Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024

Review and comment on the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

Please review and comment on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package from now until 29 October 2023. The selection rules package was based on older versions by the Elections Committee and will be used in the 2024 Board of Trustees selection.

The rules package includes campaign rules, voter eligibility criteria, and the voting method, platform, and timeline. In previous Board selections, the voter eligibility criteria and the voting method were adjusted to fit expressed community needs. The Candidate Guidelines were originally developed during the 2022 election and have been revised.

The Wikimedia Foundation staff are supporting a community comment period for the rules package so the Elections Committee can receive comments and concerns well in advance of the Board selection process. Completing this comment period now will allow time for the Elections Committee to adapt the rules package as appropriate.

Please visit the Meta-wiki talk page to provide your comments now and invite people you know to do so as well. Your comments will help the Elections Committee provide a smoother, better Board selection process.

Best,

Katie Chan
Chair of the Elections Committee

Voting method and platform

Hello. Can someone offer more clarity on this proposal envisions how and by whom the "[s]hortlisting candidates" process will be taken? Thank you. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 07:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

same. Borschts ^Talk 05:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@L235, BilledMammal, and Borschts: hi all, thanks for your patience. This section is a bit delayed, but it is now uploaded as part of the package. Looking forward to your review. Best, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

RamzyM: Why are the affiliates being involved in this election? The bylaws don’t require it, and it would seem that for seats that are nominally community seats it would be better to have a process that is fully community based? BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you define "the community"? Are the people who arrange in-person meet ups for editors part of "the community", or do you perceive them as outsiders? What about the people who answer local media inquiries? Who encourage teachers to use Wikipedia as a classroom (reading) resource? Who host training programs for both new and existing editors (e.g., to introduce experienced Wikipedia editors to Wikidata)? Who buy books for editors? Who ask experts to answer questions? Who tell local museums how to get their images uploaded to Commons? Who recruit translators for articles like w:en:Ebola and w:en:Zika and w:en:COVID-19 pandemic? Who write software documentation? Who create and update gadgets and tools? Who handle the paperwork for special events (e.g., to bring Commons photographers to a place that normally prohibits photography)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Of course those individuals are an equal part of the community. I feel you have a point you are getting at here; can you elaborate on it? BilledMammal (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

If the people doing that work are part of "the" community (I think it's more accurate to talk about the communities, in the plural), then the affiliates are part of the community, because that's what the affiliates do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't consider organizations "members" of the community - I don't really buy into corporate personhood - but reasonable minds may differ, and of course the members of the affiliates are part of the community.

However, when I say "fully community based", I mean with all members of the community (or communities) being equal, rather than some members having privileges beyond those held by the broader community. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you propose that the views of the translators of key medical articles, most of whom don't make 300 edits on wiki (though that may spend many hours in Google Docs), have their views represented in the election? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you give a few examples of translators who are both not in the franchise and are members of an affiliate? I don't think there will be very many - but regardless, I'm sure the WMF can work out a way to expand the franchise to include them. BilledMammal (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We have translators who make very few edits (e.g., posting the entire finished translation in a single edit) because they are working with Wiki Project Med. They may not technically even be "members" of the organization, but I would expect the affiliate to care about this project, and to consequently question the fitness of a Board candidate who held views that were incompatible with it (e.g., a candidate who said that translation was unimportant, or that they believed that, as a matter of principle, that newly registered editors should never be able to create pages at any minority-language Wikipedia, even if the local community welcomed such editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

And the broader community doesn't care about this project? I'm struggling to understand the point you are trying to make. BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you even know that it existed before yesterday? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

No. But as a community we care about making knowledge accessible; that includes translating it.

I also find your argument extremely implausible; you think we need to grant the affiliates veto rights, because if we don't a candidate will run on an anti-translation platform and get elected by the community? I think such a hypothetical is improbable in the extreme. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be plausible for two things to happen:

• online contributors to vote in a way that disfavors programs that they are personally unaware of, and
• a candidate to run on an anti-affiliate platform.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @BilledMammal:, the board seats for the upcoming and future elections are community-and-affiliate seats. Previously the community and affiliate board seats were separate, this is no longer the case. This change was made in 2020 and is set out in the bylaws on Foundation wiki. KTC (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@KTC: The bylaws read As many as eight (8) Trustees will be sourced from candidates vetted through a Community and/or Affiliate nomination process, emphasis mine. While this is permitted by the bylaws, it isn't required by the bylaws, and so I am asking you why have chosen to include them. BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you would like to interpret "Community and/or Affiliates" as "individual online contributors but not affiliates" WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe - and I suspect the broader community would agree with me - that at least some seats should be entirely the domain of the community. BilledMammal (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That was the old system, and AIUI it was changed to this "blended" model because some individual online contributors thought that it was bad to let the affiliates have any affiliate-only seats. We previously had some affiliate-only seats and some individual-contributor seats (not that any of them are actually supposed to serve as representatives of these constituencies, because that's basically illegal under US law – by law, board members are supposed to serve the mission instead of the volunteers). Now individuals and affiliates both get to vote on everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

And it's bad to have no community-only seats. BilledMammal (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you are not the only person who holds that opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@KTC: Sorry KTC, pinging you again as I feel you may have missed my previous question about why you are choosing to include the affiliates here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Utlimately, the composition of the Board of Trustee is determined by the existing BoT. It is their interpretation of the Foundation's bylaws that these seats are all combined community-and-affiliate seats. The Elections Committee is tasked with the responsibilites to organise elections to help fill seats that the BoT says is available to be filled. -- KTC (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@KTC: Thank you. Can you ask the board to explain how they came to that conclusion, because a straight reading of the bylaws suggests that there is no such requirement? BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, nobody has claimed that the Board has declared this to be a "requirement". A plain reading of the wording in the bylaws says that this combined approach is permissible, and the Board has said that's how they choose to do it this time.

Of course, if you'd like the Board to say that it's required, they can do that. Corporate bylaws can be re-written at will. As long as they don't change their charitable purpose or break any actual laws (e.g., by making the same person be secretary and president, which is illegal in most US states), then the Board can change the bylaws to say whatever they want. If you'd like the bylaws to say "All candidates must be not only approved by online contributors, existing affiliates, and the current Board, but also BilledMammal personally", then they could do that. They just need to provide 10 days' written notice to the other existing board members, one simple majority vote (of all board members, not just of the members present at the meeting), and to send a bit of simple paperwork to the state and the US IRS.

It is always good for people in the movement to know how a corporate board works for non-profits. I don't know what the equivalent is in your area, but the go-to provider for US non-profits is https://boardsource.org/ Maybe you'd like to spend some time educating yourself about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the board can make things less democratic than they used to be. That doesn't mean people must be happy about it, or take it lying down. The board could also make things more democratic. That won't happen unless there is a spontaneous change of heart in the board (unlikely), or there is a cost attached to making things less democratic. Andreas JN466 20:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It is their interpretation of the Foundation's bylaws that these seats are all combined community-and-affiliate seats. My interpretation of that statement is that they see it as a requirement; if they didn't, the more accurate and less misleading way to word that statement would be It is their interpretation of the Foundation's bylaws that these seats are permitted to be combined community-and-affiliate seats, and they have chosen to make them so. BilledMammal (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Would a change in wording make any practical difference in the outcome? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello - as KTC has noted, the bylaws list these Board seats as “community-and-affiliate selected” as per the decisions in a Board resolution in 2020. The reason we are considering a shortlisting process is because we received feedback in previous elections cycles that it is a burden to voters to have a large number of candidates to review. This review process for voters includes reading the candidates’ applications as well as their answers to community questions. We saw the large amount of information for the community members to consume in the MCDC selection process as well. The concern is that we want community members to participate in the Board selection process, but we do not want their involvement to be a burden on their available time.

Affiliates have experience voting to shortlist candidates in a selection process and have been a willing partner in the past. With that said, we welcome your ideas on a different way to shortlist candidates.

The Elections Committee and Board decided on 12 candidates for this cycle as that would be 3 candidates per open seat, which falls within norms for other nonprofits as recommended by the consultant the Board engaged with in the past and through our study of executive board practices. However, it is unlikely that the Elections Committee would shortlist if there are up to 15 candidates, as removing 1–3 people does not seem like a good use of time or resources. But, I cannot promise this will be the case.

I look forward to hearing alternative proposals and reviewing the community discussion around this topic. Pundit (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Pundit: Can you link these bylaws? The ones I am reading don't say community-and-affiliate selected, but instead say Community and/or Affiliate nomination process, emphasis mine.

An alternative method to shortlist candidates is to only allow candidates who have received 50 or 100 signatures in support of their candidacy to proceed to the voting stage. BilledMammal (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The section heading on the page you linked to says ====(C) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees.====, and the words "Community- and Affiliate-selected" appear three times in that section (vs only once for the "and/or" language). Read the immediately following sentence to find one example of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Look at the hyphens in "Community- and Affiliate-selected"; it doesn't mean the same thing as "community-and-affiliate selected". Further, the section that talks about selecting these trustees is the section that uses "Community and/or Affiliate".

Regardless, I was asking Pundit, and I'm still hoping they will provide an answer. BilledMammal (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: not doing the thing that was sworn was not planned at all.

It's extremely convenient that after swearing that there was no discussion about watering down the community's right to vote, mysterious "feedback" was found that made it necessary to relieve the poor community from their rights and do exactly that. Amazing how of all of the people who have expressed opinions on this topic never said so in public.

My neighbor complains how much his sports car is to repair. Perhaps I should be a good Samaritan and take his car into my possession, thus kindly relieving him of his burden of ownership that he clearly suffers from. No need to ask him ahead of time; I'll just set up a community forum where he can provide feedback which I will "consider."

AGF is getting harder and harder than ever when it comes to dealing with the WMF. It's way past time for the community to discuss removing fundraising banners from English Wikipedia without real change. And they should thank us. After all, by removing those banners, we're just easing the WMF's workload by aiding with the burden and stress of having to collect and spend all that money. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Amazing how of all of the people who have expressed opinions on this topic never said so in public.

That does happen, though. I've both seen and sent private feedback before. It's rational for people to avoid an overtly hostile environment or to be unwilling to publicly paint a target on their backs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen this onslaught of "voting is super hard and hurts my brain, please take away my right to vote" posts. Links? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's way past time for the community to discuss removing fundraising banners from English Wikipedia without real change. If this goes ahead, and if the Affiliates veto candidates that appear to have strong community support, I expect I'll be proposing something along those lines - I would lean towards limiting the length of the fundraising campaign rather than blocking it outright, but we can work out the details if it turns out to be necessary. I hope and believe it won't be. BilledMammal (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Candidacy process

• Are all open seats "affiliate seats"? If not, why would only affiliates shortlist people? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Frank Schulenburg, I think you want to see this comment from @KTC. The old system of having separate seats reserved for affiliates disappeared several years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks WhatamIdoing! Lets change the election rules then so not only affiliates can shortlist people. Affiliates shouldn't have more power than the communities. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Or maybe Wiki Edu should become an affiliate.

  I'm not sure that letting one set of affected groups shortlist the candidates is giving those groups more power than other groups. We either have to say that organizations (groups that might reasonably think they have more of a stake in who oversees the largest organization in the movement) don't matter at all, or we have to let them have their say (i.e., separately from unaffiliated individuals). The new system lets the affiliates have their say, and then lets the individual volunteers have their say. Successful candidates have to pass both of these groups^[*]. Since a candidate have to pass both, I'd rather that individual volunteers only see the candidates that already passed the affiliate vote. It doesn't make sense to me that individual volunteers should have to review and vote on people that can't pass the affiliate vote. (I guess that I don't mind making the affiliates to the work of vetting candidates that won't pass the individual vote.)

  ^[*]Also the Board's own review. For example, the Board can't legally appoint a 17 year old to a (voting) Board position, so even if the teenager had unanimous support from everyone in the movement, the answer would still be 'no'. We tend to think of the Board's approval as a mere rubber stamping, but this is not really true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding (i.e., separately from unaffiliated individuals) and The new system lets the affiliates have their say, and then lets the individual volunteers have their say.: Unless I'm very mistaken, affiliated individuals are allowed to vote; as such, I don't believe your characterization of the system is correct; instead it lets the affiliates have their say, and then everyone, affiliated and unaffiliated, have their say. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that the affiliate organizations put this out to a general membership vote. It's their Board or designated representative who provides their response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's even worse; it's not a small minority that we grant veto powers to, it's a tiny minority. BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have the same complaint about the election of the US Senate, which allows each state, regardless of population, to have the same number of senators, and which originally (until the 17th amendment) appointed those senators through the state's legislature instead of a popular vote? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand your point, but if you're describing a system where senators are appointed by legislators (rather than a popular vote) then the difference is that the people voted for the legislators in the first place, whereas no one voted for the affiliates. Andreas JN466 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  No one voted for the US states to exist, either. Affiliates are membership organizations, and their boards are elected by popular vote of the members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Right, I see. But in the U.S. the entire electorate is located in one state or another, and therefore enfranchised in one of the constituent states; whereas in our case, most members of the community are not part of an affiliate and are not represented in its internal voting process. Andreas JN466 20:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  We'd have to talk about how we define "the community" (can you be part of it if you organize editing events but haven't made the minimum required number of edits on wiki yet?), but I'm not sure that's a serious problem. Anyone in the community could join an affiliate (or several). If they don't choose to, then that's their choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think the US senate is analogous to this.

  However, since you asked; I'm not American, but anyone with two brain cells can see their system is beyond broken; my ideal electoral and governmental system would be unicameral parliamentary elected by mixed-member proportional. BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear: I'm posting here in my personal capacity as a Wikipedian, and not as a representative of Wiki Education or any other organization or group. Now, with regard to my question, let me ask again: if these are "community-and-affiliate seats" (see the link above), then why would only the affiliates have the ability to shortlist people? In my personal case, WMDE doesn't represent the community of content creators and content curators on the German Wikipedia in any way… now why would they have the power over who gets shortlisted? If the assumption that these are "community-and-affiliate seats" is correct, the process for shortlisting candidates needs to change. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  So that we can vote on everyone, and the affiliates can veto candidates later? I don't like that approach.

  If we treat the individual contributors and the affiliate organizations as separate groups with separate methods, the options are:

  1. Both vote at the same time, and you have to pass both to 'win'.
  2. One group votes before the other.

  Can you think of any third option that results in both groups approving the resulting winners? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I am not sure why you think affiliates must have a veto somewhere in the process. In my view, affiliate members are community members and can vote as community members like everyone else. Andreas JN466 19:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't say that affiliates must have a say in the recommendations made to the Board; I only say that they are permitted to have a say, according to the current bylaws, and that they will have a say this time (according to the process the Board chooses to follow). Note that nothing in the bylaws says that there must be an open vote by individual community members, either. "The Board shall determine who is qualified to participate in the approval process for Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees", and if they wanted to completely depart from all previous precedents and anything that seems like a reasonable procedure in my personal opinion, they can do that. They could decide that only a handful of Board-selected community members would make the recommendation for community seats. They could disenfranchise any individual. This is not a real government; this is a corporation. We are not electing people to represent The Community™; we are suggesting some people to care for a corporation.

  I sometimes feel like some of the more vocal participants don't grasp (or don't want to admit publicly) the situation here. Individual editors (like us) literally have no legal rights to control or influence the Wikimedia Foundation at all. None, zip, zero, nada. If you own stock in a publicly traded corporation, you have more rights wrt to that corporation than you do wrt to the WMF. We are involved in the Board selection process only at the Board's discretion and on the Board's sufferance. That decision was made when the WMF was incorporated as a non-membership corporation. If you feel like you are entitled to something here, then your expectations are not aligned with reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Individuals have plenty of power to influence the Wikimedia Foundation, starting with participating in consultations like the one here, moving to community letters (like the WP:COLOR, and ending with editing strikes. That goes with crowdsourcing volunteer labor. I personally don't think that affiliates are so out of touch that they're likely to shortlist candidates that are unacceptable to the larger community, but people are certainly entitled to disagree. TomDotGov (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  The power to attempt persuasion is not a legal right over a corporation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  The end point isn't editing strikes; it's blocking fundraising on the English Wikipedia and possibly other major sources such as the German Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia almost did so over immoral and misleading banners last year; I suspect they would be willing to do so over a topic as important as this. BilledMammal (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @TomDotGov You say, I personally don't think that affiliates are so out of touch that they're likely to shortlist candidates that are unacceptable to the larger community, but people are certainly entitled to disagree.

  I think the more likely issue would be that affiliates might not shortlist a candidate that would be acceptable to the community. Not saying it's terribly likely, but it could arise at some point in the future. Andreas JN466 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  +1. Andreas JN466 19:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I share the concerns Frank has expressed here. I do not understand why affiliate board members should get such a large say in the elections compared to everyone else. Why are they, as stakeholders, so prioritized in this way? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  So yesterday in discussing this issue at the North America conference someone asked "has it been tried where more groups than Affiliates are consulted"? I thought this was a great question and idea. Given the number of groups that the Foundation already directly works with, I think there are many groups beyond affiliates who could be offered the chance to weigh candidates. Some of them might not be interested but asking groups like ArbComs, Stewards, LangCom, and others like that would give a more representative sample between editors who are generally focused on movement building (many Affiliates) and those who are focused on specific "front-line" work. It doesn't change the issues Frank has pointed out but it does start to address them while not undermining the concept that there needs to be a practical way to narrow candidates. It admittedly does not address the reason offered by a Board of Trustee member for why this change was made in the first place - as a makeup for not having affiliate specific seats - but I think is still far more defensible from a movement building stand point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Alternatively, we could just go back to having a couple of affiliate seats and the rest community seats. As far as I recall, nothing in the bylaws forbids it. Andreas JN466 14:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Frank Schulenberg and Barkeep49: Agreed that while some shortlisting helps keep the process manageable, other models ('primaries') are possible, and the group doing it should be refined into something that's not exclusive to affiliates and that cuts the gordian knot of "participating in a primary is like voting twice". –SJ talk  02:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Voter eligibility guidelines

