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 < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Risker, > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 12:22 PM Risker via Wikimedia-l < > [email protected]> 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 < >> [email protected]> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 < >>>> [email protected]> 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 -- [email protected], >>>> 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/[email protected]/message/3PVQCKMSBHVCBQESA2D4EZEGTU74REJH/ >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/L26MKH4GLVORRAJVFNV3AXFKXRFQTPG5/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/XGBJQU3LSOQBLGSPHB4H6RECN47XQEZG/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/6EPU3Z3N4J6SMKLWVAQZOQ7BRR6RBQYS/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], 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/[email protected]/message/OZGE3CNP24SNZZXU7BJ2B3TWG4BXSE25/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
