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:
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.

* Publicly written in the candidate statement:

I set up a Right to Information 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.