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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2025_update#c-LLosa_(WMF)-20251015213400-Additional_perspectives_on_current_and_future_board_selection_processes 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Debrief, 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 https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legal_and_Fiduciary_Duties_for_Wikimedia_Foundation_Trustees_Public_Version.pdf

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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2027/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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

-- Kind regards, Victoria Victoria Doronina https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/dr-victoria-doronina/ (she/her), UTC Wikimedia Foundation Trustee Community and Affiliates Liaison Human Rights Liaison

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

"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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

I wonder how many women* would qualify under the new conditions, and am concerned that these proposed restrictions on community members would create a glass ceiling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling) for their candidacy.

And while Victoria says she does not have time, I hope there will be some numbers available by Wednesday when the topic is scheduled for a session at Wikimania.

Best, Ciell

Op ma 20 jul 2026, 12:58 schreef Hannah Clover via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>:

...

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.

Same goes for me.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2026, 10:26 a.m. Sohom Datta via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2025_update#c-LLosa_(WMF)-20251015213400-Additional_perspectives_on_current_and_future_board_selection_processes 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Debrief, 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 https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legal_and_Fiduciary_Duties_for_Wikimedia_Foundation_Trustees_Public_Version.pdf

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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2027/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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

-- Kind regards, Victoria Victoria Doronina https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/dr-victoria-doronina/ (she/her), UTC Wikimedia Foundation Trustee Community and Affiliates Liaison Human Rights Liaison

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

"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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

I'm a female admin and even I wouldn't qualify under this criteria because normal adminship doesn't count. Multiple people have been discussing this on Meta, too. It's deeply unpopular and the fact we got to the point where this is being seriously considered without people noticing how out of touch it is is another reason I'm concerned about the current state of the board.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2026, 10:19 a.m. Tila Cappelletto via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

+1 to Ciell's concern, and thank you for raising it.

While the proposed eligibility criteria for new trustees include different forms of governance and community experience, it's important to note that the latest Community Insights Survey states that "*Women were less well represented among Admins, of whom only 7% identified as women*." (1) Is there similar data on the participation of women and gender-diverse Wikimedians across the other eligibility categories, such as committee service?

More importantly, how was the risk of reinforcing the Wikimedia movement's long-standing gender gap in participation considered and addressed during the development of this proposal?

Finally, systemic issues should be treated as such. The question is not whether individual women have managed to overcome structural barriers and be elected to the WMF Board of Trustees, but how those barriers continue to shape participation and governance across the movement as a whole.

(1) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Insights/Community_Insights_2024_R... In solidarity, Tila Cappelletto www.linkedin.com/in/tilacappelletto

Em seg., 20 de jul. de 2026 às 19:25, Ciell Wikipedia via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> escreveu:

...

I wonder how many women* would qualify under the new conditions, and am concerned that these proposed restrictions on community members would create a glass ceiling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling) for their candidacy.

And while Victoria says she does not have time, I hope there will be some numbers available by Wednesday when the topic is scheduled for a session at Wikimania.

Best, Ciell

Op ma 20 jul 2026, 12:58 schreef Hannah Clover via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>:

...

...

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.

Same goes for me.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2026, 10:26 a.m. Sohom Datta via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

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 > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2025_update#c-LLosa_(WMF)-20251015213400-Additional_perspectives_on_current_and_future_board_selection_processes > 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 > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Debrief, > 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 > https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legal_and_Fiduciary_Duties_for_Wikimedia_Foundation_Trustees_Public_Version.pdf > > > - > > 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 > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2027/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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ > _______________________________________________ > 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/... > 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

-- Kind regards, Victoria Victoria Doronina https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/dr-victoria-doronina/ (she/her), UTC Wikimedia Foundation Trustee Community and Affiliates Liaison Human Rights Liaison

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

"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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

I share Sohom Datta's concerns. For sure we want active and engaged members of the community to run for the board of the WMF and this more limited list includes many individuals who fit that description. However we also need flexibility to find folks who have the capacity and willingness to do this work.

More importantly this is the communities election, and we as the communities should be the ones deciding the minimum criteria of who gets to run and who gets to vote. Unfortunately this feels like the WMF is trying to take over community authority / limit community involvement in governance.

Best James Heilman

On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 10:26 AM Sohom Datta via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2025_update#c-LLosa_(WMF)-20251015213400-Additional_perspectives_on_current_and_future_board_selection_processes 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Debrief, 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 https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legal_and_Fiduciary_Duties_for_Wikimedia_Foundation_Trustees_Public_Version.pdf

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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2027/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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

-- Kind regards, Victoria Victoria Doronina https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/dr-victoria-doronina/ (she/her), UTC Wikimedia Foundation Trustee Community and Affiliates Liaison Human Rights Liaison

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

"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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

I would want to add a bit discussion about the English requirements.

English is needed not because it is a working language, but also as it being needed to read and understand documents of legal consequences, e.g. legal communications, contracts, reports, etc. The movement is very large and it means that movement governance decisions now have serious legal (and sometimes political) consequences when communications are misinterpreted (particularly not in English).

Issues arising from within the community due to misunderstanding or miscommunication has far fewer consequences than misinterpreting legal duties, requirements, documents, which is very hard to solve even with a translator as they're are always the issue of "lost in translation".

Contributing or being a regional advocate to the movement is different from being a trustee for a large US-based nonprofit that operates throughout the world.

In short, I do believe a minimum level of CEFR B1/2 level of English is needed as being a trustee is different from being a member of the Wikimedia movement to meaningfully participate in board discussions.

Regards, William

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026, 02:48 Owen Blacker, Wikimedia LGBT+ via Wikimedia-l, < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

Hi Victoria,

I'm only going to comment on 1 aspect here, as others are handling other aspects already.

I have to object to the idea that all candidates must be able to communicate in good English.

As an international movement that values Knowledge Equity, it feels bizarre that we would exclude what I presume is the majority of the movement who might lack the confidence to contribute in high-detail conversations and understand high-detail documents in English.

Given the size of the Movement, I find it mildly offensive that we would privilege English so highly, merely to avoid the expense of translation and interpretation of Board documents and at Board meetings.

I would urge the Board to reconsider on this specific point, as well as on the points that have been raised by other wikimedians.

Thank you.

In pride and solidarity,

Owen

Owen Blacker, Cardiff GB @owen.blacker.me.uk https://bsky.app/profile/owen.blacker.me.uk, he/him @owenblacker@dataare.cool https://dataare.cool/@owenblacker User:OwenBlacker (meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User%3AOwenBlacker, enwiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OwenBlacker, frwiki https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:OwenBlacker) Chair, Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group (meta https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_LGBT%2B/Portal ) Recognised on the Pinc List 2026 https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/gallery/pinc-list-2026-wales-most-33907108

On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 at 22:09, 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2025_update#c-LLosa_(WMF)-20251015213400-Additional_perspectives_on_current_and_future_board_selection_processes 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Debrief, 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 https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legal_and_Fiduciary_Duties_for_Wikimedia_Foundation_Trustees_Public_Version.pdf

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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2027/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 https://wikimediafoundation.org/ _______________________________________________ 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/... 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

-- Kind regards, Victoria Victoria Doronina https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/dr-victoria-doronina/ (she/her), UTC Wikimedia Foundation Trustee Community and Affiliates Liaison Human Rights Liaison

Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/

"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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

Hello Erik - I completely agree with you. It is too restrictive, and the functions within a Wikipedia community are not automatically preparing a person for the board. Kind regards Ziko

Am Fr., 24. Juli 2026 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb Erik Moeller via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>:

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

...

The Board is now looking for specific feedback on the proposed

eligibility criteria.

I concur with others that these criteria are too restrictive when it comes to the demonstrated experience as a functionary. This turns the process even more into a committee-style selection procedure that is fairly closed off to folks who bring fundamentally different perspectives (and, yes, disagreements) to the Board than the ones already selected for through the functionary roles deemed sufficient for eligibility.

Wikimedia Foundation needs folks with relevant governance experience for an organization of this scale, but it also needs voices that challenge it and push it in new directions on the Board. The trick is to find the right balance between those goals. Requiring that people advance along an internal functionary ladder towards the possibility of standing for trusteeship is not that balance; it is the kind of requirement structure you find in institutions that drift towards stagnancy and self-reinforcement, often out of institutionalized fear.

A compromise proposal:

• Change the word "must" to "should" when it comes to the governance

experience criteria

• Require that candidates indicate comparable or equivalent experience

in their candidate profile if they do not meet these criteria.

Will there be another iteration of these criteria that is responsive to the feedback so far?

Warmly,

Erik _______________________________________________ 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

I fully agree with you Luis, thank you for adding that insight.

I shared an earlier version of this on meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2027/Pro... (I missed the conversation here and had been chewing on this for a while)

There are really a few different sets of skills that we'd be looking for in board members, from my understanding. There's the "minimum competency" skills, the "unique skills" that make that you bring something special to the table, and the stuff that would disqualify you (unable to pass background checks, you name it). The community can be an excellent judge of those unique skills, which include political acumen, personal connections, etc.

Those minimum skills are however ones that might be partially acquired through the committee work cited, but I doubt it's a very good proxy for most of the ones that the board actually needs. It may show that you have the ability to learn them, maybe. We risk using a poor metric to filter out people based on engrained inequity. Basically, we will end up being allowed to choose between mostly people that look like me.

