This may be true, but if it's true, it was only true very narrowly. The margin between the 4th and 5th placed candidates was 12.27 votes in a situation where 1,188 were needed to win. Had that gone very marginally differently, we'd all be talking about how amazing it was that a black African woman had been elected to the Board for the first time in history. We can observe a few other things about how it worked out: - by and large votes did not seem to transfer between Global South candidates - when one Global south candidate was knocked out their votes did not usually go to other Global South candidates - most votes ending up counting; of 6,800 or so initially there were 6,000 counted in the final round, that is a fairly low dropout rate - also, if all 8 Board seats had been elected at the same time rather than in 2 batches in 2 years, we'd have 2 Global South candidates in the final 8 and probably be pretty pleased with the results. (Is it still an option for the Board to do this and appoint Eliane, Mike, Pascale and Ivan and then skip next year's planned election?) Thanks, Chris

Hi, "(Is it still an option for the Board to do this and appoint Eliane, Mike, Pascale and Ivan and then skip next year's planned election?)" Unfortunately, that's not how STV works. Given a different number of seats to be filled would had produced a different quota, which would have resulted in different surplus reallocation that may have produced different result. If this election had 8 seats, instead of 14 rounds of elimination before Rosie & Victoria meeting the quota, Dariusz would have met quota in the first round. The system is not meant for appointing last eliminated if subsequent vacancy opens up. Regards, Katie

The failure wasnt in the election system, the failure was in the lack of candidates having the global presence that gives people the confidence to vote for them. The question is how do we raise the global identities of more candidates and how do we counter the benefits of 20 years of EU/NA dominance of the movement in a way that brings new voices to the table. Quotas and regional specific seats is only a temporary solution to achieve an immediate adjustment, longer term we need to support better solutions including significant focus of activities in those areas, building of bigger formal Chapters, more significant events like Wikicom, Wikimania, Hackathon as these are where the global profiles grow and people develop the community insights to be able to speak about what matters to the whole community. On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:11, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- GN. *Wikimania 2021* *Celebrating 20 years of Wikipedia* *Acknowledging everyone who made it a great event* Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u

On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:16, Tito Dutta <trulytito(a)gmail.com> wrote: AIUI, they are not yet board members, nor are they guaranteed to be. The Trust's bylaws[1] state, at Article IV, Section 3(C) (my **emphasis**): (iii) The Board will appoint candidates who are **nominated** through this process, subject to Article IV, Section 3(A), and other provisions of these Bylaws. In the event that a candidate is selected who does not meet the requirements of Article IV, Section 3(A) or other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal law, the Board will (a) **not appoint the candidate**, (b) declare a vacancy on the Board, and (c) fill the resulting vacancy, subject to this Section 3 and to Article IV, Section 6 below. while Article IV, Section 3(A) says: (i) The Board shall be composed of Trustees with a diverse set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies that will best fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation, **as determined by the Board**. The Board is committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both in terms of trustee composition and in other aspects of its work. Together, these seem to give the Board the option to "determine" that the "nominated" individuals would not create a board with "a diverse set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies" and to reject one or more of them. Furthermore, it seems to make a lie of the claim [2] that "Members of the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect four candidates to a three-year term.", if, in fact, we merely "nominate" people for the Board to consider. I'd like to think I'm wrong. Can anyone show me how I am? [1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021 -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing https://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Wikimedia Foundation is not a membership-based organization, you don’t pay a membership dues like those of many professional organizations. Henceforth, it is theoretically cannot be an election which would not be legally enforceable without registered voting members, that’s paying members with verified identity. The community wide voting is structured to function like an election, and I have no doubt the board of trustee will follow established convention on this matter. Hope this clear some of your confusion. Best, Leo On Sep 11, 2021, 11:25 PM +0800, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk>uk>, wrote:

Not sure paying membership is a requirement for direct elections. Wiki Project Med Foundation has elections but free membership (one just needs to be an active editor in good standing or otherwise involved). James On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 5:46 PM Leo Z <leo(a)asianmonth.wiki> wrote: -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

Thanks, Jackie! That is indeed different from what I understood and I’m glad about the change :-) Alice.

Congratulations to the winners and the participants also ! Further to the ongoing discussions, my idea is as follows : In this Wikimedia land, a person is the resident of the project s/he/they have most contributed.... No arguments Now the person can chose to be a worker in 'n' number of projects..... The definition of worker must be clearly defined as per certain number of contributions made..... Below that you a tourist...... In this way elections can have votes from residents and tourists.... Anupamdutta73 On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 09:16 Butch Bustria <bustrias(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I don't get these kinds of arguments. I'm pretty much equally very active on enwiki + Wikidata + Commons - which should I chose as my 'resident' project? Most bytes (Commons), most edits (Wikidata), longest editing time (enwiki) - or something else? Or language for that matter - most of my editing right now is multilingual. I've lived in UK + Brazil + Spain (islands - off the coast of Africa) - am I global north or south? I've worked with two small affiliates: Wikimedia UK (back when it was founded), and Wiki Movimento Brasil - does that count as developed or emerging? What happens to others that fall on both sides of these arbitrary lines? Obrigado, Mike P.S., huge congrats to Rosie, Victoria, Dariusz and Lorenzo, who I know will do great jobs! On 8/9/21 05:36:41, Anupam Dutta wrote: > Congratulations to the winners and the participants also ! > > Further to the ongoing discussions, my idea is as follows : > > In this Wikimedia land, a person is the resident of the project > s/he/they have most contributed.... No arguments > > Now the person can chose to be a worker in 'n' number of projects..... > The definition of worker must be clearly defined as per certain number > of contributions made..... > > Below that you a tourist...... > > In this way elections can have votes from residents and tourists.... > > Anupamdutta73 > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 09:16 Butch Bustria &lt;bustrias(a)gmail.com > <mailto:bustrias@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Congratulations to the 4 winners. > > I saw that the STV system unveiled how the 4th and 5th positions > (appears to be from a G7 country and a non G7 country) had switched. > I am interested to know from which sector/s or Wikimedia project > brought the switch of those two positions (starting from the 8th > iteration). > > I also observed that I have no option to choose which wiki I will > represent. It appears that the system only allows which wiki I first > clicked the central notice link. I tried to go to the other projects > and vote, it allowed me to change my vote (still one eligible > ballot) but it did not change the project I will represent. I am > saying this because it would allow people reading the statistics > which project the eligible voter truly represents. > > Despite all the consultations made prior to the elections to bring > the emerging communities/ global south to the board it had not > accurately painted the picture. I would personally suggest in the > future not all candidates vie for the same set of seats. So for > instance, there are 4 seats up for grabs, two seats must be reserved > for sector A and two seats for sector B. Candidates must select > which sector they represent and cannot be both. Then the whole > electorate votes for candidates for Sector A board seats and Sector > B board seats using the same STV system. Qualifications for Sector A > and Sector B seats shall be different and will be decided by the > board of trustees with consent from an advisory/ electoral > committee. I personally suggest developed communities (from big > chapters and wiki projects with large edit participation) and > emerging communities (small to medium sized affiliates and wiki > projects with medium to small edit participation). > > > Kind Regards, > > Butch > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:52 AM Alice Wiegand &lt;me.lyzzy(a)gmail.com > <mailto:me.lyzzy@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Thanks, Jackie! > That is indeed different from what I understood and I’m glad > about the change :-) > > Alice. > > > >> Am 07.09.2021 um 23:42 schrieb Jackie Koerner >> &lt;jkoerner-ctr(a)wikimedia.org <mailto:jkoerner-ctr@wikimedia.org>>: >> >> Hi Alice, >> >> Thanks for asking! The way we are intending "contended" is >> that it was the election everyone was waiting for. :) It was >> "pushed for" by the community for more than a year and now we >> gladly announce: it happened and here are the results! >> >> Best, >> >> Jackie >> >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:29 PM Alice Wiegand >> &lt;me.lyzzy(a)gmail.com <mailto:me.lyzzy@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> congrats to the elected Board members. It’s great to see >> people stepping up and taking responsibility, especially >> in times where leadership is needed. >> >> Jackie, may I ask for some elaboration on the subject of >> this thread? You say „most contended … election“ and I >> wonder what that means. In my understanding this is a >> nuance of controversial and I don’t get the point where it >> is more controversial than any other election. Maybe it >> gets lost in translation, maybe it’s me not having the >> complete insight of what has been discussed. >> >> Alice. >> >> >> >> >> >>> Am 07.09.2021 um 20:10 schrieb Jackie Koerner >>> &lt;jkoerner-ctr(a)wikimedia.org >>> <mailto:jkoerner-ctr@wikimedia.org>>: >>> >>> /Translations can be found on Meta: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedi >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedi>a_Foundation_elections/2021/2021-09-07/2021_Election_Results >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/2021-09-07/2021_Election_Results>/ >>> Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2021 Board >>> election. The Elections Committee has reviewed the votes >>> of the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees >>> election, organized to select four new trustees. A record >>> 6,873 people from across 214 projects cast their valid >>> votes. The following four candidates received the most >>> support: >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight >>> 2. >>> Victoria Doronina >>> 3. >>> Dariusz Jemielniak >>> 4. >>> Lorenzo Losa >>> >>> >>> Waiting for the Board’s appointment >>> While these candidates have been ranked through the >>> community vote, they are not yet appointed to the Board >>> of Trustees. They still need to pass a successful >>> background check and meet the qualifications outlined in >>> the Bylaws. This process can be longer depending on the >>> country of residence of the candidates. The Board has set >>> a tentative date to appoint new trustees at the end of >>> this month. The Board also has approved >>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/37IV7FRWIKM4YAK2WBTUTPJA7LKGOATI/#37IV7FRWIKM4YAK2WBTUTPJA7LKGOATI>a >>> short extension to the terms of the exiting trustees to >>> allow a smooth transition. >>> >>> Thanks to all the candidates >>> Thanks to all candidates for their participation. They >>> achieved a record in the number of candidates and >>> regional diversity, with more than half of the 19 >>> candidates from regions outside North America and Western >>> Europe. This election used Single Transferable Voting >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Single_Transferable_Vote>for >>> the first time. This system does not indicate a number of >>> votes or percentage of support. Rather, it shows in which >>> round each candidate was eliminated. You can review the >>> full results on Meta-Wiki >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results>, >>> which document the order in which the candidates were >>> mathematically eliminated. >>> >>> Thanks to all the election volunteers >>> The Board of Trustees stressed >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/2021-04-15_Resolution_about_the_upcoming_Board_elections>the >>> importance of increasing diversity on the Board. Dozens >>> of volunteers supported by a team of multilingual >>> facilitators promoted the election in up to 61 languages. >>> They hosted many conversations about the Board election >>> in more than 50 languages and encouraged community >>> members to participate in all areas of the election. >>> >>> Statistics >>> The 2021 Board of Trustees election broke new ground in >>> several areas. The Movement Strategy and Governance team >>> will publish a report with the most remarkable metrics >>> soon. In the meantime, some statistics >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Stats>can >>> be found on Meta-Wiki. Here you have some highlights. >>> >>> * >>> Participation increased by 1,753 voters over 2017. >>> Overall turnout was 10.13%, 1.1 percentage points >>> more than in 2017. >>> * >>> The highest participation among wikis with at least 5 >>> eligible voters was seen on the Hausa and Igbo >>> Wikipedias. Both wikis had a participation of 75% (6 >>> of 8 eligible voters). Other high participation >>> numbers were seen on the Telugu, Nepalese, and >>> Punjabi Wikipedias. >>> * >>> The largest increase in participation among wikis >>> with at least 50 eligible voters was the Catalan >>> Wikipedia, on which 36.3% of eligible voters voted >>> (28 percentage points higher than in 2017). >>> * >>> There were 214 wikis represented in the election. >>> This is determined by the wiki on which the account >>> was originally created. >>> * >>> A total of 74 wikis that did not participate in 2017 >>> produced voters in this election. >>> * >>> A total of 226 wikis had at least one eligible voter >>> but produced no voters. The largest electorate in >>> this group was Cantonese Wikipedia, with 25 eligible >>> voters. >>> >>> >>> In the upcoming days, an anonymized list of votes will be >>> released that will allow deeper inspection and >>> publication of more metrics. >>> >>> 2022 election >>> The next Board of Trustees election is planned to take >>> place in 2022. Interested community members can watch the >>> Wikimedia Foundation elections page for updates >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections>. >>> Four community seats will be selected at that time. It is >>> not too early to consider and prepare for candidacy. >>> Community members may like to check out Candidate >>> Resources >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Candidate_Resources>to >>> learn more about what to expect and how to prepare for >>> this role. >>> >>> -- >>> *Jackie Koerner* >>> /she/her >>> / >>> Facilitator, Movement Strategy and Governance >>> /English language communities and Meta-Wiki/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- >>> wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YNJNJETHYEO3JYUJUDIK3FPZVOUOUUEN/> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>> wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- >> wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> >> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/EES6TA27OZEPYOL2D2Y5AD56WLV2SXC7/> >> To unsubscribe send an email to >> wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Jackie Koerner* >> /she/her >> / >> Facilitator, Movement Strategy and Governance >> /English language communities and Meta-Wiki/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FIYTWXVEZ5KZ3H5TO2NZ7T7UCOIMBDWU/> >> To unsubscribe send an email to >> wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QBGG4CS32SDNAAJ2T5K7W5ACS5ZRWE6O/> > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > > -- > Sincerely, > > Roman Bustria Jr. > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The information contained in this message is privileged and intended > only for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative > of the intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of > this message or the information it contains is prohibited. If you > have received this message in error, please immediately notify the > sender, and delete the original message and attachments. > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3YQLT6IESR3FLIE6SGVMTN7TRIE32JLM/> > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >

For starters, I would like to thank outgoing board members DocJames and Raystorm for their service to the community by dedicating a lot of time on board meetings, processing tons of mail, and so on. Mario, you are right. An increase in the number of seats will increase the diversity given a representative election system such as (Meek) STV. On meta you can find a table of the outcome of the election when varying the available seats from 1 to 8.[1] In case 8 seats were available both Elina en Iván would have also been elected, adding to the much wanted increase in diversity, in whatever way you look at these two people. Electing 4 seats now, and 4 seats next year doesn't help in increasing the diversity using a representative election system. Against electing all seats at once is the argument for continuity and to limit board turnover. Maybe we should lean more on appointed seats for continuity, or as Chris Keating has suggested, select community sourced board members from this year's election. However Nat and Shani didn't run this year, and they might seek reelection next year. I wish the board a lot of wisdom and strength regarding balancing multiple values. This is good news for what is next. What is next? Election of 7 seats in the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC). Given the analysis of the board election and the availability of 7 seats in the election, I am confident the election outcome will show a lot of diversity. Later 6 persons will be appointed by affiliates, and another 2 by the WMF. The elections and the appointments will come from the same pool of self-nominations.[2] The MCDC will most likely institute a Global Council with a lot of room at the table - some say 40 to 60 seats, others over a 100, we will see - to accommodate the diversity of our movement. There are already over 40 candidates for the MCDC. Compliments to the people who have recruited so many nominations from the continent of Africa. So far no one nominated themselves from East Asia. How can we recruit nominations from that region? Without any of them in the pool, it is hard to elect or appoint someone. The period of self-nomination closes in 5 days! Regards, Ad Huikeshoven [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Vo… [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candida… On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 1:22 PM Mario Gómez &lt;mariogomwiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Also, rather than focusing on how different voting schemes would have

