Dear all,
Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees starts two calls for feedback: on changes to our Bylaws[1] mainly to increase the Board size from 10 to 16 members, and on a trustee candidate rubric[2] to introduce new, more effective ways to evaluate new board candidates. These proposals are part of the governance improvement process announced on 28 April[3].
The Foundation’s work is wide-ranging, focused on areas including product development, technical infrastructure maintenance, community support, grantmaking, public policy advocacy, and fundraising. In addition, the Foundation is charged with administering the operations of an international nonprofit organization responsible for a more than 500-person paid workforce and an annual budget of over US$100 million. Its ambitious mission is to support the sharing of knowledge amongst every single human being in partnership with Wikimedia communities across the globe.
To provide sufficient strategic guidance and oversight over such a broad scope of work and constituents, Board members should reflect a similarly broad scope of expertise, experience, and backgrounds. Expanding the number of board seats from 10 to 16 will move us closer to this goal, supported by a Board candidate rubric that will help us all evaluate potential trustees and ensure that they can provide what the Board, Foundation, and movement need. The Foundation will work with the broader movement to formalize this rubric. Currently, trustees have to serve on more than one Board committee (as voting members, alternates or liaisons). This overlap is a significant burden, as it limits the amount of work that can be done—and the volunteer trustees are overworked.
== Bylaws revisions ==
We have published the planned revisions to the bylaws on Meta-Wiki and we welcome your comments through 26 October[1]. The Board has carefully considered the published revisions and we believe that they are a positive step toward accomplishing our governance reform goals. We are publishing these so that they are transparent to the communities before the Board’s final vote to adopt the revisions, and we will be responding to questions about the revisions on the talk page. We shall consider any suggested edits that would further the Board’s governance needs and goals.
The revised Bylaws would maintain the current general structure of trustee seats, with half (8 of 16) sourced from candidates identified through community selection processes, one reserved for Jimmy as Founder, and the rest (7 of 16) selected by the Board directly. The revisions would eliminate the distinction between trustees selected by affiliates and trustees selected by community voting. This offers more flexibility for adjusting community selection processes if necessary, while also not requiring any particular process changes. We hope to discuss possible changes with our communities in early 2021.
== Board candidate evaluation form ==
In addition to expanding in size, the Board is considering ways to improve our overall process for selecting trustees. The Board Governance Committee (BGC) has drafted a Board candidate rubric as a tool to show and help evaluate the relevant effective candidates for the Board[2]. The rubric is still a draft, and we want to hear what all of you think is missing, overrepresented, underrepresented, confusing, or could otherwise be improved. The goal of the rubric is not only to aid us in evaluating potential trustees but also to clearly and openly communicate how we are evaluating candidates. We welcome your input through 26 October.
== Impact on postponed trustee selection process[4] ==
Following development of the rubric, we will work to further improve the selection of Board candidates by adapting the community-sourced trustee selection processes to fill 8 seats instead of 5. Any changes to current selection processes will be preceded by the necessary discussions with affected communities. We plan to start this discussion in early 2021. Once the new process is developed, it will be used to select all community-sourced trustees going forward.
I recognize that delays and slow progress can be frustrating and even confusing. I don’t think anyone—community, Board, or staff—is completely satisfied with the situation we currently find ourselves in. Like everyone else, we are doing our best to respond to the challenges of 2020. There are many pressing demands competing for everyone’s time and attention. We are faced with the difficult tasks of balancing goals and priorities and judiciously allocating the resources we have available to work on them. We remain committed to holding the community trustee selection process in the Foundation’s 2020-21 fiscal year (July through June). That process is much more labour-intensive than many may realize, taking months of planning, preparation, and execution. For the community trustee selection process to be successful, it requires not only resources to plan but also the ability for as wide a range of diverse candidates and community voters as possible to participate. We postponed the process in part because we were not sure that it would have that necessary participation if it had happened at the originally scheduled time. We appreciate everyone’s patience and understanding as we do our best to move this work forward in a way that is mindful of both the desire to move quickly and our responsibility to achieve the best possible outcomes.
Thanks in advance to everyone who takes the time to participate constructively in these conversations.
You can find the original version of this announcement at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_2020_-_Call_for_feedback_about_Bylaws_changes_and_Board_candidate_rubric
Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Updat...
[4] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Postponement_of_Community_S...
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!*
Hi Nataliia,
I imagine the board went through an evaluation process - perhaps with the assistance of non-profit governance experts - to help guide the board as to the appropriate size given the board's function, research about the effectiveness of corporate boards at different sizes, etc. Can you share some of the details of that process and how the board arrived at 16 seats specifically? Do you have any data that estimates the time commitment for existing board members, between general board participation and committee roles?
Thanks for any insight, Nathan
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:11 AM Nataliia Tymkiv ntymkiv@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all,
Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees starts two calls for feedback: on changes to our Bylaws[1] mainly to increase the Board size from 10 to 16 members, and on a trustee candidate rubric[2] to introduce new, more effective ways to evaluate new board candidates. These proposals are part of the governance improvement process announced on 28 April[3].
The Foundation’s work is wide-ranging, focused on areas including product development, technical infrastructure maintenance, community support, grantmaking, public policy advocacy, and fundraising. In addition, the Foundation is charged with administering the operations of an international nonprofit organization responsible for a more than 500-person paid workforce and an annual budget of over US$100 million. Its ambitious mission is to support the sharing of knowledge amongst every single human being in partnership with Wikimedia communities across the globe.
To provide sufficient strategic guidance and oversight over such a broad scope of work and constituents, Board members should reflect a similarly broad scope of expertise, experience, and backgrounds. Expanding the number of board seats from 10 to 16 will move us closer to this goal, supported by a Board candidate rubric that will help us all evaluate potential trustees and ensure that they can provide what the Board, Foundation, and movement need. The Foundation will work with the broader movement to formalize this rubric. Currently, trustees have to serve on more than one Board committee (as voting members, alternates or liaisons). This overlap is a significant burden, as it limits the amount of work that can be done—and the volunteer trustees are overworked.
== Bylaws revisions ==
We have published the planned revisions to the bylaws on Meta-Wiki and we welcome your comments through 26 October[1]. The Board has carefully considered the published revisions and we believe that they are a positive step toward accomplishing our governance reform goals. We are publishing these so that they are transparent to the communities before the Board’s final vote to adopt the revisions, and we will be responding to questions about the revisions on the talk page. We shall consider any suggested edits that would further the Board’s governance needs and goals.
The revised Bylaws would maintain the current general structure of trustee seats, with half (8 of 16) sourced from candidates identified through community selection processes, one reserved for Jimmy as Founder, and the rest (7 of 16) selected by the Board directly. The revisions would eliminate the distinction between trustees selected by affiliates and trustees selected by community voting. This offers more flexibility for adjusting community selection processes if necessary, while also not requiring any particular process changes. We hope to discuss possible changes with our communities in early 2021.
== Board candidate evaluation form ==
In addition to expanding in size, the Board is considering ways to improve our overall process for selecting trustees. The Board Governance Committee (BGC) has drafted a Board candidate rubric as a tool to show and help evaluate the relevant effective candidates for the Board[2]. The rubric is still a draft, and we want to hear what all of you think is missing, overrepresented, underrepresented, confusing, or could otherwise be improved. The goal of the rubric is not only to aid us in evaluating potential trustees but also to clearly and openly communicate how we are evaluating candidates. We welcome your input through 26 October.
== Impact on postponed trustee selection process[4] ==
Following development of the rubric, we will work to further improve the selection of Board candidates by adapting the community-sourced trustee selection processes to fill 8 seats instead of 5. Any changes to current selection processes will be preceded by the necessary discussions with affected communities. We plan to start this discussion in early 2021. Once the new process is developed, it will be used to select all community-sourced trustees going forward.
I recognize that delays and slow progress can be frustrating and even confusing. I don’t think anyone—community, Board, or staff—is completely satisfied with the situation we currently find ourselves in. Like everyone else, we are doing our best to respond to the challenges of 2020. There are many pressing demands competing for everyone’s time and attention. We are faced with the difficult tasks of balancing goals and priorities and judiciously allocating the resources we have available to work on them. We remain committed to holding the community trustee selection process in the Foundation’s 2020-21 fiscal year (July through June). That process is much more labour-intensive than many may realize, taking months of planning, preparation, and execution. For the community trustee selection process to be successful, it requires not only resources to plan but also the ability for as wide a range of diverse candidates and community voters as possible to participate. We postponed the process in part because we were not sure that it would have that necessary participation if it had happened at the originally scheduled time. We appreciate everyone’s patience and understanding as we do our best to move this work forward in a way that is mindful of both the desire to move quickly and our responsibility to achieve the best possible outcomes.
Thanks in advance to everyone who takes the time to participate constructively in these conversations.
You can find the original version of this announcement at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob... < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Updat...
[4]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Postponement_of_Community_S...