We have been talking for a long time about improving the governance skills (financial literacy, negotiation skills, constructive criticism, facilitation etc) in our community for a long time. We usually end up doing a bit of low-effort coursework that community members can pick up asynchronously. Maybe it is time to actually commit to indeed invest in a few cohorts of leaders - because it's not just the WMF board that would benefit from these skills. It is our entire movement.

Best, Lodewijk

On Sun, Aug 9, 2026 at 10:38 PM Luis Villa via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

Since there is more board news today, sending a long-drafted followup:

On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 7:45 PM Erik Moeller via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Wikimedia Foundation needs folks with relevant governance experience for an organization of this scale, but it also needs voices that challenge it and push it in new directions on the Board. The trick is to find the right balance between those goals. Requiring that people advance along an internal functionary ladder towards the possibility of standing for trusteeship is not that balance; it is the kind of requirement structure you find in institutions that drift towards stagnancy and self-reinforcement, often out of institutionalized fear.

A compromise proposal:

• Change the word "must" to "should" when it comes to the governance

experience criteria

• Require that candidates indicate comparable or equivalent experience

in their candidate profile if they do not meet these criteria.

To echo and add to what Erik said: Governance of an organization like WMF is a wickedly complex problem, requiring many different skillsets. It's not enough to have good *ideas* - you have to have the *skills* to make those ideas happen: how to understand an auditor's report; how to think through the human politics of governance; employee management skills; etc. etc.

So I think tightening skills and experience requirements is pretty reasonable.

I like Erik's suggestions, and would add: WMF should invest in board skills development, not just restrict those who don't yet have the skills. Among other things, this could be formal training through services like https://boardsource.org/; or experiential learning through board observer seats/fellowships like Haas does for their b-school students: https://haas.berkeley.edu/cssl/programs-events/board-fellows/ The former would be good skills development for the movement, and the latter would double as a transparency move.

I mean *invest*, not "commit to invest"; the Foundation should do a few years of this investment and *then* put in stricter rules, since otherwise the temptation for new board members to say "this is not necessary" and pull the drawbridge up after them would be very strong.

I would also add, beating my recent drum: much of the energy that goes into Foundation board questions should instead be going into making the Foundation less central to the movement. That goes for the board -- who should be following through on the "infrastructure for open" commitments of 2030, not re-centralizing, so that the exact composition of the board is less important -- and for many movement leaders: *you can be a movement leader without being on the WMF board*. There are so many ways to lead. _______________________________________________ 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

Not everything is a conspiracy, folks. Raju was about to "term out", to be mandatorily retired from the WMF Board due to term limits, as of January 1, 2027; originally, his term would have ended on October 1, 2026. That 'end of term' date only moved because the Board was realigning all of its term start/end dates to January 1. Those of us who have been around for a long time remember that the term start dates used to be a day or two before Wikimania started each year, but that was a moveable date and made it more difficult to manage. Since the term start date has moved to January 1, any appointments that have been made all wind up ending on January 1 of whatever year, regardless of when the person is appointed. There is only one further scheduled board meeting before Raju's term will naturally expire. Raju has been a volunteer member of various boards (including several that are aligned with our own mission in various ways) for longer than Wikipedia has existed. Why is it a big deal that he's stepping away one meeting before he has to?

I think it is also disengenuous to take out of context the statement by Maryana Iskander. She is right that the Board was pretty deeply divided when she arrived. One of her mandates was to change that, but she never really had a chance to make that point during that particular public discussion because she was interrupted. Prior to Maryana's arrival, only rarely did appointed board members interact with the community in any way. This has changed drastically: since 2022, appointed board members have been actively participating in community events, both global (e.g. Wikimania) and at regional conferences. This even extends to members of the Endowment board, several of whom attended and participated throughout the Paris WIkimania. This was a pretty major cultural change on the part of the Board, and I think it is one that should be welcomed and encouraged.

I agree with many in this thread that it would be good to have increased leadership training. At one point, some of that took place at Wikimedia Summits, but that was geared entirely toward affiliates and was explicitly not related to developing leadership candidates outside of the affiliate sphere. Some of that continues to happen indirectly with various volunteer-based committees, but to some extent people need to have shown some leadership talent before they get onto those committees. I think we need to do better.

Risker/Anne

On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 at 13:15, Tilman Bayer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

To explain Luis' slightly cryptic "more board news today" comment: Raju Narisetti, the chair of the Board Governance Committee - on whose behalf Margo sent the message that opened this thread, and which had led last year's controversial selection process changes and candidate removals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-10-20/Special_report

• suddenly announced his departure from the board the other day (see also

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#c-HaeB-20260810080100-Boud-20260810054700 ).

Also, to keep conversations connected: Worth being aware that on July 31, a different Board Governance Committee member (i.e. not its now departed chair) posted an update https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2027/Proposed_eligibility_criteria#c-Nadzik-20260731153200-Response_from_the_Board_Governance_Committee_to_community_feedback regarding the eligibility criteria on Meta ("We realize that our proposal needs more work to achieve these goals").

Regards, Tilman

PS: Not to zoom too much into particular personnel examples, but this whole debate might be an occasion for the Board to explain and juxtapose its eligibility criteria for the other (appointed, i.e. non-community selected) trustee positions as well. Also in light of the previous WMF CEO's comments (as reported here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk%3A2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition#c-Barkeep49-20251019133900-ViridianPenguin-20251019030700) that the community-selected and (non-community) appointed trustees form "effectively two boards (not that they were at odds necessarily but operating in almost parallel) and how hard that made her work as a CEO". I am not one of those who think that, say, every trustee must have edited Wikipedia or that we need ideological litmus tests (in the sense, say, that you cannot be a high-ranking executive in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp while serving on the board). But at a time where some seem to be pushing for WMF to compromise on its longstanding free knowledge ideals and guiding principles in order to serve the organization's own narrow financial interests, it's worth asking how much we know about the appointed Board members' pre-existing stances about such ideals and principles.

On Sun, Aug 9, 2026 at 1:38 PM Luis Villa via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Since there is more board news today, sending a long-drafted followup:

On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 7:45 PM Erik Moeller via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Wikimedia Foundation needs folks with relevant governance experience for an organization of this scale, but it also needs voices that challenge it and push it in new directions on the Board. The trick is to find the right balance between those goals. Requiring that people advance along an internal functionary ladder towards the possibility of standing for trusteeship is not that balance; it is the kind of requirement structure you find in institutions that drift towards stagnancy and self-reinforcement, often out of institutionalized fear.

A compromise proposal:

• Change the word "must" to "should" when it comes to the governance

experience criteria

• Require that candidates indicate comparable or equivalent experience

in their candidate profile if they do not meet these criteria.

To echo and add to what Erik said: Governance of an organization like WMF is a wickedly complex problem, requiring many different skillsets. It's not enough to have good *ideas* - you have to have the *skills* to make those ideas happen: how to understand an auditor's report; how to think through the human politics of governance; employee management skills; etc. etc.

So I think tightening skills and experience requirements is pretty reasonable.

I like Erik's suggestions, and would add: WMF should invest in board skills development, not just restrict those who don't yet have the skills. Among other things, this could be formal training through services like https://boardsource.org/; or experiential learning through board observer seats/fellowships like Haas does for their b-school students: https://haas.berkeley.edu/cssl/programs-events/board-fellows/ The former would be good skills development for the movement, and the latter would double as a transparency move.

I mean *invest*, not "commit to invest"; the Foundation should do a few years of this investment and *then* put in stricter rules, since otherwise the temptation for new board members to say "this is not necessary" and pull the drawbridge up after them would be very strong.

I would also add, beating my recent drum: much of the energy that goes into Foundation board questions should instead be going into making the Foundation less central to the movement. That goes for the board -- who should be following through on the "infrastructure for open" commitments of 2030, not re-centralizing, so that the exact composition of the board is less important -- and for many movement leaders: *you can be a movement leader without being on the WMF board*. There are so many ways to lead. _______________________________________________ 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

Hi Risker,

On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 12:22 PM Risker via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

Not everything is a conspiracy, folks. Raju was about to "term out", to be mandatorily retired from the WMF Board due to term limits, as of January 1, 2027; originally, his term would have ended on October 1, 2026.

Yes, I had already explained that in more detail in my linked comment on the Board noticeboard on Meta-wiki (including how October 2026 would have coincided with the bylaws' nine years limit, considering that he first joined in October 2017); I had also pushed back there against speculations that he had been "dismissed" or such. Not sure what you mean exactly by "conspiracy".

That 'end of term' date only moved because the Board was realigning all of

its term start/end dates to January 1. Those of us who have been around for a long time remember that the term start dates used to be a day or two before Wikimania started each year, but that was a moveable date and made it more difficult to manage. Since the term start date has moved to January 1, any appointments that have been made all wind up ending on January 1 of whatever year, regardless of when the person is appointed. There is only one further scheduled board meeting before Raju's term will naturally expire.

Board members also engage in various other important activities besides attending the scheduled meetings of the entire board (you can learn more about this in the Board handbook https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal%3AWikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Board_compensation_and_time_commitment ).

For example, the Board's October 1, 2025 meeting where Narisetti presented https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2025-10-01 (and the Board approved) that controversial new community candidate review process developed by his committee, and recommended the removal of Lane and Raval as candidates, was an unscheduled one https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_meetings#2025. And that's not even talking about the kind of committee work itself that such board decisions build on.

Raju has been a volunteer member of various boards (including several that

are aligned with our own mission in various ways) for longer than Wikipedia has existed. Why is it a big deal that he's stepping away one meeting before he has to?

"big deal" are your words, not mine. For those trying to assess the dynamics in the ongoing discussions about the governance committee's recent announcement, I do find it useful to know that the chair of said committee suddenly departed recently, just over three weeks after said announcement. (You may debate "suddenly"; I mean it in the sense that this diverges from the previously announced end date in just a few months, and that - as people pointed out on Meta - there doesn't seem to be an official WMF announcement yet accompanying his LinkedIn post, aside from the silent update here https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board/ that some community members happened to notice https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#WMF_Board_size.) You could imagine that a committee chair's interest to see their work through on such an important governance matter might often take precedence over his interest in saving a bit of time by skipping an upcoming scheduled board meeting. (But then again, as discussed above, your apparent assumption that attending those scheduled meetings make up the majority of a trustee's activities is questionable anyway.)

I think it is also disengenuous to take out of context the statement by Maryana Iskander. She is right that the Board was pretty deeply divided when she arrived. One of her mandates was to change that, but she never really had a chance to make that point during that particular public discussion because she was interrupted.

As indicated in my previous post, I was going by Barkeep49's linked summary of what Maryana said at the event. Admittedly I didn't attend it myself, so if you think that Barkeep49's summary was "disingenuous" or lacks context, by all means correct that (although, seeing Hannah's comment, it appears that your own framing of what was said is not uncontested either). In any case, I don't quite understand how Maryana having had such a mandate would change the takeaways in the current situation anyway, or what (if anything) is disputed exactly about her "effectively two boards" observation that I quoted.

Apropos, while you are sharing your insider knowledge about such things and telling us what the former CEO wanted to say but didn't: Do you happen to know whether the current CEO has such a mandate as well?

Prior to Maryana's arrival, only rarely did appointed board members

interact with the community in any way. This has changed drastically: since 2022, appointed board members have been actively participating in community events, both global (e.g. Wikimania) and at regional conferences. This even extends to members of the Endowment board, several of whom attended and participated throughout the Paris WIkimania. This was a pretty major cultural change on the part of the Board, and I think it is one that should be welcomed and encouraged.

That's great to hear, although I do seem to recall quite a few appointed board members attending and participating at pre-2022 Wikimanias too.

Also, not sure you are aware, but this March the board formalized a "Community and Affiliate Liaisons" role https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Board_of_Trustees/Community_and_Affiliate_Liaisons for trustees that appears to encompass the kind of community event participation that you are talking about, and appointed 2 community-selected and 0 appointed trustees to it. (I do realize of course that this is not directly contradicting what you said, considering that you were referring to the previous CEO's tenure.)

In any case though, since you are offering this as pushback about the particular case we are discussing here: I don't recall seeing a single public communication by Narisetti about the topics in question (as the chair of the board committee that drove these controversial items: The August 2025 election process change, the new "Candidate Review Process" policy announced in October 2025, the removal of Lane and Raval as candidates two days later, and now this new eligibility criteria proposal). Which is in stark contrast to the general picture you are trying to paint. Instead, the burden of interacting with the community in public during the height of last year's board governance controversy and providing more clarity about the Board's actions fell largely on community trustees, such as Victoria (who caught a lot of flak in that context even though she was not on Narisetti's committee herself), Lorenzo and Maciej. See e.g. our summary in the Signpost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-10-20/Special_report at the time. (And to clarify, I mean "interacting" in the sense of addressing questions, offering context and arguments etc. - as opposed to being the person who posts a staff-drafted announcement on behalf of the entire Board.) If I have overlooked any public comments by the board governance committee's chair about these matters that "should [have been] welcomed and encouraged", please provide links. And yes, I'm aware that some appointed board members (who were not on the governance committee) later last year attended at least one regional community event and engaged in conversations about such topics with a number of community members present there. That's great, but different from the IMHO more challenging and higher impact work of communicating during such controversies in public spaces like the wikis or this list, where the entire movement is able to read and refer to them.

Regards, Tilman

I agree with many in this thread that it would be good to have increased leadership training. At one point, some of that took place at Wikimedia Summits, but that was geared entirely toward affiliates and was explicitly not related to developing leadership candidates outside of the affiliate sphere. Some of that continues to happen indirectly with various volunteer-based committees, but to some extent people need to have shown some leadership talent before they get onto those committees. I think we need to do better.

Risker/Anne

On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 at 13:15, Tilman Bayer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

To explain Luis' slightly cryptic "more board news today" comment: Raju Narisetti, the chair of the Board Governance Committee - on whose behalf Margo sent the message that opened this thread, and which had led last year's controversial selection process changes and candidate removals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-10-20/Special_report

• suddenly announced his departure from the board the other day (see also

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#c-HaeB-20260810080100-Boud-20260810054700 ).

Also, to keep conversations connected: Worth being aware that on July 31, a different Board Governance Committee member (i.e. not its now departed chair) posted an update https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2027/Proposed_eligibility_criteria#c-Nadzik-20260731153200-Response_from_the_Board_Governance_Committee_to_community_feedback regarding the eligibility criteria on Meta ("We realize that our proposal needs more work to achieve these goals").

Regards, Tilman

PS: Not to zoom too much into particular personnel examples, but this whole debate might be an occasion for the Board to explain and juxtapose its eligibility criteria for the other (appointed, i.e. non-community selected) trustee positions as well. Also in light of the previous WMF CEO's comments (as reported here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk%3A2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition#c-Barkeep49-20251019133900-ViridianPenguin-20251019030700) that the community-selected and (non-community) appointed trustees form "effectively two boards (not that they were at odds necessarily but operating in almost parallel) and how hard that made her work as a CEO". I am not one of those who think that, say, every trustee must have edited Wikipedia or that we need ideological litmus tests (in the sense, say, that you cannot be a high-ranking executive in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp while serving on the board). But at a time where some seem to be pushing for WMF to compromise on its longstanding free knowledge ideals and guiding principles in order to serve the organization's own narrow financial interests, it's worth asking how much we know about the appointed Board members' pre-existing stances about such ideals and principles.

On Sun, Aug 9, 2026 at 1:38 PM Luis Villa via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Since there is more board news today, sending a long-drafted followup:

On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 7:45 PM Erik Moeller via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Wikimedia Foundation needs folks with relevant governance experience for an organization of this scale, but it also needs voices that challenge it and push it in new directions on the Board. The trick is to find the right balance between those goals. Requiring that people advance along an internal functionary ladder towards the possibility of standing for trusteeship is not that balance; it is the kind of requirement structure you find in institutions that drift towards stagnancy and self-reinforcement, often out of institutionalized fear.

A compromise proposal:

• Change the word "must" to "should" when it comes to the governance

experience criteria

• Require that candidates indicate comparable or equivalent experience

in their candidate profile if they do not meet these criteria.

To echo and add to what Erik said: Governance of an organization like WMF is a wickedly complex problem, requiring many different skillsets. It's not enough to have good *ideas* - you have to have the *skills* to make those ideas happen: how to understand an auditor's report; how to think through the human politics of governance; employee management skills; etc. etc.

So I think tightening skills and experience requirements is pretty reasonable.

I like Erik's suggestions, and would add: WMF should invest in board skills development, not just restrict those who don't yet have the skills. Among other things, this could be formal training through services like https://boardsource.org/; or experiential learning through board observer seats/fellowships like Haas does for their b-school students: https://haas.berkeley.edu/cssl/programs-events/board-fellows/ The former would be good skills development for the movement, and the latter would double as a transparency move.

I mean *invest*, not "commit to invest"; the Foundation should do a few years of this investment and *then* put in stricter rules, since otherwise the temptation for new board members to say "this is not necessary" and pull the drawbridge up after them would be very strong.

I would also add, beating my recent drum: much of the energy that goes into Foundation board questions should instead be going into making the Foundation less central to the movement. That goes for the board -- who should be following through on the "infrastructure for open" commitments of 2030, not re-centralizing, so that the exact composition of the board is less important -- and for many movement leaders: *you can be a movement leader without being on the WMF board*. There are so many ways to lead. _______________________________________________ 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

*left

On Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:13 p.m. Hannah Clover clovermosswikipedia@gmail.com wrote:

Risker wasn't at WCNa that year. Personally I prefer ViridianPenguin's summary, as he was near me and it best reflects what I remember before I like that session to cry in the hallway.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:55 p.m. Tilman Bayer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Hi Risker,

On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 12:22 PM Risker via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Not everything is a conspiracy, folks. Raju was about to "term out", to be mandatorily retired from the WMF Board due to term limits, as of January 1, 2027; originally, his term would have ended on October 1, 2026.

Yes, I had already explained that in more detail in my linked comment on the Board noticeboard on Meta-wiki (including how October 2026 would have coincided with the bylaws' nine years limit, considering that he first joined in October 2017); I had also pushed back there against speculations that he had been "dismissed" or such. Not sure what you mean exactly by "conspiracy".

That 'end of term' date only moved because the Board was realigning all

...

of its term start/end dates to January 1. Those of us who have been around for a long time remember that the term start dates used to be a day or two before Wikimania started each year, but that was a moveable date and made it more difficult to manage. Since the term start date has moved to January 1, any appointments that have been made all wind up ending on January 1 of whatever year, regardless of when the person is appointed. There is only one further scheduled board meeting before Raju's term will naturally expire.

Board members also engage in various other important activities besides attending the scheduled meetings of the entire board (you can learn more about this in the Board handbook https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal%3AWikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Board_compensation_and_time_commitment ).

For example, the Board's October 1, 2025 meeting where Narisetti presented https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2025-10-01 (and the Board approved) that controversial new community candidate review process developed by his committee, and recommended the removal of Lane and Raval as candidates, was an unscheduled one https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_meetings#2025. And that's not even talking about the kind of committee work itself that such board decisions build on.

Raju has been a volunteer member of various boards (including several

...

that are aligned with our own mission in various ways) for longer than Wikipedia has existed. Why is it a big deal that he's stepping away one meeting before he has to?

"big deal" are your words, not mine. For those trying to assess the dynamics in the ongoing discussions about the governance committee's recent announcement, I do find it useful to know that the chair of said committee suddenly departed recently, just over three weeks after said announcement. (You may debate "suddenly"; I mean it in the sense that this diverges from the previously announced end date in just a few months, and that - as people pointed out on Meta - there doesn't seem to be an official WMF announcement yet accompanying his LinkedIn post, aside from the silent update here https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/board/ that some community members happened to notice https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#WMF_Board_size.) You could imagine that a committee chair's interest to see their work through on such an important governance matter might often take precedence over his interest in saving a bit of time by skipping an upcoming scheduled board meeting. (But then again, as discussed above, your apparent assumption that attending those scheduled meetings make up the majority of a trustee's activities is questionable anyway.)

...

I think it is also disengenuous to take out of context the statement by Maryana Iskander. She is right that the Board was pretty deeply divided when she arrived. One of her mandates was to change that, but she never really had a chance to make that point during that particular public discussion because she was interrupted.

As indicated in my previous post, I was going by Barkeep49's linked summary of what Maryana said at the event. Admittedly I didn't attend it myself, so if you think that Barkeep49's summary was "disingenuous" or lacks context, by all means correct that (although, seeing Hannah's comment, it appears that your own framing of what was said is not uncontested either). In any case, I don't quite understand how Maryana having had such a mandate would change the takeaways in the current situation anyway, or what (if anything) is disputed exactly about her "effectively two boards" observation that I quoted.

Apropos, while you are sharing your insider knowledge about such things and telling us what the former CEO wanted to say but didn't: Do you happen to know whether the current CEO has such a mandate as well?

Prior to Maryana's arrival, only rarely did appointed board members

...

interact with the community in any way. This has changed drastically: since 2022, appointed board members have been actively participating in community events, both global (e.g. Wikimania) and at regional conferences. This even extends to members of the Endowment board, several of whom attended and participated throughout the Paris WIkimania. This was a pretty major cultural change on the part of the Board, and I think it is one that should be welcomed and encouraged.

That's great to hear, although I do seem to recall quite a few appointed board members attending and participating at pre-2022 Wikimanias too.

Also, not sure you are aware, but this March the board formalized a "Community and Affiliate Liaisons" role https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Board_of_Trustees/Community_and_Affiliate_Liaisons for trustees that appears to encompass the kind of community event participation that you are talking about, and appointed 2 community-selected and 0 appointed trustees to it. (I do realize of course that this is not directly contradicting what you said, considering that you were referring to the previous CEO's tenure.)

In any case though, since you are offering this as pushback about the particular case we are discussing here: I don't recall seeing a single public communication by Narisetti about the topics in question (as the chair of the board committee that drove these controversial items: The August 2025 election process change, the new "Candidate Review Process" policy announced in October 2025, the removal of Lane and Raval as candidates two days later, and now this new eligibility criteria proposal). Which is in stark contrast to the general picture you are trying to paint. Instead, the burden of interacting with the community in public during the height of last year's board governance controversy and providing more clarity about the Board's actions fell largely on community trustees, such as Victoria (who caught a lot of flak in that context even though she was not on Narisetti's committee herself), Lorenzo and Maciej. See e.g. our summary in the Signpost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-10-20/Special_report at the time. (And to clarify, I mean "interacting" in the sense of addressing questions, offering context and arguments etc. - as opposed to being the person who posts a staff-drafted announcement on behalf of the entire Board.) If I have overlooked any public comments by the board governance committee's chair about these matters that "should [have been] welcomed and encouraged", please provide links. And yes, I'm aware that some appointed board members (who were not on the governance committee) later last year attended at least one regional community event and engaged in conversations about such topics with a number of community members present there. That's great, but different from the IMHO more challenging and higher impact work of communicating during such controversies in public spaces like the wikis or this list, where the entire movement is able to read and refer to them.