We better set a new criteria that board candidates for 2022 and 2023 must reside outside the 28th parallel north and 42nd meridian east. Kind regards, Butch Bustria On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, 7:22 pm Mario Gómez, &lt;mariogomwiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

It's remarkable that we elected 2/4 women and 3/4 people whose mother tongue is not English, given the dominance of male and English-speaking wiki contributors in surveys. It's even more surprising that we accomplished this given that only 4 of the 20 nominated candidates are women, the odds of this happening randomly are low. Also I'd like to point out that Dariusz shared his class background of growing up with few economic means in a so-called developing country under a communist government, and it's unfair of us to simply throw him into this problematic "Global North" category. Victoria is from Belarus, and although we don't know her economic background this is certainly not a country of great privileges. I think we should give our voters credit for responding to the known problem of a content and participant gender gap by electing women to the WMF Board. We have a bootstrapping challenge, but the discussion on this thread and the outcome of the election shows that we might be able to collectively find ways to balance democratic governance with better global representation. As others have pointed out, the Global Council might be an even more important target for these ideas. Two things that I didn't see during this cycle were anyone campaigning on behalf of their preferred candidate, or creation of a slate of candidates with common platform goals. It seems like we should be more clear ahead of time about which candidates might give us the outcomes we hope for. If you want to see us represented by a woman from a Global South country, amplify her voice. If you want to see a concept like devolution of decision-making embraced by the Board, then mobilize to make it widely understood why this is desirable, and make it clear which candidates support the policy. It's likely that I'm just out of touch and this mobilization is already happening—please share examples if so! Congratulations to the new Board and the voters who chose them, and thank you for a great discussion so far. —[[mw:User:Adamw]] On Sat 11. Sep 2021 at 04:37, Ashwin Baindur - User AshLin < ashwin.baindur(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: