+1 to this question, and whether we can make the list of voting affiliates public in the same way that we publicize the voting rolls for individuals participating in Community [S]elections. The results page [1] shows that 112 affiliate organizations each cast one vote. Regards, [[meta:User:Adamw]] [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Results… On 7/19/22 21:11, Alice Wiegand wrote:

For transparency purposes there is no question to ask. Surely the list must be public. Is WMF a transparent organization? Kind regards On Thu, 21 Jul 2022, 06:14 Jackie Koerner, <jkoerner(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

I think that what was requested was which affiliates that voted, not which individuals. But we should note, that the list of users who represented the affiliations and voted is already public here: https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/1350 /Jan Ainali Den tors 21 juli 2022 kl 06:14 skrev Jackie Koerner &lt;jkoerner(a)wikimedia.org > Hi Alice and Adamw, > > Thanks for this question. This has been a question those of us on the team > supporting the election asked ourselves: do we publish the participants > publicly, or no? > > Movement Strategy and Governance is made up of facilitators from around > the world. We all have a broad experience with cultures and community > experiences. Several facilitators said some affiliates from their regions > decided not to participate to avoid the risk of being labeled and accused > of engaging with a foreign organization. The aim is to protect those > organizations and individuals who did participate from extra attention that > might have real and lasting effects for them. > > For the reason above, making the list of participants more obvious is not > something that we wish to do so we can protect the people in our > communities who are vulnerable to just how political participating in free > knowledge still is in much of the world. > > If any organization needs to have documentation of their participation, we > can gladly supply that on an individual basis. > > Best, > > Jackie > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 6:46 AM Adam Wight &lt;adam.wight(a)wikimedia.de&gt; > wrote: > >> +1 to this question, and whether we can make the list of voting >> affiliates public in the same way that we publicize the voting rolls for >> individuals participating in Community [S]elections. The results page [1] >> shows that 112 affiliate organizations each cast one vote. >> >> Regards, >> [[meta:User:Adamw]] >> >> [1] >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Results… >> On 7/19/22 21:11, Alice Wiegand wrote: >> >> Hi Jackie, >> Thanks for sharing the result. Where can we find information about how >> many chapters/thematic organizations and usergroups have casted their votes? >> >> Alice. >> >> Am 19.07.2022 um 19:32 schrieb Jackie Koerner &lt;jkoerner(a)wikimedia.org>> >> *You can find this message translated into additional languages on >> Meta-wiki. >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Announcement/Announcing_the_six_candidates_for_the_2022_Board_of_Trustees_election>* >> Please help translate to your language >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-Wikimedia+Foundation+elections%2F2022%2FAnnouncement%2FAnnouncing+the+six+candidates+for+the+2022+Board+of+Trustees+election&language=&action=page&filter=> >> Hi everyone, >> The Affiliate voting process has concluded. Representatives from each >> Affiliate organization learned about the candidates by reading candidates’ >> statements, reviewing candidates’ answers to questions, and considering the >> candidates’ ratings provided by the Analysis Committee. The selected 2022 >> Board of Trustees candidates are: >> >> - Tobechukwu Precious Friday (Tochiprecious >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tochiprecious>) >> - Farah Jack Mustaklem (Fjmustak >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fjmustak>) >> - Shani Evenstein Sigalov (Esh77 >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Esh77>) >> - Kunal Mehta (Legoktm <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Legoktm>) >> - Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aegis_Maelstrom>) >> - Mike Peel (Mike Peel >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Peel>) >> >> You may see more information about the Results >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Results> >> and Statistics >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Stats> of >> this Board election. >> Please take a moment to appreciate the Affiliate Representatives and >> Analysis Committee members for taking part in this process and helping to >> grow the Board of Trustees in capacity and diversity. These hours of >> volunteer work connect us across understanding and perspective. Thank you >> for your participation. >> Thank you to the community members who put themselves forward as >> candidates for the Board of Trustees. Considering joining the Board of >> Trustees is no small decision. The time and dedication candidates have >> shown to this point speaks to their commitment to this movement. >> Congratulations to those candidates who have been selected. A great amount >> of appreciation and gratitude for those candidates not selected. Please >> continue to share your leadership with Wikimedia. >> Thank you to those who followed the Affiliate process for this Board >> election. You may review the results of the Affiliate selection process. >> The next part of the Board election process is the community voting >> period. You may view the Board election timeline here >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022#Timeline>. >> To prepare for the community voting period, there are several things >> community members can engage with in the following ways: >> >> - Read candidates’ statements >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Candidates> and >> read the candidates’ answers to the questions posed by the Affiliate >> Representatives. >> - Propose and select the 6 questions for candidates to answer during >> their video Q&A >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Questions_for_Candidates> >> . >> - See the Analysis Committee’s ratings of candidates on each >> candidate’s statement >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Candidates> >> . >> - Propose statements for the Election Compass >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Election_Compass> voters >> can use to find which candidates best fit their principles. >> - Encourage others in your community to take part in the election. >> - >> >> Best, >> >> Movement Strategy and Governance >> *This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and >> the Elections Committee* >> >> -- >> Jackie Koerner (she/her) Communication Specialist, Movement Strategy and >> Governance Location: Midwestern US (UTC-5) >> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

