"she never really had a chance to make that point during that particular public discussion because she was interrupted"
I really don't like this framing. She's the one that chose to end that conversation with "you can change things when you're the CEO". On Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 3:22 p.m. Risker via Wikimedia-l < [email protected]> wrote: > Not everything is a conspiracy, folks. Raju was about to "term out", to > be mandatorily retired from the WMF Board due to term limits, as of January > 1, 2027; originally, his term would have ended on October 1, 2026. That > 'end of term' date only moved because the Board was realigning all of its > term start/end dates to January 1. Those of us who have been around for a > long time remember that the term start dates used to be a day or two before > Wikimania started each year, but that was a moveable date and made it more > difficult to manage. Since the term start date has moved to January 1, any > appointments that have been made all wind up ending on January 1 of > whatever year, regardless of when the person is appointed. There is only > one further scheduled board meeting before Raju's term will naturally > expire. Raju has been a volunteer member of various boards (including > several that are aligned with our own mission in various ways) for longer > than Wikipedia has existed. Why is it a big deal that he's stepping away > one meeting before he has to? > > I think it is also disengenuous to take out of context the statement by > Maryana Iskander. She is right that the Board was pretty deeply divided > when she arrived. One of her mandates was to change that, but she never > really had a chance to make that point during that particular public > discussion because she was interrupted. Prior to Maryana's arrival, only > rarely did appointed board members interact with the community in any way. > This has changed drastically: since 2022, appointed board members have been > actively participating in community events, both global (e.g. Wikimania) > and at regional conferences. This even extends to members of the Endowment > board, several of whom attended and participated throughout the > Paris WIkimania. This was a pretty major cultural change on the part of the > Board, and I think it is one that should be welcomed and encouraged. > > I agree with many in this thread that it would be good to have increased > leadership training. At one point, some of that took place at Wikimedia > Summits, but that was geared entirely toward affiliates and was explicitly > not related to developing leadership candidates outside of the affiliate > sphere. Some of that continues to happen indirectly with various > volunteer-based committees, but to some extent people need to have shown > some leadership talent before they get onto those committees. I think we > need to do better. > > Risker/Anne > > > > On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 at 13:15, Tilman Bayer via Wikimedia-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> To explain Luis' slightly cryptic "more board news today" comment: >> Raju Narisetti, the chair of the Board Governance Committee - on >> whose behalf Margo sent the message that opened this thread, and which had >> led last year's controversial selection process changes and candidate >> removals >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-10-20/Special_report> >> - suddenly announced his departure from the board the other day (see also >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#c-HaeB-20260810080100-Boud-20260810054700> >> ). >> >> Also, to keep conversations connected: Worth being aware that on July 31, >> a different Board Governance Committee member (i.e. not its now departed >> chair) posted an update >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2027/Proposed_eligibility_criteria#c-Nadzik-20260731153200-Response_from_the_Board_Governance_Committee_to_community_feedback> >> regarding >> the eligibility criteria on Meta ("We realize that our proposal needs more >> work to achieve these goals"). >> >> Regards, Tilman >> >> PS: Not to zoom too much into particular personnel examples, but this >> whole debate might be an occasion for the Board to explain and juxtapose >> its eligibility criteria for the other (appointed, i.e. non-community >> selected) trustee positions as well. Also in light of the previous WMF >> CEO's comments (as reported here >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk%3A2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition#c-Barkeep49-20251019133900-ViridianPenguin-20251019030700>) >> that the community-selected and (non-community) appointed trustees form >> "effectively two boards (not that they were at odds necessarily but >> operating in almost parallel) and how hard that made her work as a CEO". I >> am not one of those who think that, say, every trustee must have edited >> Wikipedia or that we need ideological litmus tests (in the sense, say, that >> you cannot be a high-ranking executive in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp while >> serving on the board). But at a time where some seem to be pushing for WMF >> to compromise on its longstanding free knowledge ideals and guiding >> principles in order to serve the organization's own narrow financial >> interests, it's worth asking how much we know about the appointed Board >> members' pre-existing stances about such ideals and principles. >> >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2026 at 1:38 PM Luis Villa via Wikimedia-l < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Since there is more board news today, sending a long-drafted followup: >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 7:45 PM Erik Moeller via Wikimedia-l < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Wikimedia Foundation needs folks with relevant governance experience >>>> for an organization of this scale, but it also needs voices that >>>> challenge it and push it in new directions on the Board. The trick is >>>> to find the right balance between those goals. Requiring that people >>>> advance along an internal functionary ladder towards the possibility >>>> of standing for trusteeship is not that balance; it is the kind of >>>> requirement structure you find in institutions that drift towards >>>> stagnancy and self-reinforcement, often out of institutionalized fear. >>>> >>>> A compromise proposal: >>>> * Change the word "must" to "should" when it comes to the governance >>>> experience criteria >>>> * Require that candidates indicate comparable or equivalent experience >>>> in their candidate profile if they do not meet these criteria. >>>> >>> >>> To echo and add to what Erik said: Governance of an organization like >>> WMF is a wickedly complex problem, requiring many different skillsets. It's >>> not enough to have good *ideas* - you have to have the *skills* to make >>> those ideas happen: how to understand an auditor's report; how to think >>> through the human politics of governance; employee management skills; etc. >>> etc. >>> >>> So I think tightening skills and experience requirements is pretty >>> reasonable. >>> >>> I like Erik's suggestions, and would add: WMF should invest in board >>> skills development, not just restrict those who don't yet have the skills. >>> Among other things, this could be formal training through services like >>> https://boardsource.org/; or experiential learning through board >>> observer seats/fellowships like Haas does for their b-school students: >>> https://haas.berkeley.edu/cssl/programs-events/board-fellows/ The >>> former would be good skills development for the movement, and the latter >>> would double as a transparency move. >>> >>> I mean *invest*, not "commit to invest"; the Foundation should do a few >>> years of this investment and *then* put in stricter rules, since otherwise >>> the temptation for new board members to say "this is not necessary" and >>> pull the drawbridge up after them would be very strong. >>> >>> I would also add, beating my recent drum: much of the energy that goes >>> into Foundation board questions should instead be going into making the >>> Foundation less central to the movement. That goes for the board -- who >>> should be following through on the "infrastructure for open" commitments of >>> 2030, not re-centralizing, so that the exact composition of the board is >>> less important -- and for many movement leaders: *you can be a movement >>> leader without being on the WMF board*. There are so many ways to lead. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/3PVQCKMSBHVCBQESA2D4EZEGTU74REJH/ >>> 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/L26MKH4GLVORRAJVFNV3AXFKXRFQTPG5/ >> 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/XGBJQU3LSOQBLGSPHB4H6RECN47XQEZG/ > 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/JF2PGHIRHXCEQBQGLNY6BMFEUO5TXCED/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