Regards, Tilman

...

I agree with many in this thread that it would be good to have increased leadership training. At one point, some of that took place at Wikimedia Summits, but that was geared entirely toward affiliates and was explicitly not related to developing leadership candidates outside of the affiliate sphere. Some of that continues to happen indirectly with various volunteer-based committees, but to some extent people need to have shown some leadership talent before they get onto those committees. I think we need to do better.

Risker/Anne

On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 at 13:15, Tilman Bayer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

To explain Luis' slightly cryptic "more board news today" comment: Raju Narisetti, the chair of the Board Governance Committee - on whose behalf Margo sent the message that opened this thread, and which had led last year's controversial selection process changes and candidate removals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2025-10-20/Special_report

• suddenly announced his departure from the board the other day (see

also https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#c-HaeB-20260810080100-Boud-20260810054700 ).

Also, to keep conversations connected: Worth being aware that on July 31, a different Board Governance Committee member (i.e. not its now departed chair) posted an update https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2027/Proposed_eligibility_criteria#c-Nadzik-20260731153200-Response_from_the_Board_Governance_Committee_to_community_feedback regarding the eligibility criteria on Meta ("We realize that our proposal needs more work to achieve these goals").

Regards, Tilman

PS: Not to zoom too much into particular personnel examples, but this whole debate might be an occasion for the Board to explain and juxtapose its eligibility criteria for the other (appointed, i.e. non-community selected) trustee positions as well. Also in light of the previous WMF CEO's comments (as reported here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk%3A2025_WMF_Board_reform_petition#c-Barkeep49-20251019133900-ViridianPenguin-20251019030700) that the community-selected and (non-community) appointed trustees form "effectively two boards (not that they were at odds necessarily but operating in almost parallel) and how hard that made her work as a CEO". I am not one of those who think that, say, every trustee must have edited Wikipedia or that we need ideological litmus tests (in the sense, say, that you cannot be a high-ranking executive in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp while serving on the board). But at a time where some seem to be pushing for WMF to compromise on its longstanding free knowledge ideals and guiding principles in order to serve the organization's own narrow financial interests, it's worth asking how much we know about the appointed Board members' pre-existing stances about such ideals and principles.

On Sun, Aug 9, 2026 at 1:38 PM Luis Villa via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Since there is more board news today, sending a long-drafted followup:

On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 7:45 PM Erik Moeller via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Wikimedia Foundation needs folks with relevant governance experience for an organization of this scale, but it also needs voices that challenge it and push it in new directions on the Board. The trick is to find the right balance between those goals. Requiring that people advance along an internal functionary ladder towards the possibility of standing for trusteeship is not that balance; it is the kind of requirement structure you find in institutions that drift towards stagnancy and self-reinforcement, often out of institutionalized fear.

A compromise proposal:

• Change the word "must" to "should" when it comes to the governance

experience criteria

• Require that candidates indicate comparable or equivalent experience

in their candidate profile if they do not meet these criteria.

To echo and add to what Erik said: Governance of an organization like WMF is a wickedly complex problem, requiring many different skillsets. It's not enough to have good *ideas* - you have to have the *skills* to make those ideas happen: how to understand an auditor's report; how to think through the human politics of governance; employee management skills; etc. etc.

So I think tightening skills and experience requirements is pretty reasonable.

I like Erik's suggestions, and would add: WMF should invest in board skills development, not just restrict those who don't yet have the skills. Among other things, this could be formal training through services like https://boardsource.org/; or experiential learning through board observer seats/fellowships like Haas does for their b-school students: https://haas.berkeley.edu/cssl/programs-events/board-fellows/ The former would be good skills development for the movement, and the latter would double as a transparency move.

I mean *invest*, not "commit to invest"; the Foundation should do a few years of this investment and *then* put in stricter rules, since otherwise the temptation for new board members to say "this is not necessary" and pull the drawbridge up after them would be very strong.

I would also add, beating my recent drum: much of the energy that goes into Foundation board questions should instead be going into making the Foundation less central to the movement. That goes for the board -- who should be following through on the "infrastructure for open" commitments of 2030, not re-centralizing, so that the exact composition of the board is less important -- and for many movement leaders: *you can be a movement leader without being on the WMF board*. There are so many ways to lead. _______________________________________________ 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org

---

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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org