• "or maintainers/contributors of any tools, bots, gadgets, and Lua modules on Wikimedia wikis." seems redundant - surely such a person would qualify on edit count alone. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 01:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Pppery, tools may be hosted off wiki (e.g., at Toolforge), and none of the work actually done on wiki. Also, while most bots rack up impressive edit counts, (a) some of them, such as w:en:User:Joe's Null Bot, don't, and (b) you don't really want the bot op logging in to the bot account for voting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• GitLab should be mentioned as well, not just Gerrit. Frostly (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Also, AffCom, and LDWG should be included. Frostly (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Campaign rules

• مرحبًا، لدي تساؤلين
  1. هل توجد أسس أو آليات جديدة في اختيار المرشحين لتمثيل المجتمعات المهمشة
     • ، باعتبار أن التصويت مهما كانت طريقة حسابه تعود الغلبة للمجتمعات الأكثر حضورًا وتمثيلًا
  2. هل توجد آلية تمنع المترشحين للترويج لحملتهم في وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي أو أثناء الأحداث المجتمعتية
• تحياتي -- Nehaoua (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  About #2: Since it says candidates must Publish content about their candidacy and election events only in online spaces where it is welcome by the space organizers, I think that candidates are allowed to discuss their candidacy on social media, if that discussion is welcomed by the organizers.

  Some communities use social media very heavily. Others do not use social media. If we had a rule that said "no social media", some candidates would have problems talking to their home communities about the election. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Nehaoua:, Thank you for taking the time to read the content and write a comment. In this proposed rules package for 2024, there are no mechanisms for selecting candidates from emerging communities. Regarding social media usage by the candidates, there are no restrictions in this proposed rules package. If you feel this is important to have, do let us know and we can discuss. KTC (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Candidates must not link to any pages in their application statement." - why? * Pppery * _{it has begun} 01:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  I assumed that was to prevent end-runs around word counts, but I don't see any word count restrictions. But perhaps we could speculate that this is about the difficulty of monitoring off-wiki communications? ("Hi, I'm on MySpaceBook. I promise to like and subscribe to all your social media channels if you send me a private message there.") Exclusion of people who don't speak the same language (since it won't be translated) or who don't use the same off-wiki channels? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• More generally the entire section on must-nots seems superfluous to me - what problem are all of these rules trying to solve? * Pppery * _{it has begun} 01:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  I generally agree with this point. There are plenty of loopholes in the rules (as there were last year), the ambiguity only hurts candidates. Last election, we saw the election committee arbitrarily interpret the rules in favor of specific candidates to the detriment of others. The committee should be working to create an open and broad campaigning process instead of trying to lock it down. Legoktm (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, @Pppery:. The reasoning and background to the must not prohibition varies, generally with the intention to ensure a reasonably fair playing field, balancing the campaigning capacity between candidates from various communities. Unfortunately, volunteer capacity varies and without some rule balancing campaigning capacity, some candidates may overwhelm the channels and garner much more support simply because they had more available freetime or have access to channels or opportunities not available to other candidates. The Wikimania (and other community events) rule orginated from request made by the organisers during the 2021 Wikimania. Asking candidates to not campaign during Wikimania is understandable because campaigning during Wikimania might be a distraction or be offputting to other attendees. -- KTC (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that if the Wikimania organizers don't want campaigning at Wikimania that makes sense, but wouldn't it make more sense to change Publish content about their candidacy and election events only in online spaces where it is welcome by the space organizers. to Publish content about their candidacy and election events only in spaces where it is welcome by the space organizers. (deleting online) rather than dedicating an entire rule to it. I personally don't see why people having more time to actively campaign doing better is a bad thing, nor how the remaining rule (Attend Board of Trustees election-oriented community meet-ups without prior approval from the Elections Committee.) actually helps that cause - it feels like censorship. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 02:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• What does "Run as a group with other candidates" mean? BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect that means "No w:en:Slate (elections)". You run independently, by yourself, for yourself. You don't make a "political party" or encourage people to vote for (or against) other candidates. "Hi, I'm Bob, I want to be elected" is good, but "Hi, I'm Bob, and Alice and Chris and I are all running as a group" is bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  This rule should be clarified whether it only applies to an explicit slate of candidates or whether candidates or forbidden from coordinating with other candidates or something in the middle. Legoktm (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi. Yes, this originated all the way back in 2008 where the word "slate" was used. The wording was changed to hopefully be more easily translatable into other languages. @Legoktm:, we'll look to clarify exactly what the committee mean. Thanks -- KTC (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Last year, there was an attempt at a set of standard questions, but I found some of them to be tendentious ("Do you agree with me about this hot-button issue, or are you a bad person?") and most of them to miss the point. I have made a list of things that I would find actually useful to know at User:WhatamIdoing/Board candidates. The overall theme is "Do you have any business experience that would justify putting you in charge of a multi-million dollar corporation?" There may well be editors who believe that it's more important to be able to articulate the difference between the English Wikipedia's notability for corporations vs athletes than to know how a corporation's budget gets set, but I'm not one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Board of Trustees election-oriented community meet-ups" merits more clarification after what happened in the last election. Does a podcast appearance count? Does holding IRC/Telegram/Matrix office hours count? Legoktm (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• What happens if someone, knowing you're a candidate, approaches you at Wikimania to discuss your candidacy? Are you allowed to talk with them? Do you need to go outside? Do you say you just can't discuss it and move on? Are you allowed to even discuss general Wikimedia governance topics if they don't say the word "election"? Legoktm (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, thanks for your comments Legoktm. We'll go away and clarify what the committee mean/agrees on so that hopefully it's clear. -- KTC (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Prior discussion

For what it's worth, I predicted a year and a half ago that this was the precise thing that was going to happen. At the time, User:Pundit tried to make out that forevermore filtering all community votes through an affiliate-selected shortlist was the furthest thing from the board's mind. But as I said then, it was indeed clear as long ago as April 2022 that the board had abandoned its commitment to holding a free community election for the four seats that used to be community seats in 2024.

The only (marginal) improvement is that the shortlist is now longer (twelve rather than six). But this scheme still enables the affiliates, all of whom are financially dependent on the Foundation, to remove any particular candidate from the pool available to the community. It should be resisted. Andreas JN466 22:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Object to Wikimedia Foundation staff automatically getting the right to vote

I feel that there is a distinction between Wikimedia Foundation staff and Wikimedia Community and request that being hired at Wikimedia Foundation not grant a ballot automatically. The rule Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2024/Voter_eligibility_guidelines#Wikimedia_Foundation_staff_and_contractors proposes to give this demographic a ballot by default.

Here are some reasons supporting this position:

1. Evidence suggests that Wikimedia Foundation staff are not free to express their views Conflicts on social and ethical issues frequently arise between the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia community. When this happens, the Wikimedia Foundation issues a position, and there is never or rarely any individual expression of deviation from that position. Until and unless the Wikimedia Foundation develops public forums for public disagreement, then the institution is not compatible with the Wikimedia ideology for elections. Some examples of protests where 100% of Wikimedia Foundation where on the opposite side of community protesters include Community open letter on renaming, Wikimedia Enterprise, and Superprotect. There should be some history of individual deviance from WMF positions, but the evidence is not there to demonstrate that some WMF staffers will oppose the leadership to join the community in protest.
2. WMF is a voting block, and we have other rules in place to avoid group campaigns There is a rule in the elections that candidates cannot organize to campaign in groups. In practice, there are no wiki political parties, and no other voting blocks. Based on the WMF so routinely as an institution having complete solidarity in opposition to community organizers in major ethical protests, it is a voting block, and word and advice will circulate around the WMF in favor of certain candidates. The number of WMF staff is great and can influence elections. Granting this group votes when they otherwise do not qualify is a big decision.
3. WMF has a conflict of interest against community interests The Wikimedia Movement does not belong to the Wikimedia Foundation, but rather to the community of editors. Unique among all tech platforms, Wikimedia projects are community-governed, and not governed by top leadership as Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, TikTok, and other platforms are. We have always been a community platform, and we need to protect this unique characteristic of Wikimedia projects. WMF staff already get supremely privileged access to benefits including salary, program budgets, the attention of decision makers who do not talk with community, and extreme trust in that they do their jobs without the transparency that is routine and expected even for small Wikimedia community grants. Among all the voting demographics, WMF staff are the ones that are furthest removed from the routine ethics and ideology and practical experience of collaborative crowdsourced online user activities. If staff vote for candidates who might de-fund community interests to fund (their own, their co-workers) staff interests, then this is a conflict of interest.
4. There is no Wikimedia community support for staff voting The implementation of WMF staff voting is not the result of a community request, community conversation, or any transparent process. This rule is in place because the Wikimedia Foundation advocates for itself in all things, and when this election is distributing power, the WMF as a corporation is trying to claim a share of it. If WMF staff really are to vote, then do things the Wikimedia way, and find some Wikimedia community members to organize the community discussion to change the old rules and implement this new way forward. Staff voting is a new concept; it has not always happened; it is being proposed because staff are writing it in and not community wishes.
5. Granting more power to staff stifles leadership development, community/staff relations, consensus building, and power-sharing There are already investment deficits in many Wikimedia communities. Granting the power of voting to already powerful and over-supported Wikimedia Foundation staff will impair other attempts to raise up underrepresented demographics who should be organizing their own voter drives, including in lower-middle income countries where our Movement Strategy recommendations say to Ensure Equity in Decision-making and Invest in Skills and Leadership Development. If WMF staff want to participate in elections, then they already have the power to give grants, resources, training, staff time, and software development to whichever demographics they choose as investment targets. That already is highly influential, and and recruiting more community voters is more aligned with our other strategy goals. There is no part of the Movement Strategy which recommends moving more influence from the community to WMF staff, especially on social and ethical issues of the sort which elections decide.
6. If staff vote, then they will also unduly participate in election campaigns If WMF are stakeholders as voters, then they are also stakeholders who will talk about elections with each other and Wikimedia community members. Staff have highly privileged access to Wikimedia community conferences, conventions, online talks, and community conversation channels. If WMF staff take positions on candidates, or even if they express positions on controversial issues, then Wikimedia community members will hear this. Staff are influential because especially for people in lower middle income countries, being friendly with staff is a pathway to accessing wealth and support in many forms, and being friendly rountinely means sharing someone's point of view. With the existing power disparity of most WMF staff being global top 10% income earners, and most Wikimedia community members having much, much less money and power, WMF staff are extremely privileged in influencing community sentiment in elections. We could conceivably restrict WMF staff from discussing election topics, but I do not think that is possible practically, and having elections means that voters are encouraged to talk about election issues and express their interest in different candidates. If WMF staff join election conversations - which they have not in previous elections, because they instinctively know that it would be taboo - then it would be inappropriate and offensive. Let's stop this now, so as not to begin justifying this over time.

Bluerasberry (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the above, but I acknowledge that this kind of rule was originally introduced for pragmatic reasons which didn't go away, such as the possibility that community members who became staff would lose the right to vote due to having less time to edit (though nowadays a requirement of 20 edits in 2? years seems easy enough). I also appreciate in principle that it's possible to be participants in the Wikimedia movement in ways other than making edits. It's also good for criteria to be easy to apply automatically. With this in mind, I wonder if "being (full time?) staff of a Wikimedia entity" (or a committee member or a grantee etc.) could be considered equivalent to meeting the total edits criterion, and be accompanied by a requirement to also meet some extremely low number of edits (for example 5 edits on Meta-Wiki in the last 2 years). Having shown a minimum degree of interest in the Wikimedia community would show that the person is not voting just as a WMF staff member or other interest group. Nemo 22:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@RamzyM (WMF): I am pinging you because you are the first staff listed at Wikimedia Foundation elections committee. I previously proposed the above listed rule change to the upcoming election plan. Can you arrange for a response from the election committee? Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lane, thanks for the ping. Let me relay this to the committee. Best, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection

(cross-posting from Wikimedia-l and Board noticeboard -- RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear all,

(This message is also available in Arabic, French, Igbo, and more here)

This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3].  The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

• May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions
• June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or fewer candidates apply) [5]
• June-August 2024: Campaign period
• End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period
• October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates
• Board’s Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page.

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page.

Thank you!

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results#Elected

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1–3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized, and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1–3 candidates from the candidate list. Pundit (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Significant experience in movement building and organizing"

I would hope that anyone who has organized efforts with others in editing the projects would qualify!

The way this is phrased has made some people question whether it is prioritizing things like editathons, public event organizing, or [user group / formal committee] participation over planning and implementing tools, procedures, and wikiprojects to improvement the wikis. Could the election committee clarify? –SJ talk  02:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sj: Where did you read that phrase? It's not on the front page. Maybe one of the pages listet here Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 07:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I see it in the "Candidate application" rubric which describes how initial candidate interest will be triaged. –SJ talk  14:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess the main purpose of that phrase is to "exclude" users who are only-authors and nothing else. How much more is required? Hard to say.

I remember an ElectCom debate about how in-/exclusive that section should be:

• Too exclusive: we might loose some good candidates
• Too inclusive: we might get too many unsuitable candidates

Candidates should be aware that the Board of Trustees is not about content (writing articles on wikipedia, taking fotos for commons, .....) but about managing a global movement of volunteers. Some meta-experience with (our) movement and it's organization is expected.

The details are blurry: I myself was member of a formal committee (German ArbCom), but I wouldn't consider that enough experience for a trustee seat. Affiliations Committee would be good. User groups sounds also good to me, also organizing (!) events and editathons. Not sure what exactly you mean with planning and implementing tools, procedures, and wikiprojects to improvement the wikis. But writing bots and scripts is probably rather unrelated to what a trustee needs to know and do.

Other methods of evaluating your own qualifications, is to have a look at the board members, at the moment they became a Trustee / their candidacy page. You could also check what the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is acutally doing: Look at their resolutions, activity reports etc. If most of the topics are alien to you, maybe you're not yet ready and should gain more experience? But if you spot options for improvement, think "I could do this better", then you have probaly enough experience.

Maybe User:NTymkiv (WMF) wants to add something. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 18:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The BoT is a very specific, high-level governance body. While editing the projects is quite essential in understanding the communities (especially if done across different projects/languages), it does not translate into any specific experience, skills, or expertise for this role. Involvement in ANY movement building and organizing, in a form of organization building, leadership, management, governance is key. If this experience comes from Wikimedia organizations - that's great, but I could just as well see someone with significant experience from Creative Commons or OpenStreetMaps, or Linux bring a great perspective and skills. In principle, I personally would love to see people with significant editing experience AND governance experience from other organizations to apply, as we need both fresh perspectives and an intimate understanding of how our movement works. It is essential, though, to understand that editing alone is not the same thing as movement building and organizing. Pundit (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Propose to combine board election with charter vote

I propose that the Wikimedia Foundation elections committee combine the ratification vote for the Movement_Charter#Timeline with the Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024. The reason is that these are major elections which require huge amounts of volunteer labor but there are no documented plans to arrange that kind of participation. Combining the votes would save volunteer labor in outreach if these two major elections scheduled for July and August 2024 became one bigger election.

Right now another major Wikimedia Movement election is happening with

• Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024

The election committee already seems overburdened as it is not responding to questions on the talk page at Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024. This election is being discussed in many other places but the election page is not documenting this, and whatever outreach happened to promote the election is not resulting in Wikimedia community organizers repeating and remixing calls to this election in the usual channels. With volunteer organizers already showing election and outreach fatigue in this case, and with the other elections so close in time but also lacking even finalization of schedules and rules weeks before the deadline, I think that combining the elections would help maintain voter enthusiasm and make more efficient use of organizer time and energy.

@RamzyM (WMF): Thoughts from the election committee? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"The election committee already seems overburdened as it is not responding to questions on the talk page at Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024." is not true. --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The Movement Charter also has its own Election Commission (Talk:Movement Charter#Recruiting members for the Charter Election Commission). --Ameisenigel (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The U4C elections are not optimal and not without some minor problems. But it's the first time we have U4C elections so we all lack experience. Single ElectCom members can't decide on their own, we need to consult and not everyone is available 24/7. Committees in general are just slow. Also, EC had little time to prepare the U4C elections. The board elections on the other hand: We prepare them since about half a year. Candidate questions and requirements, eligibilitiy requirements, translations, .....

Combining the elections might be contraproductive and lead to the overburden by running two elections in parallel with different requirements. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 11:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ameisenigel: I mean no offense to say that the committee is overburdened. Perhaps I am in error to judge that talk page activity is lower than normal for elections, but I feel that I am correct to say that there are some odd things about this election. We could talk it through, or it might just be more constructive and positive to make particular commitments that future elections will meet certain named standards of quality.

@Der-Wir-Ing: Combining the elections would be counterproductive but I am comparing that to the usefulness of running two of the biggest elections in Wikimedia Movement history a month apart, which also makes no sense. Here is another proposal - can we move the Movement Charter ratification 9 months into the future? What is the urgency that both of these complicated elections, neither of which have confirmed schedules right now, must happen so soon with so haste, and that they have to be separate, but they also have to occur at nearly the same time? To me it makes more sense to either 1) combine them or 2) separate them by 9-12 months.

The Wikimedia community are volunteers who need time to discuss big decisions in advance, talk during voting, then reflect and report on the outcomes. The proposed schedules do not match the amount of volunteer labor that our community organizers are able to provide. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)