This is my evaluation of all candidates in the 2025 WMF Board of Trustees elections. I will keep updating this page as more information arrives.
As there is currently a shortlisting process planned, I will first rank all 12 eligible candidates, then have a more in-depth summary when the 6 shortlisted candidates are announced.
My own vote will be used for the candidate least homogeneous to the current Board. My final vote is support only Bobby Shabangu, the only remaining Global South candidate.
This was my evaluation of Candidates video presentations, presented during Wikimania.
All candidates presented a video during Wikimania with their statements. They can be also viewed on meta.
When judging the presentations, I value -
Coherence - I value candidates whose ideas come across clearly to the audience (As opposed to meandering statements)
Messaging - I value candidates whose presentation has a clear message (Their credentials, their goals for the BoT, etc)
All candidates are ordered by roughly my order of preference.
James Alexander (video link) - Support. Credentials are very clearcut. The central message (GenAI) was sufficiently stressed, and the priorities were quite clear. All the central points were explored and explained well.
Lane Rasberry (video link) - Support. Presentation had specifics and central thesis was solid (Human v AI impact). Overall goals are clear, ideas like "Volunteer Leadership" were good. No credentials given.
Wojciech Pędzich (video link) - Neutral. Credentials are clearly established. The ideas didn't go into any specifics, but were well explained.
Ravan J Al-Taie (video link) - Neutral. Credentials are well explained. The message had a clear idea (Inclusivity), but there was not enough elaboration or substance.
Bobby Shabangu (video link) - Oppose. Explained his credentials clearly. Ideas are simple and clear. There were a lot of topics being named, but I wish there were more specifics in there.
Michał Buczyński (video link) - Oppose. Credentials were adequately showcased. Overall message did not have enough specifics for my preference. Too many topics being named, not enough depth on any of them.
For each subcategory, I plan to put roughly 6 candidates in Support or Neutral. Elections are zero sum, and I would like to reward candidates that strongly align with my criteria much more than those who weakly align with everything.
For the overall ordering, I am also considering my own opinions and how well the candidates align with them.
When judging experience I care about (in that order) -
Significant experience within any Wikimedia project or higher roles (sysop/bureaucrat/Arbitration Committee)
Clear work with offwiki projects or initiatives (Affliates or hubs, hosting events)
Other roles within the movement that require experience (BoT, committees)
I am not counting any experience outside the Wikimedia movement; it's hard to evaluate and not relevant to me. The WMF already appoints board members with outside perspectives, so I believe the community and affiliates should nominate those with significant experience within our projects. I also undervalue work done as WMF employees, I believe community elected seats should prioritise community experience above all.
All candidates are ordered by roughly my order of preference.
Wojciech Pędzich - Support. Significant onwiki and offwiki contributions across the movement. Any candidate with Admin-Arbcom-Checkuser-Steward experience is an automatic yes. This is my benchmark for an ideal BoT member, qualifications wise.
Lane Rasberry - Support. I supported them last year. Experience onwiki as well as offwiki.
Ravan J Al-Taie - Support. Experience as an admin as well as committee/affiliate involvement. The BoT could benefit from diverse voices.
James Alexander - Support. Long term rights holder in multiple projects, some committee experience. Significant chunks of their experience is as a WMF Employee, which I do not value as highly.
Jonathan Cardy - Support. Solid onwiki credentials. Limited offwiki experience.
Bobby Shabangu - Neutral. I opposed them last year. The "Wikimedia experience" answer is nearly identical to last year. The candidate pool this year is weak enough to be Neutral instead.
Michał Buczyński - Neutral. Cursory analysis shows reasonable onwiki and committee experience. I'd weigh them higher if there wasn't a stronger Polish candidate.
Shahen Araboghlian - Oppose. Some onwiki experience, but not significant enough overall contributions.
Maxime Baidakov - Oppose. Some offwiki and onwiki experience, but not significant enough that I trust in a BoT member.
Ahmad Ali Karim - Oppose. Not enough onwiki experience. Offwiki experience is relatively sparse. I hope they try leadership positions in their user groups and communities for a half decade before trying BoT again.
Abdul-Rafiu Fuseini - Oppose. Started editing in 2020, decent overall contributions but none in positions of power.
How do you plan to ensure transparency and accountability in your decision-making processes as a member of the Board of Trustees?
What will be the first new issue you would like to bring to the attention of the Board for discussion, and how would you approach it?
How should decisions about trade-offs and prioritisation in Wikimedia technology or product areas be approached? Please explain what the trade-off is in your view.
The number of Wikimedia affiliates has grown significantly over the past few years, but ensuring adequate resourcing can be a challenge. Given this, how might we rethink the movement ecosystem, including how affiliates are evaluated, engaged, and resourced?
As the Wikimedia Foundation's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) position transitions, what qualities do you believe the incoming leader should embody, and how would these contribute to the advancement of the Wikimedia movement?
There are several other "Optional questions" for each candidate. They are likely to have cookie-cutter responses, and I generally undervalue them.
When judging answers I care about (in that order) -
Clear answer that "gets" the question (as opposed to generic corporate-speak)
Any specific stance they stand for (as opposed to candidates with no own opinions)
Unique insights from candidate (as opposed to same ideas as anyone)
All candidates are ordered by roughly my order of preference.
Lane Rasberry - Support. All answers are well written, have useful insights, and also have helpful links. This is my benchmark for how I want a BoT member to communicate.
Maxime Baidakov - Support. Every answer had something relevant. I really appreciate Q1 making a clear direct promise. I like the nuance of Q3 and Q4.
Shahen Araboghlian - Support. All the answers were written clearly, had a clear "take", and were reasonable. I very much appreciated Q5 and Q3.
James Alexander - Neutral. Answers were too generic for my taste, but I found multiple cogent takes in Q4 and Q5.
Wojciech Pędzich - Neutral. Most answers were fairly generic, but all were written clearly. I liked their unique insight for Q2.
Bobby Shabangu - Neutral Answers were somewhat generic, but I find them honest. I disagree with the answer for Q2.
Mohammed Kamal-Deen Fuseini - Oppose. There are several good takes in the answers, but each answer leaves me with an orange flag. Q5 and Q3 specifically leave me unimpressed.
Jonathan Cardy - Oppose. Not all answers addressed the topic well. The ones that did (Q2 and Q5), I find them persuasive.
Michał Buczyński - Oppose. I find the answers not impressive. Several answers also seemed to be showing off credentials than actually addressing the question.
Ravan J Al-Taie - Oppose. All answers were very generic and had too much corporate-speak. I struggle to find one point of substance in any answers.
Ahmad Ali Karim - Oppose. I struggle to find clear stances in any of their answers.
Abdul-Rafiu Fuseini - Oppose. Answers had too much corporate-speak, not enough substance. A good answer to Q2 would not just say "I will explore new X" but also describe what direction of X they would explore.
For the overall ordering, I am also considering my own opinions and how well the candidates align with them. This is effectively "my ballot" for the (first half of) BoT elections.
