Hi Dariusz and all,
Since this thread started, I (and several others) have asked in multiple locations whether the WMF can promise that when the four formerly community-selected seats come up for re-selection in 2024, community members will be given a free vote.
This question seemed particularly important, given that in the Call for Feedback on how affiliates should participate in elections[1] – where mainly affiliates were invited to respond, even though the result has clearly affected the community as well – it was explicitly said that "the answers may refer not just to the two seats mentioned, but also to other, Community- and Affiliate-selected seats."
I have received no response, nor have any of the others. And if you think about it, the 2021 changes to the bylaws,[2] collapsing community-selected seats and affiliate-selected seats into a single, new category, "Community- and Affiliate-selected seats", only makes sense if you do intend to abolish community voting. After all, these were the very words, "community voting", that were removed from the bylaws.
So, given that the WMF appears reluctant to confirm that the 2024 selection process will be a proper, free community vote, along the lines of the 2021 vote, I think it is safe to assume that it intends for the 2024 procedure to be similar to this year, i.e.:
– either the community once again voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the affiliates,
– or perhaps the affiliates voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the community.
Either process could be "sold" to the community by saying that because the community was given a say in what used to be 2 affiliate seats in 2022 (as was argued both in this thread and on Meta), it is only fair if the affiliates, in turn, get a say in the 4 former community seats in 2024.
But while the shortlist method can be characterised as increasing community influence this year, its long-term effect will be a dilution of community influence on the board, because either way, the community vote will always be filtered through affiliate preferences.
I believe Jimmy Wales recognised this dilution, when he argued strenuously against the bylaws change in late 2020 (and there was concurrently talk of removing him from the board), saying in the Wikipedia Weekly Faceboook group[3] (my emphases):
It is of course a bit awkward for me to comment here, but I think that I should.
As is well known, I have no interest in being the boss of anything or the dictator of anything. My most keen interest is for the future of the encyclopedia, with all the core values intact: that we are a community-first project, that we are a charity, that we are neutral, that we strive for quality, and that we work towards governance that means safety for all these values in the long run.
In the past few years, there have been several crises that have made it increasingly clear to me: the biggest problem on the board is not a lack of professional expertise, but rather a lack of community representation and control. I am a steadfast proponent of that - you can speak to James Heilman for more details (I've not consulted with him in advance but I'm sure he'll tell you about my concerns about the "professional" board members who don't seem to have our values at heart.)
I am deeply concerned about the tone of some of the latest proposals from some quarters: a reluctance to be firmly clear that community control - in the form of voting and not just some vague "community-sourced board members" language that might mean anything or nothing - is not negotiable.
I believe that we need to be moving in a mildly different direction with the board expansion. I don't want to make a specific proposal but I will say this: rather than an expansion that keeps community in a slight +1 position, I think we need an expansion that gives the community an absolutely dominant role.
I've not spoken yet about my personal role, because I want us to focus on the long run. But my preference is not to step aside until I am sure that the "professional" appointed seats are absolutely always in service to the community, by making sure that their numbers are - relative to the community numbers - reduced.
Removing my voting seat - yes, it's a good idea in the long run, as I am just one person and not that important in the grand scheme of things. But for now, I feel that my role is to represent the moral conscience of the movement and to prevent takeover by outside interests who do not understand our values. So for those who ask when, I would say: when we are safe. And I don't think that's true just yet.
He had said earlier[4] that he would "personally only support a final revision which explicitly includes community voting and I believe it is abundantly clear to everyone on the board that this is mandatory." Unfortunately he was mistaken on both counts; in the end, community voting was struck from the bylaws by a unanimous board resolution, supported by both James and Jimmy.[5]
Of course, if I am entirely wrong about all of this, and the board has no intention whatsoever of making the 2024 vote for the four former community-selected seats anything other than a free community vote, all it takes is an email to this mailing list to commit to this now – that the 2024 selection process will be a free and open community vote – to put such speculation to rest.
And the absence of such an email will speak volumes as well.
Best wishes,
Andreas
P.S. Just for clarity, my brief comment earlier about the 5th and 6th-placed in last year's board selection vote was intended to indicate that the community is quite capable of selecting diverse candidates. If the two seats the WMF is looking to fill this year had been filled last year, along with the 4 seats that resulted from the 2021 community vote, we would have had, based on the reported results of that community vote:[6]
1. An American woman
2. A woman from Belarus currently living in the UK
3. A Polish man splitting his time between Poland and the US
4. An Italian man
5. A woman from Ivory Coast
6. A British man living in the Spanish island of Tenerife off the coast of Africa
There are gaps here (Asia, foremost), but it's clearly not true that left to its own devices, the community only votes for white men living in the West.