I wanted to voice concerns over the proposed changes to candidate criteria for the Trustee elections. 

The current criteria significantly limit community participation, down from "almost anyone can participate" to "only functionaries". I think this runs counter to our movement's values, which prioritize openness and broader participation. Based on a quick bit of SQL on the replica databases, the number of people eligible to stand in the elections and represent English Wikipedia (a group of 200K active editors) on the BoT is *drum roll, please* 124 users (with an error bar of, say, 10 users?).  I, for one, refuse to believe that only 124 out of 200K English Wikipedians are familiar enough with the movement at large to make governance decisions, and I think a comparison with the candidates from previous elections proves the point. I don't think Mike Peel (in their volunteer Commons editor capacity, not their affiliate capacity), Doc James (when they were elected), or Lane Raspberry (whose removal from the elections kicked off the community response that culminated in this criteria) would be eligible to run. In addition, I know of at least 3 more editors who I would consider adequately equipped to run for a board seat but who would not fit within the guidelines as currently written.

For what it's worth, this feels like a backsliding. The community has asked the board to allow more mission-aligned people to run for the board, so that there are more candidates to pick from in the board election. The board appears to have responded by digging its heels in, retaining the heavily criticized shortlisting process and the equally controversial vetting process that eliminated two mission-aligned candidates, but instead publishing an extremely restrictive set of criteria that limits who can actually run for the election in the first place.  

Unfortunately, it feels like the board is not aligned with the movement at large and does not trust the community to pick people who are actually aligned with the mission, and has thus refused to implement the community's wishes. As a result, I cannot in good faith support the current changes.

Regards,
Sohom Datta
---
Open-source contributor @Wikimedia


On Sun, Jul 19, 2026 at 11:08 AM Victoria Doronina via Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello Sam,

You say bureaucracy, I say governance. Please forgive me for stating the obvious, but WMF is a very large international organisation. It's much easier to scale up the experience from a smaller Wikimedia organisation than to start from scratch. 

And people who have Wikimedia governance experience usually have experience with outreach campaigns and education in some form.

I also agree that knowing several languages is valuable, but I don't think we should discriminate against "English as a native and only language" speakers  - it's our working language.

Lastly, while I don't have time to gather the statistics about the current and past candidates, I know that I would've qualified when I first ran - as a former member of the Russian Wikipedia ArbCom and a former member of the Funds Dissemination Committee - note that I've never been on a board of an affiliate.

And lastly, I hope that the current criteria will encourage people to serve on the global committees such as AffCom, U4C etc, and people who serve on them to participate in the Board elections as candidates - we need all the talent we can get.



On Sat, Jul 18, 2026 at 1:06 PM Samuel Klein via Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Thanks so much Margo. The base requirements seem good.  

The Categories of Governance or Community Experience seem to trend mostly towards bureacratic experience, not related to experience with knowledge work (like education or contribution), or outreach (like partnerships or campaigns), or multilingualism (including translation and multinational initiatives).  It also singles out incorporated affiliates with paid staff over all other forms of community organizing and project work, as demonstration of community experience; can you say more about that?  

Have you analyzed which current and past trustees / candidates would have fit these proposed criteria?  That might be a useful appendix for the discussion.

Sam


On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 10:40 PM Margo Lee via Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hello everyone,


Following the 2025 elections, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees committed to reviewing the selection process of new Trustees, soliciting and receiving feedback and suggestions and proposing changes. The Board received extensive comments posted on Meta, which helped inform this approach.


The Board has discussed the following goals for reforms: 

  • Clarity and consistency of the electoral process

  • Clarity of roles and responsibilities

  • Transparent communications and timeline

  • A slate of candidates who strengthen the board through the experience they bring

  • Reduced need for shortlisting

  • Strong voter participation


The Board is now ready to publish its draft eligibility requirements for feedback from the community. The requirements are more specific and detailed than in years past, to both inform the community of what the Board needs and to create multiple pathways to the Board for Wikimedians. They are also presented as requirements for candidates, not desirable qualities.


The Board is also emphasising the need for previous governance experience, including these key elements of experience:

  • Understanding the role of oversight vs. governance vs. management

  • Understanding Fiduciary Duties

  • Understanding the "Group Dynamics" of a board or committee (and other collective decision-making bodies): working well with others to ask probing questions, voice different views and contribute to informed decisions for the good of the whole, not an individual agenda


The Board is now looking for specific feedback on the proposed eligibility criteria.


Regards,

The Board Governance Committee 


Margo Lee on behalf of the Governance Committee


Margo Lee (she/her)
Deputy Chief of Staff
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GS3S74YZFPGACVTOTR7DEL4OHTGCW2JP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org


--
Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WPGOIQJ7OKLX66KRXQHPQRYVLH6PIWNC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org


--
Kind regards, Victoria   
Victoria Doronina (she/her), UTC
Wikimedia Foundation Trustee
Community and Affiliates Liaison 
Human Rights Liaison    

Wikimedia Foundation 

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Please help us make it a reality."

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RR523SXFWNAVSCOCENZE6WRIICBVUJ6L/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org