I appreciate that there are some concerns for the wellbeing of individuals and affiliates. I'm sure there are always all kind of accusations about engaging with foreign organizations, and if that would hold us back, we could equally not allow ourselves to publish annual reports to the movement, or what grants have been requested. My intuition would say that if an affiliate does not feel that they can safely engage in global governance because they could meet repercussions for this, maybe the wise thing is not to engage in that global governance, rather than trying to hide it (which is always vulnerable to breaches). However, I don't know how widespread or permanent this kind of problem is - I do find it problematic that we discuss this only after the election, and this kind of transparency should have been decided up front. But maybe I missed something, and this has actually been discussed in advance (?). Jackie, have any commitments/promises been made to voters about secrecy or transparency? You describe in your email what your facilitators have heard, but I don't read what they have promised. Currently there is only a public list of individuals that has voted, rather than which organizations. This still allows people to kind of puzzle together which organizations have voted, without the advantage of actual transparency. Seems the worst of both worlds to me. I already find it doubtful that we don't publish which organization has voted what way, given that this is the only way that members of such organizations can hold their leadership accountable. Warmly, Lodewijk On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 9:14 PM Jackie Koerner &lt;jkoerner(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

I am disturbed to see some community members blithely dismissing the need to protect the well-being of potentially vulnerable community members, especially in a community that usually prides itself on the ability to participate anonymously. That said, perhaps we could publish the names of participating affiliates who affirm the wish to be named publicly.

This is not some functionary volunteer role, nor is it a scholarship to attend some event. The affiliate and the members of the Board of Trustees are both very public facing aspects, when a person is on the Board of Trustees their identity is public https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board/ . It is obvious that a truly vulnerable person would not even put themselves into a BOT position. It's important for members of the community to know who their affiliate chose to represent them because it's a reflection of that community. I know some affiliates actually didnt consult their communities for input into the decision process before the fact so knowing after the fact is at least pretending to be transparent in the voting. On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 at 06:01, Benjamin Lees &lt;emufarmers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- GN.

Of course it's like that Ilario,sometimes some usergroups are "userpersons". and as person involved in the previous ASBS election I politely hinted that aspect as much as possible in the past. Also, sometimes even some chapters are mostly few key persons when relationship with WMF is involved, but it's easier to start from UGs to handle the issue. i had some general idea of what you are supposed to facilitate if you want real transparency in these processes and I felt that was not fully there. Instead of building on previous know-how, the process was restarting again and that do not get great functionality in WMF, usually. It's like knowing for sure that these sort of mails would have happened at the end. I had no time to look carefully, but that was kinda of a feeling and as a result, despite being a first contact and having a decent know-how, I decided not to engage the affiliate in the process. The affiliate I represent is small and fragmented and lacks a strong identity yet, I know for sure that getting to a meaningful ranking would have taken a lot of effort and in May and June I simply had no time. Or it would have resulted in me pushing my ideas in a way or another, and that was not correct. Like, many people are ns-0 users and don't now names, so they trust your side of the story. So I decided to skip it. I was asked a contact for the first step and replied by mail that in May I had no time to even start a thread on meta about deciding whom to select (it would have been me, probably, but I did not feel it was correct). my choice was either focusing properly as a UG on the WIkisummit application or that, and I did at least properly the first one. I could have taken part in the process probably representing 90% myself, nobody would have noticed. Alessandro Il sabato 23 luglio 2022 17:59:01 CEST, Ilario Valdelli &lt;valdelli(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto: I think that there is a very sensible point here. Sometimes behind some usergroups there is not a specific community but only few people and sometimes some usergroups are "userpersons". Being more transparent helps to demonstrate that the whole process has been conducted appropriately but also to have an overview that affiliates have voted really on what their community proposed. Kind regards On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 3:28 AM Gnangarra &lt;gnangarra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I am disturbed to see some community members blithely dismissing the need to protect the well-being of potentially vulnerable community members,  This is not some functionary volunteer role, nor is it a scholarship to attend some event. The affiliate and the members of the Board of Trustees are both very public facing aspects, when a person is on the Board of Trustees their identity is public https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board/ .  It is obvious that a truly  vulnerable person would not even put themselves into a BOT position.  It's important for members of the community to know who their affiliate chose to represent them because it's a reflection of that community.  I know some affiliates actually didnt consult their communities for input into the decision process before the fact so knowing after the fact is at least pretending to be transparent in the voting. On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 at 06:01, Benjamin Lees &lt;emufarmers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I don't think there's anything blithe in pointing out that an after-the-fact promise of secrecy serves no one.  Affiliates had to decide whether to vote without knowing whether the list would be published (but hopefully realizing that the username of their voter would be published, although I'm not sure if this was made clear).  The main effect of post-hoc secrecy here would be to sow confusion and set up unrealistic expectations about future votes; in the last affiliate-selected board seat process, not only was the list of voting affiliates published, but their individual votes were as well: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asbs_presentation_matches_with_stv_py_results.pdf>, and for the reasons Lodewijk describes, we might well wish to return to such full transparency in the future. If a decision either way had been made and communicated beforehand, affiliate voters could have made an informed decision, but as with most of the rules for this election, it was announced in the middle of the election, rather than in the many months before it.  In any event, I agree with SJ that this is a decision to be made by the elections committee, not WMF staff. On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 4:45 PM Robert Fernandez &lt;wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I am disturbed to see some community members blithely dismissing the need to protect the well-being of potentially vulnerable community members, especially in a community that usually prides itself on the ability to participate anonymously. That said, perhaps we could publish the names of participating affiliates who affirm the wish to be named publicly. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org -- GN.  _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario Skype: valdelli Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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… To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Thank you Jackie for the update. I hope (and assume) that you will be able to include this in a list of decisions to take by the Elections Committee before the next selection process(es). The level of expected transparency might be a useful standard decision item anyway? Warmly, Lodewijk On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 3:03 PM Jackie Koerner &lt;jkoerner(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: