User talk:LLosa (WMF)

About Wikinews

May I ask how do you think the SPTF determined the "consensus" on closing? Would you personally be willing to use the current RfC vote count as a reference for grassroots community opinions? Thank you. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews

what's next? @LLosa (WMF) ~2026-28561-99 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the question exactly? - LLosa (WMF) (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

hiring of union-avoidance lawfirm Littler Mendelson

Two questions:

1. When did the WMF first seek the assistance of Littler Mendelson?

2. When did you and other board members first learn that Littler Mendelson was retained?

Mr. Wales has been silent on this, and the CEO has refused to answer these questions as well. Please show some courage, and help to shed some light on the issue by offering clarity to the community on these two significant points, thank you! ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Andreas JN466: FYI - August 20th is quickly approaching, yet it's just the sound of crickets in here ... hello, LLosa, just wondering, but is this thing on?

UPDATE: Mr. Wales has recently said Regarding Littler Mendelson: I think hiring this firm was a terrible decision and as soon as I heard about it I recommended to the WMF that they be fired immediately. However, we still don't know exactly when the decision was made to hire this union-avoidance lawfirm. Looking forward to some transparency and honesty from the board about all of this, thank you! ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Aaaaand it's now August 20th, but still total radio silence. Are you doing okay LLosa, on vacation maybe? Or are you just ignoring us? Say ... something ... please? ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Quiet period is now over. Any updates? Thanks in advance for engaging with the community and filling us in on a few things. ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Unanswered questions at Board Noticeboard and elsewhere

Hello,

There are unanswered queries at the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard:

• Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard § Call for clarity: WMF Board’s perspective on the Wiki Workers United union has been unanswered since 29 July, three weeks now
• Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard § Call for an apology for an apparent NPOV violation has been unanswered since 7 August, over ten days now

Trustees Victoria and Nadzik, the Board's two Community and Affiliate Liaisons, have been answering some of the community's questions -- Victoria at BN, and Nadzik on Discord -- plus, Jimbo has been answering questions on his enwiki talk page. All of their efforts are appreciated, but despite those efforts, the two threads linked above still have no response from the Board.

Please help Victoria, Nadzik, and Jimbo, even if you're not one of the Liaisons, by answering the community's questions. If you don't have the answers, please make the appropriate inquiries, and then let the community know.

There are other unanswered questions from the community, which haven't been asked at BN, but have been asked repeatedly elsewhere ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], and, obviously, in the thread above, here on your talk page), including the date Littler Mendelson was retained by the WMF to advise on unionization matters. Jimbo has said a meeting is being scheduled with the Board and C-suite to get the answers to these questions and others, and that the date of hire is "at the top of my list when I meet with the WMF". I'm not sure if that meeting has happened yet or not, but either way, I hope you will do everything you can as a Trustee to assist Jimbo and the community in finding out, and sharing, the answers to these and other pending questions.

I did read the two messages you posted on-wiki on behalf of the Board about this, and unfortunately, I was quite disappointed by certain passages in both:

• In the first, the Board wrote "The Board does not manage the Foundation's day-to-day work, including employment decisions. Our role is to provide oversight and long-term direction." I found this to be less than fully honest: everybody knows that unionization and union recognition are not part of the "day-to-day work" of any organization; such issues are clearly a matter of "oversight and long-term direction." To me, it's rather surprising to see the Board not take a vote or set policy regarding union recognition, and instead leave it to the CEO. I don't think that decision has served the Foundation well.
• In the second, the Board wrote "We want to reaffirm there have been no 'captive audience meetings', or interference with staff making their own personal choice on this issue." Again, this is less than fully honest: the WMF sent an email to the staff opposing unionization, and held multiple meetings at which the same message was reportedly repeated. While these meetings may not have technically been captive audience meetings because of a disclaimer that stated attendance was optional (and because attendance may not have been taken), nevertheless, an employer sending anti-union emails and holding anti-union meetings counts as "interference with staff making their own personal choice on this issue."

I hope future communications from the Board do not contain these sorts of less-than-fully-honest statements.

Thanks, Levivich (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Communication is necessary

Can you please, instead of simply making a top-down declaration and then disappearing, try to actually engage with people and answer the questions they have about your board response (or questions posted here)? Confidence in both the board and the WMF leadership is very low at the moment, and such a lack of engagement doesn't help (mind you, the arrogance, untruths, or complete silence from other board members isn't any better). Please, check for replies after you post a board response (or a personal response) and engage with the feedback you receive. Fram (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lorenzo, I really think it would be worth reconsidering how to improve WMF communication so it can rebuild trust with the community. The current approach, guided mainly by legal advice, doesn't seem to be working very well. It feels like the legal team is encouraging silence out of caution, but that overlooks how deeply the community feels connected to Wikimedia projects – after all, it’s the community that built them, not WMF.

I completely get that it can be frustrating when some people are overstepping or being unkind. But the trouble is, even polite members often don't get a response. And when official statements do come out, they tend to be full of empty platitudes and explain nothing, which ends up frustrating people even more.

Thanks for reading. I hope you'll give my input some consideration. Best regards, Gdarin | talk 12:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure any amount of good communication can paper over a fundamental mistake in strategy. Sometimes it's better to stay silent unless/until you can acknowledge a course correction. Nemo 15:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I fear the leadership thinks this will all blow over after the votes are counted on Sep 3, when the union will likely be recognized, and the leadership will take a "See? No harm, no foul" position. Levivich (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Ethics and morality aside, they've also unnecessarily wasted a LOT of donation dollars on terrible legal advice trying to bust the union. Shameful. ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

when will you resign?

Hello LLosa (WMF), why do you insist on ignoring questions from the community about Littler Mendelson? Please speak up, or resign from the board. This is getting ridiculous, and your behavior is shameful. You still have a chance to redeem yourself, so act now! ~2026-43134-44 (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)