On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:24 PM Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:

This looks like a very thoughtful start on a very thorny problem, well done.

Given that we’re trying to diversify the board, and that Jimmy has recently criticized FSF for having lifetime board appointments for founders,* I was surprised not to see any mention in this document of sunsetting Jimmy’s founder seat. Making him a peer of the rest of the board, subject to the same terms, selection process, and requalification standards, rather than a first-among-equals, would potentially free up an additional seat to improve global board diversity and definitely be consistent with general best practices for non-profit governance.

Has the board discussed that?

Thanks- Luis

P.S. the links on the last page of https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/8/83/BGC_Community_Trustee... are broken.

• well, he criticized them for _secretive_ board appointments, but from a

governance perspective a lifetime founder seat is problematic regardless of whether it is secret/defacto (FSF) or public/de jure (WMF).

There’s one huge unspoken difference between the FSF and WMF that needs acknowledgment. When you’re talking about a seat designated for a single founder, their character, morals, and personality matters. Jimmy is not Richard Stallman, whose bizarre behavior is more or less legendary.

I think a lot of editors look at the composition of the board (today and historically) and are super uncomfortable with the number of expert board members who have pretty much zero idea how the projects actually operate. In theory the elected community seats are a check on this, but those people are often very new to board governance.

Jimmy’s combination of deep trust with the community and his perpetual tenure are a unique asset that far outweighs the risk he does crazy Richard Stallman public gaffes like eat his foot cheese or defend rapists on mailing lists. So I don’t think your point is the highest priority item compared to deciding the election / appointment for all the rest of the seats.

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 1:45 PM Jackie Koerner jkoerner-ctr@wikimedia.org

wrote:

...

Hi all,

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees met last week to decide on a plan for the 2021 Board elections. The Board Governance Committee created this proposal, based on the Call for Feedback about Community Board Seats.[1] Please check the related announcement for details.[2]

The Board wants to thank the more than 800 volunteers that participated in the Call for Feedback in one way or another.[3] There were almost a hundred conversations in multiple languages and in multiple regions. There was additional discussion on Meta, Telegram, and other channels used by local communities. Three new ideas were presented by volunteers during the Call. It has been very difficult to decide on every open question considering the quantity and diversity of opinions received. We hope this resolution feels sensible to everybody.

In the upcoming days, the Board elections facilitation team will share their ideas to support candidates and voters. Let's work together on elections with high and very diverse participation!

[1] Call for Feedback Community Board Seats

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_...

[2] Announcement of Board Governance Committee proposal

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_Boar...

[3] Call for Feedback Community Board seats metrics

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_...

-- *Jackie Koerner*

*she/her* Board Governance Facilitator *English language and Meta-Wiki* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 12:47 PM Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:

On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 10:35 AM Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:

...

So I don’t think your point is the highest priority item compared to

deciding the

...

election / appointment for all the rest of the seats.

I agree that's the more important question. Regarding the founder seat, I do think it would be good governance to eventually find a way to solve the problem it solves (preserving long term institutional memory & wisdom on the Board) in a manner that generalizes beyond Jimmy's involvement. Not only because Jimmy won't be around forever, but also to draw from a more diverse set of voices. That could be done through non-voting observers (for which there is precedent), advisors, the council, or some other mechanism.

Great point. This definitely makes me think about our underutilized advisory board. There were a lot of smart people who’ve been on that board who it seems like we never fully leveraged.

Warmly,

Erik

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe