the final ballot and further [2] messages
[3], 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 [4] (which is tasked with overseeing
the selection process) welcomes specific proposals and ideas for
reform here on this talk page [5]. 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
[1] announcement
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2025_update
[2] 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
[3] messages
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/OKNCCC4USJ2YGU3H4OXI3OYEIUUGDMLV/
[4] Board's Governance Committee
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Governance_Committee
[5] here on this talk page
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2025_update
_______________________________________________
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/JNCRLJEKFSRKCIMXHUIGJVTNOWTQNDN5/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
