*left On Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:13 p.m. Hannah Clover <[email protected]> wrote:
> Risker wasn't at WCNa that year. Personally I prefer ViridianPenguin's > summary, as he was near me and it best reflects what I remember before I > like that session to cry in the hallway. > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 6:55 p.m. Tilman Bayer via Wikimedia-l < > [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/RQLAGM6RUSIDD7U5AGMXAGZRCBBZNVAH/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