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The replacement of an explicit voting process with an unspecified process + schedule seems unnecessarily vague. Especially since the current ElecComm does not seem to have been party to the decisions around this year's delay.
Drawing from the current Bylaws language, it would be better to add something like this to IV.3.c.1: "*The process will be conducted according to a procedure determined by [the Elections Committee] and approved by the Board*"
And to make ElecComm a standing committee with the same level of support that others have. ====== (i) As many as eight (8) Trustees will be sourced from candidates vetted through a community nomination process. This process will be held according to a schedule determined by the Board of Trustees to fill open Community-sourced Trustee seats. Off-cycle vacancies may be filled normally as described in Article IV, Section 6 below.(ii) The Board of Trusteesshall convey its priorities and requirements for members, as set forth in Article IV, Section 3(A) above, and shall determine the dates, rules and regulation of the approval procedures.======
I am alarmed.
While the page on Meta page on the bylaws changes highlights only additions, a direct comparison with the current bylaws shows some significant deletions. Some issues: * The line "(G) Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee positions, without counting the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be selected or appointed from the Affiliates collectively and the community." has been simply deleted, with no replacement or equivalent. (This is unmentioned in the summary.) This would allow the board to be entirely self-perpetuating. This is made even more problematic with the change from elections/nominations being "every three years" to "according to a schedule determined by the Board of Trustees", and also the change from specifying a precise number of community seats towards having just a maximum of "As many as eight (8) Trustees...". The Board appears to be under no obligation to continue having community-sourced seats at all, under the proposed bylaws. * All mention of community voting has been eliminated, replaced with an ambiguous "community nomination process". (Previously, the bylaws said "Three Trustees will be selected from candidates approved through community voting.")
There are currently zero members of the board that are fulfilling community-elected terms. Their terms (which were, for two of them, required to be their final terms before they changed the term limits) were all supposed to have ended on September 1. I don't think there would ever be a good time for the board to remove its own obligations to the community, but doing it while the Board is very much lacking in legitimacy, is especially problematic.
(Another minor point: The change from the description of the appointed seats from "non-community-selected, non-chapter-selected" to "non-community-sourced" seems to imply that the Board is prohibited from filling these seats with any community members. Previously, there have been community members in these seats.)
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 7 באוק׳ 2020 ב-11:12 מאת Nataliia Tymkiv < ntymkiv@wikimedia.org>:
Dear all,
Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees starts two calls for feedback: on changes to our Bylaws[1] mainly to increase the Board size from 10 to 16 members, and on a trustee candidate rubric[2] to introduce new, more effective ways to evaluate new board candidates. These proposals are part of the governance improvement process announced on 28 April[3].
The Foundation’s work is wide-ranging, focused on areas including product development, technical infrastructure maintenance, community support, grantmaking, public policy advocacy, and fundraising. In addition, the Foundation is charged with administering the operations of an international nonprofit organization responsible for a more than 500-person paid workforce and an annual budget of over US$100 million. Its ambitious mission is to support the sharing of knowledge amongst every single human being in partnership with Wikimedia communities across the globe.
To provide sufficient strategic guidance and oversight over such a broad scope of work and constituents, Board members should reflect a similarly broad scope of expertise, experience, and backgrounds. Expanding the number of board seats from 10 to 16 will move us closer to this goal, supported by a Board candidate rubric that will help us all evaluate potential trustees and ensure that they can provide what the Board, Foundation, and movement need. The Foundation will work with the broader movement to formalize this rubric. Currently, trustees have to serve on more than one Board committee (as voting members, alternates or liaisons). This overlap is a significant burden, as it limits the amount of work that can be done—and the volunteer trustees are overworked.
== Bylaws revisions ==
We have published the planned revisions to the bylaws on Meta-Wiki and we welcome your comments through 26 October[1]. The Board has carefully considered the published revisions and we believe that they are a positive step toward accomplishing our governance reform goals. We are publishing these so that they are transparent to the communities before the Board’s final vote to adopt the revisions, and we will be responding to questions about the revisions on the talk page. We shall consider any suggested edits that would further the Board’s governance needs and goals.
The revised Bylaws would maintain the current general structure of trustee seats, with half (8 of 16) sourced from candidates identified through community selection processes, one reserved for Jimmy as Founder, and the rest (7 of 16) selected by the Board directly. The revisions would eliminate the distinction between trustees selected by affiliates and trustees selected by community voting. This offers more flexibility for adjusting community selection processes if necessary, while also not requiring any particular process changes. We hope to discuss possible changes with our communities in early 2021.
== Board candidate evaluation form ==
In addition to expanding in size, the Board is considering ways to improve our overall process for selecting trustees. The Board Governance Committee (BGC) has drafted a Board candidate rubric as a tool to show and help evaluate the relevant effective candidates for the Board[2]. The rubric is still a draft, and we want to hear what all of you think is missing, overrepresented, underrepresented, confusing, or could otherwise be improved. The goal of the rubric is not only to aid us in evaluating potential trustees but also to clearly and openly communicate how we are evaluating candidates. We welcome your input through 26 October.
== Impact on postponed trustee selection process[4] ==
Following development of the rubric, we will work to further improve the selection of Board candidates by adapting the community-sourced trustee selection processes to fill 8 seats instead of 5. Any changes to current selection processes will be preceded by the necessary discussions with affected communities. We plan to start this discussion in early 2021. Once the new process is developed, it will be used to select all community-sourced trustees going forward.
I recognize that delays and slow progress can be frustrating and even confusing. I don’t think anyone—community, Board, or staff—is completely satisfied with the situation we currently find ourselves in. Like everyone else, we are doing our best to respond to the challenges of 2020. There are many pressing demands competing for everyone’s time and attention. We are faced with the difficult tasks of balancing goals and priorities and judiciously allocating the resources we have available to work on them. We remain committed to holding the community trustee selection process in the Foundation’s 2020-21 fiscal year (July through June). That process is much more labour-intensive than many may realize, taking months of planning, preparation, and execution. For the community trustee selection process to be successful, it requires not only resources to plan but also the ability for as wide a range of diverse candidates and community voters as possible to participate. We postponed the process in part because we were not sure that it would have that necessary participation if it had happened at the originally scheduled time. We appreciate everyone’s patience and understanding as we do our best to move this work forward in a way that is mindful of both the desire to move quickly and our responsibility to achieve the best possible outcomes.
Thanks in advance to everyone who takes the time to participate constructively in these conversations.
You can find the original version of this announcement at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob... < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Updat...
[4]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Postponement_of_Community_S...
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Excellent points, Yair, I hadn't noticed that. (which suggests the page showing proposed changes https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2020_-_Proposed_Bylaws_changes can be more clear)
Perhaps it would make more sense to do this in two stages: 1) Set a date for the next community election (per the current bylaws) * If necessary, because the most suitable date is next year, make a small bylaws change that addresses only this variance.
2) Discuss and implement the larger changes. * address board expansion, changes in selection process, and combining or streamlining the different modes of community selection.
Trying to do everything at once seems guaranteed to take longer than anticipated, and may be misconstrued.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 5:03 PM Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
I am alarmed.
While the page on Meta page on the bylaws changes highlights only additions, a direct comparison with the current bylaws shows some significant deletions. Some issues:
- The line "(G) Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee positions,
without counting the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be selected or appointed from the Affiliates collectively and the community." has been simply deleted, with no replacement or equivalent. (This is unmentioned in the summary.) This would allow the board to be entirely self-perpetuating. This is made even more problematic with the change from elections/nominations being "every three years" to "according to a schedule determined by the Board of Trustees", and also the change from specifying a precise number of community seats towards having just a maximum of "As many as eight (8) Trustees...". The Board appears to be under no obligation to continue having community-sourced seats at all, under the proposed bylaws.
- All mention of community voting has been eliminated, replaced with an
ambiguous "community nomination process". (Previously, the bylaws said "Three Trustees will be selected from candidates approved through community voting.")
There are currently zero members of the board that are fulfilling community-elected terms. Their terms (which were, for two of them, required to be their final terms before they changed the term limits) were all supposed to have ended on September 1. I don't think there would ever be a good time for the board to remove its own obligations to the community, but doing it while the Board is very much lacking in legitimacy, is especially problematic.
(Another minor point: The change from the description of the appointed seats from "non-community-selected, non-chapter-selected" to "non-community-sourced" seems to imply that the Board is prohibited from filling these seats with any community members. Previously, there have been community members in these seats.)
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ד׳, 7 באוק׳ 2020 ב-11:12 מאת Nataliia Tymkiv < ntymkiv@wikimedia.org>:
Dear all,
Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees starts two calls for feedback: on changes to our Bylaws[1] mainly to increase the Board size from 10 to 16 members, and on a trustee candidate rubric[2] to introduce new, more effective ways to evaluate new board candidates. These
proposals
are part of the governance improvement process announced on 28 April[3].
The Foundation’s work is wide-ranging, focused on areas including product development, technical infrastructure maintenance, community support, grantmaking, public policy advocacy, and fundraising. In addition, the Foundation is charged with administering the operations of an
international
nonprofit organization responsible for a more than 500-person paid workforce and an annual budget of over US$100 million. Its ambitious mission is to support the sharing of knowledge amongst every single human being in partnership with Wikimedia communities across the globe.
To provide sufficient strategic guidance and oversight over such a broad scope of work and constituents, Board members should reflect a similarly broad scope of expertise, experience, and backgrounds. Expanding the
number
of board seats from 10 to 16 will move us closer to this goal, supported
by
a Board candidate rubric that will help us all evaluate potential
trustees
and ensure that they can provide what the Board, Foundation, and movement need. The Foundation will work with the broader movement to formalize
this
rubric. Currently, trustees have to serve on more than one Board
committee
(as voting members, alternates or liaisons). This overlap is a
significant
burden, as it limits the amount of work that can be done—and the
volunteer
trustees are overworked.
== Bylaws revisions ==
We have published the planned revisions to the bylaws on Meta-Wiki and we welcome your comments through 26 October[1]. The Board has carefully considered the published revisions and we believe that they are a
positive
step toward accomplishing our governance reform goals. We are publishing these so that they are transparent to the communities before the Board’s final vote to adopt the revisions, and we will be responding to questions about the revisions on the talk page. We shall consider any suggested
edits
that would further the Board’s governance needs and goals.
The revised Bylaws would maintain the current general structure of
trustee
seats, with half (8 of 16) sourced from candidates identified through community selection processes, one reserved for Jimmy as Founder, and the rest (7 of 16) selected by the Board directly. The revisions would eliminate the distinction between trustees selected by affiliates and trustees selected by community voting. This offers more flexibility for adjusting community selection processes if necessary, while also not requiring any particular process changes. We hope to discuss possible changes with our communities in early 2021.
== Board candidate evaluation form ==
In addition to expanding in size, the Board is considering ways to
improve
our overall process for selecting trustees. The Board Governance
Committee
(BGC) has drafted a Board candidate rubric as a tool to show and help evaluate the relevant effective candidates for the Board[2]. The rubric
is
still a draft, and we want to hear what all of you think is missing, overrepresented, underrepresented, confusing, or could otherwise be improved. The goal of the rubric is not only to aid us in evaluating potential trustees but also to clearly and openly communicate how we are evaluating candidates. We welcome your input through 26 October.
== Impact on postponed trustee selection process[4] ==
Following development of the rubric, we will work to further improve the selection of Board candidates by adapting the community-sourced trustee selection processes to fill 8 seats instead of 5. Any changes to current selection processes will be preceded by the necessary discussions with affected communities. We plan to start this discussion in early 2021.
Once
the new process is developed, it will be used to select all community-sourced trustees going forward.
I recognize that delays and slow progress can be frustrating and even confusing. I don’t think anyone—community, Board, or staff—is completely satisfied with the situation we currently find ourselves in. Like
everyone
else, we are doing our best to respond to the challenges of 2020. There
are
many pressing demands competing for everyone’s time and attention. We are faced with the difficult tasks of balancing goals and priorities and judiciously allocating the resources we have available to work on them.
We
remain committed to holding the community trustee selection process in
the
Foundation’s 2020-21 fiscal year (July through June). That process is
much
more labour-intensive than many may realize, taking months of planning, preparation, and execution. For the community trustee selection process
to
be successful, it requires not only resources to plan but also the
ability
for as wide a range of diverse candidates and community voters as
possible
to participate. We postponed the process in part because we were not sure that it would have that necessary participation if it had happened at the originally scheduled time. We appreciate everyone’s patience and understanding as we do our best to move this work forward in a way that
is
mindful of both the desire to move quickly and our responsibility to achieve the best possible outcomes.
Thanks in advance to everyone who takes the time to participate constructively in these conversations.
You can find the original version of this announcement at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Updat...
[4]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Postponement_of_Community_S...
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello. With my list-moderator hat, I am relaying two messages from Jimmy Wales, sent from an address he apparently hadn't used before, that were unintentionally caught by the mailing list filters and could not be let through. I paste them below.
Asaf
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jimmy Wales jimmywales@fandom.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:12:55 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric On 10/7/20 6:32 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
The replacement of an explicit voting process with an unspecified process + schedule seems unnecessarily vague.
I agree that the vagueness is not good. To make sure everyone is aware: there has been no discussion and I'm unaware of anyone on the board who would be in favor of *removing* elections. I think the current wording here is awkward and may have been designed to not be super prescriptive about how exactly we might move to a process with a community-driven and community-approved "rubric" combined with elections. To remedy this defect seems quite easy - a future revision should explicitly include as much detail as is possible, and certainly should mandate elections.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jimmy Wales jimmywales@fandom.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:13:08 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric On 10/7/20 10:03 PM, Yair Rand wrote:
(Another minor point: The change from the description of the appointed seats from "non-community-selected, non-chapter-selected" to "non-community-sourced" seems to imply that the Board is prohibited from filling these seats with any community members. Previously, there have been community members in these seats.)
I think this is a very good "catch". I'm sure that wasn't the intention of the rewording. I didn't write it and of course I can't speak for anyone else. I can say that there has been no discussion at the board level of anyone suggesting that we should not be able to select community members for these seats.
Indeed, my personal view is that as we pursue board expansion, it is crucial that we try as hard as we can find to fill the appointed seats with as many deeply experienced community members (who have other relevant skills) as we possibly can.
In terms of this proposal, I think that a minor change to clarify this minor point is a great idea!
I think the ambiguity probably arose with the change from "selected" to "sourced" - a change that, itself, deserves great scrutiny.
===============
(end of Jimmy's two messages. Future posts from Jimmy's new address should go through.)
Asaf
From what I've read in the thread above I agree with Yair, and would add
that this feels like a big power grab against the community.
I believe that Wikimedia Foundation must reject these proposed bylaws changes to preserve our open, democratic nature, and hold elections to fill all seats.
-- brion former CTO current software architect
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 5:12 PM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:
Hello. With my list-moderator hat, I am relaying two messages from Jimmy Wales, sent from an address he apparently hadn't used before, that were unintentionally caught by the mailing list filters and could not be let through. I paste them below.
Asaf
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jimmy Wales jimmywales@fandom.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:12:55 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric On 10/7/20 6:32 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
The replacement of an explicit voting process with an unspecified process + schedule seems unnecessarily vague.
I agree that the vagueness is not good. To make sure everyone is aware: there has been no discussion and I'm unaware of anyone on the board who would be in favor of *removing* elections. I think the current wording here is awkward and may have been designed to not be super prescriptive about how exactly we might move to a process with a community-driven and community-approved "rubric" combined with elections. To remedy this defect seems quite easy - a future revision should explicitly include as much detail as is possible, and certainly should mandate elections.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jimmy Wales jimmywales@fandom.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:13:08 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric On 10/7/20 10:03 PM, Yair Rand wrote:
(Another minor point: The change from the description of the appointed seats from "non-community-selected, non-chapter-selected" to "non-community-sourced" seems to imply that the Board is prohibited from filling these seats with any community members. Previously, there have been community members in these seats.)
I think this is a very good "catch". I'm sure that wasn't the intention of the rewording. I didn't write it and of course I can't speak for anyone else. I can say that there has been no discussion at the board level of anyone suggesting that we should not be able to select community members for these seats.
Indeed, my personal view is that as we pursue board expansion, it is crucial that we try as hard as we can find to fill the appointed seats with as many deeply experienced community members (who have other relevant skills) as we possibly can.
In terms of this proposal, I think that a minor change to clarify this minor point is a great idea!
I think the ambiguity probably arose with the change from "selected" to "sourced" - a change that, itself, deserves great scrutiny.
===============
(end of Jimmy's two messages. Future posts from Jimmy's new address should go through.)
Asaf _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I second that. It always amazed me that the community that has built the entire site does not have the majority in deciding the future of the site, and this seems to make it even less so.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 2:03 PM Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
From what I've read in the thread above I agree with Yair, and would add that this feels like a big power grab against the community.
I believe that Wikimedia Foundation must reject these proposed bylaws changes to preserve our open, democratic nature, and hold elections to fill all seats.
-- brion former CTO current software architect
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 5:12 PM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:
Hello. With my list-moderator hat, I am relaying two messages from Jimmy Wales, sent from an address he apparently hadn't used before, that were unintentionally caught by the mailing list filters and could not be let through. I paste them below.
Asaf
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jimmy Wales jimmywales@fandom.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:12:55 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric On 10/7/20 6:32 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
The replacement of an explicit voting process with an unspecified process
schedule seems unnecessarily vague.
I agree that the vagueness is not good. To make sure everyone is aware: there has been no discussion and I'm unaware of anyone on the board who would be in favor of *removing* elections. I think the current wording here is awkward and may have been designed to not be super prescriptive about how exactly we might move to a process with a community-driven and community-approved "rubric" combined with elections. To remedy this defect seems quite easy - a future revision should explicitly include as much detail as is possible, and certainly should mandate elections.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jimmy Wales jimmywales@fandom.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:13:08 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric On 10/7/20 10:03 PM, Yair Rand wrote:
(Another minor point: The change from the description of the appointed seats from "non-community-selected, non-chapter-selected" to "non-community-sourced" seems to imply that the Board is prohibited from filling these seats with any community members. Previously, there have been community members in these seats.)
I think this is a very good "catch". I'm sure that wasn't the intention of the rewording. I didn't write it and of course I can't speak for anyone else. I can say that there has been no discussion at the board level of anyone suggesting that we should not be able to select community members for these seats.
Indeed, my personal view is that as we pursue board expansion, it is crucial that we try as hard as we can find to fill the appointed seats with as many deeply experienced community members (who have other relevant skills) as we possibly can.
In terms of this proposal, I think that a minor change to clarify this minor point is a great idea!
I think the ambiguity probably arose with the change from "selected" to "sourced" - a change that, itself, deserves great scrutiny.
===============
(end of Jimmy's two messages. Future posts from Jimmy's new address should go through.)
Asaf _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The Wikimedia NYC Board of Directors is deeply concerned by and opposes the constitutional changes proposed to the Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, that in several ways mark a sudden reversal of direction from the community-focused, decentralized model promised by the 2030 Movement Strategy process. The Wikimedia NYC Board has posted a statement of opposition[1] and continues conversations internally. User:Pharos is also facilitating two meetings of the Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network this weekend - anyone with an affiliation is welcome to join, even if they are not an official liaison or representative.
Megs -- President, Wikimedia New York City
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/...
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 2:25 PM Yuri Astrakhan yuriastrakhan@gmail.com wrote:
I second that. It always amazed me that the community that has built the entire site does not have the majority in deciding the future of the site, and this seems to make it even less so.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 2:03 PM Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
From what I've read in the thread above I agree with Yair, and would add that this feels like a big power grab against the community.
I believe that Wikimedia Foundation must reject these proposed bylaws changes to preserve our open, democratic nature, and hold elections to fill all seats.
-- brion former CTO current software architect
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 5:12 PM Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:
Hello. With my list-moderator hat, I am relaying two messages from Jimmy Wales, sent from an address he apparently hadn't used before, that were unintentionally caught by the mailing list filters and could not be let through. I paste them below.
Asaf
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jimmy Wales jimmywales@fandom.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:12:55 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric On 10/7/20 6:32 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
The replacement of an explicit voting process with an unspecified process + schedule seems unnecessarily vague.
I agree that the vagueness is not good. To make sure everyone is aware: there has been no discussion and I'm unaware of anyone on the board who would be in favor of *removing* elections. I think the current wording here is awkward and may have been designed to not be super prescriptive about how exactly we might move to a process with a community-driven and community-approved "rubric" combined with elections. To remedy this defect seems quite easy - a future revision should explicitly include as much detail as is possible, and certainly should mandate elections.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jimmy Wales jimmywales@fandom.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 05:13:08 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric On 10/7/20 10:03 PM, Yair Rand wrote:
(Another minor point: The change from the description of the appointed seats from "non-community-selected, non-chapter-selected" to "non-community-sourced" seems to imply that the Board is prohibited from filling these seats with any community members. Previously, there have been community members in these seats.)
I think this is a very good "catch". I'm sure that wasn't the intention of the rewording. I didn't write it and of course I can't speak for anyone else. I can say that there has been no discussion at the board level of anyone suggesting that we should not be able to select community members for these seats.
Indeed, my personal view is that as we pursue board expansion, it is crucial that we try as hard as we can find to fill the appointed seats with as many deeply experienced community members (who have other relevant skills) as we possibly can.
In terms of this proposal, I think that a minor change to clarify this minor point is a great idea!
I think the ambiguity probably arose with the change from "selected" to "sourced" - a change that, itself, deserves great scrutiny.
===============
(end of Jimmy's two messages. Future posts from Jimmy's new address should go through.)
Asaf _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The original email here said "We welcome your input through 26 October." I don't think a three-week comment period was appropriate to begin with for a dramatic overhaul of our most formally powerful institution--particularly at a time when the board has determined elections need to be put on hold. But now that Jimbo has clarified that this was not intended as a power grab and that it needs to be redrafted to make that clear, does the board intend to extend the timetable?
One of the important lessons that I thought the board had learned with its rebranding efforts is that conducting processes in a way that makes people feel that they are under siege leads to them acting like they are under siege. You are currently forcing the affiliates to hold meetings the day before their input will no longer be welcome. Can you guess what the result of those meetings will be?
-- Emufarmers
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:12 AM Nataliia Tymkiv ntymkiv@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all,
Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees starts two calls for feedback: on changes to our Bylaws[1] mainly to increase the Board size from 10 to 16 members, and on a trustee candidate rubric[2] to introduce new, more effective ways to evaluate new board candidates. These proposals are part of the governance improvement process announced on 28 April[3].
The Foundation’s work is wide-ranging, focused on areas including product development, technical infrastructure maintenance, community support, grantmaking, public policy advocacy, and fundraising. In addition, the Foundation is charged with administering the operations of an international nonprofit organization responsible for a more than 500-person paid workforce and an annual budget of over US$100 million. Its ambitious mission is to support the sharing of knowledge amongst every single human being in partnership with Wikimedia communities across the globe.
To provide sufficient strategic guidance and oversight over such a broad scope of work and constituents, Board members should reflect a similarly broad scope of expertise, experience, and backgrounds. Expanding the number of board seats from 10 to 16 will move us closer to this goal, supported by a Board candidate rubric that will help us all evaluate potential trustees and ensure that they can provide what the Board, Foundation, and movement need. The Foundation will work with the broader movement to formalize this rubric. Currently, trustees have to serve on more than one Board committee (as voting members, alternates or liaisons). This overlap is a significant burden, as it limits the amount of work that can be done—and the volunteer trustees are overworked.
== Bylaws revisions ==
We have published the planned revisions to the bylaws on Meta-Wiki and we welcome your comments through 26 October[1]. The Board has carefully considered the published revisions and we believe that they are a positive step toward accomplishing our governance reform goals. We are publishing these so that they are transparent to the communities before the Board’s final vote to adopt the revisions, and we will be responding to questions about the revisions on the talk page. We shall consider any suggested edits that would further the Board’s governance needs and goals.
The revised Bylaws would maintain the current general structure of trustee seats, with half (8 of 16) sourced from candidates identified through community selection processes, one reserved for Jimmy as Founder, and the rest (7 of 16) selected by the Board directly. The revisions would eliminate the distinction between trustees selected by affiliates and trustees selected by community voting. This offers more flexibility for adjusting community selection processes if necessary, while also not requiring any particular process changes. We hope to discuss possible changes with our communities in early 2021.
== Board candidate evaluation form ==
In addition to expanding in size, the Board is considering ways to improve our overall process for selecting trustees. The Board Governance Committee (BGC) has drafted a Board candidate rubric as a tool to show and help evaluate the relevant effective candidates for the Board[2]. The rubric is still a draft, and we want to hear what all of you think is missing, overrepresented, underrepresented, confusing, or could otherwise be improved. The goal of the rubric is not only to aid us in evaluating potential trustees but also to clearly and openly communicate how we are evaluating candidates. We welcome your input through 26 October.
== Impact on postponed trustee selection process[4] ==
Following development of the rubric, we will work to further improve the selection of Board candidates by adapting the community-sourced trustee selection processes to fill 8 seats instead of 5. Any changes to current selection processes will be preceded by the necessary discussions with affected communities. We plan to start this discussion in early 2021. Once the new process is developed, it will be used to select all community-sourced trustees going forward.
I recognize that delays and slow progress can be frustrating and even confusing. I don’t think anyone—community, Board, or staff—is completely satisfied with the situation we currently find ourselves in. Like everyone else, we are doing our best to respond to the challenges of 2020. There are many pressing demands competing for everyone’s time and attention. We are faced with the difficult tasks of balancing goals and priorities and judiciously allocating the resources we have available to work on them. We remain committed to holding the community trustee selection process in the Foundation’s 2020-21 fiscal year (July through June). That process is much more labour-intensive than many may realize, taking months of planning, preparation, and execution. For the community trustee selection process to be successful, it requires not only resources to plan but also the ability for as wide a range of diverse candidates and community voters as possible to participate. We postponed the process in part because we were not sure that it would have that necessary participation if it had happened at the originally scheduled time. We appreciate everyone’s patience and understanding as we do our best to move this work forward in a way that is mindful of both the desire to move quickly and our responsibility to achieve the best possible outcomes.
Thanks in advance to everyone who takes the time to participate constructively in these conversations.
You can find the original version of this announcement at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob... < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/July_...
Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Octob...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Updat...
[4]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Postponement_of_Community_S...
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in advance!* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org