Jump to content

Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Archives/2022

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Luis Bitencourt-Emilio Joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

Please find an announcement here --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

Please find the announcement here. Best, Shani (WMF) (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Excess baggage from previous administrations

In the past, the WMF executives and the WMF board were in the habit of issuing various proclamations, often on the subject of money. These were then used to frame a number of practices which are nowadays deeply entrenched (and not touched at all by the strategy work either, as far as I can tell). Later decisions seem to supersede some of them, but could also be perceived as exceptions which confirm the rule. Will the board ever make a list of some such proclamations, and either repeal or denounce them, as appropriate, where they are no longer current? Some of the most infamous examples are:

(But everyone has their horror story to share.) Nemo 09:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Dearchived as it's still relevant, especially now with new management. Nemo 08:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Closing the loop that this question was answered during the Conversation with the Trustees on 17 February. You can find the answer at approximately 40:50 of the recording. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

Cross-posted from wikimedia-l

Hi everyone,

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees met between March 23-24 for our first in-person meeting in over two years. It was an opportunity to welcome our new CEO and several new trustees who have recently joined the Board. Further updates from the meeting will be shared soon, I am writing now to report on resolutions that the Board made regarding the upcoming 2022 elections:

You can read about the details of these resolutions on Meta. We are happy to discuss and answer any questions on the corresponding talk pages.

Best, Dariusz on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (posted on behalf of Pundit, April 13, 2022)

Simpler analysis of candidates + role of current standing Elections Committee?

I appreciate the sentiment behind the current recommendations, but some of the implementation details seem to have erred on the side of "laborious effort by community, through multiplication of new community-elected bodies". I did not realize when reading the Board resolution just how involved and multi-stage the resulting process might become; now I'm somewhat confused about how it will all resolve 😅.

Rather than electing a one-time-only group to conduct a heavy central analysis of the candidate proposals, perhaps the elections committee itself can provide a lightweight evaluation, while inviting anyone else to do the same based on the public criteria, and all of these evals can be made visible through the voter-information tool.

Issues of simplicity, communication, facilitation and consistency come up every year -- even the current Task Force mentioned above was only set up for this year's election. I would love to see a more active, permanent EC, with responsibility for drafting + updating these processes, which generally works publicly on the wiki + might be able to channel new ideas towards lightweight implementations, and sketch them out w/ public participation of the network of coordinators and implementers in each language. And where there are concerns about equal geographic representation, that might be applied to the EC itself – putting thought into that standing body rather than spinning off new one-time bodies. [or is this analysis group thought of as an extension of eleccomm?] –SJ talk  17:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Shortlisting process for Board elections

Hello,

This [1] WMF report proclaims that the affiliate shortlisting process for the Board of Trustees elections was created after a community feedback process. The call for feedback it links to, [2] , says that:

> One person on Meta-wiki stated that affiliates should not have a role in the election process, other than encouraging communities to vote. A call with the Sub-Saharan communities proposed a similar approach.

> A person from the CEE (Central and Eastern Europe) region proposed affiliates should create a shortlist of candidates that would later be voted on by the community. This proposal was supported by the attendees of the francophone conversations from the Western & Northern Europe region.

So, it appears this was proposed by a community member & supported by more people in the Europe region, opposed by another person and people in the Sub-Saharan region, and implemented without any further community consultation. This to me seems unfair, but I'd like clarification on this.

It also is concerning to me that this was, as it appears to me right now, decided by only community members in the Europe region, which comprises ~32% of all regional affiliates [3]. It is unclear how other community members were consulted. This appears to be not representative of the demographics of the Wikimedia movement as a whole; according to the 2008 General User Survey [4], editors in the Europe region do not comprise a majority.

I would appreciate clarification on how communities were consulted on this shortlisting process.

Sincerely,

EpicPupper (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: I got the idea from reading Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Affiliations_Consultation that this idea of a shortlist essentially bubbled up within the board and was then made the focus of any conversations following. Quotes:
  • "In the past, we had separate participation of communities and affiliates. Each of the groups voted in a way similar to Board elections but through a different process. Each chapter, user group, and thematic organization cast one vote. Affiliates elected 2 seats. That's how it was until now. Now, as the 2 categories have merged, at the first level, it is a formal change. We don't have a decision yet, the bylaws don't automatically say that/what we have to change. We could have elections in 2 sets. The community selects lists of candidates and affiliates select (not saying I'm proposing this)."
  • "this is all directed at a particular two-fold goal: to use affiliate as an important resource to allow us to obtain candidates with more expertise/qualifications as candidates, and also to filter the candidates to help the community make the best choices as to who is elected."
  • "the Board is not looking to impose anything but to consult and collect opinions as to what everyone would like to see from this election. Can affiliates give formal endorsements to candidates?"
  • "In some way, whatever the method that is chosen for these two seats, there should be a more restricted field of candidates - and that is where groups (both recognized and unrecognized) can be involved. So maybe a start will be with endorsements; e.g. a candidate should already have some support behind them."
  • "If all community-selected seats are done the same way with community voting, then the result will tend towards the same types of people and there is a suggestion to have different ways to select people to the board - as different methods could produce different results. If only community voting is used, some movement participants will not be represented."
  • "By Victoria: Currently, there are a range of options for affiliates to be involved; e.g. the same way as before (ASBS) or; the affiliates could select among the candidates, and the community votes on those candidates, or swap it around, to have the community vote on a shortlist for the affiliates to vote on."
The idea was then mainly discussed just with the affiliates. The community wasn't exactly disinvited, but people were told that the board wanted primarily to hear from the affiliates:
  • "How should affiliates be involved in the selection of new seats? ... The Board of Trustees is seeking feedback about this question especially, although not solely, from the affiliate community. Everyone is invited to share proposals and join the conversation in the Call for Feedback channels. In addition to collecting online feedback, the Movement Strategy and Governance team will organize several video calls with affiliate members to collect feedback. These calls will be at different times and include Trustees."
I am not aware of any on-wiki Request for Comment (RfC) seeking the community's views on this. This is just part of a general and concerted trend to move any decision-making away from the wikis and away from the established RfC process. Andreas JN466 11:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


Sources

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/File:Recommendation_for_BoT_election_2022.pdf

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Reports#Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections_final_report

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups#existing reports 139 user groups and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chaptersreports 38 chapters. 139+38 = 177; 56/177 = ~32.

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_User_Survey EpicPupper (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Meeting Outcomes from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

Please find a letter with June 2022 Meeting Outcomes from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees here --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Caste discrimination

According to Reuters reporting on a recent legal case, Cisco claims that California laws do not forbid caste-based discrimination. Is the wmf:Non-discrimination policy clear enough in this regard? It mentions "ancestry", which would sound enough, but I don't know whether the word has some specific legal meaning in USA case law. Nemo 06:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nemo. I am on the Talent and Culture Committee of the Board that looks at such issues and have spoken to our Talent & Culture staff in the Wikimedia Foundation about this particular issue. At the outset, I want to emphasize that at WMF, we prohibit discrimination based on any identity trait and so the list in itself is illustrative and not meant to be exhaustive. You do raise a timely question, as we were in the process of making changes to our policies prohibiting discrimination, in partnership with our South Asian staff and other employee groups. We intend to add caste to the list of protected characteristics to make that more explicit. --RStephenson (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

September 2022 Meeting Outcomes from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

Please find a letter with September 2022 Meeting Outcomes from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees here --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Beginning work on a Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy + AffCom elections update

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees believes that Wikimedia affiliates are a key and integral part of the Wikimedia movement, and affiliates’ success is vital to the Wikimedia movement’s success. To that end, it is crucial to develop a clear vision regarding the affiliates, making it possible to assess whether the Foundation’s investment in, collaboration with, and policy towards affiliates is promoting the right goals. The Board will be embarking on building a Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy in collaboration with the Affiliations Committee (AffCom), the affiliates, and the broader communities. This strategy will help guide the Foundation’s immediate work in supporting affiliates for the next few years.

In order to ensure that there is continuity and institutional memory during this process, there will be a delay of the elections for AffCom until after the strategy is complete, and the terms of the current AffCom members will be prolonged (in a separate resolution) to December 31, 2023. While the strategy is under development, AffCom will continue its current responsibilities, in addition to collaborating on the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy.

Once the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy is ready, there would be clarity on what is expected from the Wikimedia Foundation for supporting affiliates, and what is expected from affiliates. 

As the weeks progress in the new calendar year, a plan of the process will be released, including opportunities for communities and affiliates to engage. You can find some FAQs below to assist further understanding of the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy. 

Best regards,

Nat & Shani

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Liaisons to the Affiliations Committee

FAQs

1. What are Wikimedia movement affiliates? What is AffCom?

Wikimedia movement affiliates are "independent and formally recognised" groups of people intended to organise and engage in activities to support and contribute to the Wikimedia movement. Currently there are three active models for affiliates: chapters, thematic organisations, and user groups. The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) advises and makes recommendations regarding the recognition and existence of Wikimedia movement affiliates.

2. How is the work with affiliates at the Wikimedia Foundation organised now?

As of now, processes are fragmented across different teams at the Wikimedia Foundation, and some decision making regarding affiliates is happening at different levels. A unified and consistent process is beneficial to all parties, hence the start of the work on the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy.

3. What is the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy? Is this an update of some existing document or something brand new?

Until now there has not been any unified vision regarding how the work around affiliates should happen, as there was no affiliate-specific strategy developed before. The Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy is to be a blueprint that will guide the Foundation’s immediate work with affiliates. This strategy will be in place to inform and guide the Wikimedia Foundation budget and support to affiliates, until some kind of Movement-wide Affiliates Strategy is developed.

4. Why do we need a Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy?

The Affiliates are a key part of the Wikimedia movement as mentioned in the Wikimedia Foundation mission, and their success is integral to the success of the whole Wikimedia Movement. As the affiliate ecosystem has grown in size and complexity, it is increasingly important to review existing approaches and ensure that the focus is on the right areas. The Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy will help to strengthen and advance the work of the affiliates.The Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy will take into account Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy recommendations.

The Strategy will direct Foundation attention to the needs of affiliates and focus resources on those needs towards impact by affiliates.

5. Does the decision of developing the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy change the role of AffCom?

There are no immediate changes in the role of AffCom, which is continuing doing its job. However, the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy will direct the future work of the Wikimedia Foundation in support of the affiliates, which could result in revising the role and scope of AffCom.

6. Why are the AffCom Elections delayed?

Traditionally, AffCom had elections at least once every year to select (not elect) and appoint members who will serve in AffCom for a period of two years. This year AffCom elections will not be held. Instead, the elections will be delayed as AffCom is a key input for the Board in developing the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy, and adding the burden of selecting and on-boarding new members will encumber the committee and make it difficult for it to discharge its regular duties as well as collaborate on the strategy. If the number of voting members falls below five (per the AffCom Charter), elections will nonetheless be held.

7. Will the Movement Charter also have an "Affiliates Strategy" and/or define affiliate roles?

While it is reasonable to expect that the Movement Charter will have prescriptions on affiliates and their recognition, and some of these responsibilities might shift to the Global Council once it is formed, it is currently unknown how this will unfold, and it will bear consequences only in years to come. Accordingly, this work is worth doing now so that the available resources are having the impact needed and are best serving the current Wikimedia movement and the affiliate ecosystem in the interim.

8. Is AffCom being asked to propose a Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy?

No, AffCom is not expected to propose a Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy. AffCom has been invited by the Board to collaborate and give an expert opinion. While the Affiliations Committee is an advising committee to the Board, the Board is responsible for this strategy and will lead the community and affiliate conversations around it.

9. What is the timeline for this project?

The target is to have a draft of the Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy for the Board’s approval at Wikimania 2023 (August 2023).

Message from Wikimedia-l posted here by JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation welcomes two community-and affiliate-selected trustees

Please find the official announcement welcoming Mike Peel and Shani Evenstein Sigalov to the Board of Trustees here --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022 Meeting Outcomes from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

Please find a letter with December 2022 Meeting Outcomes from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees here --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Severe conflict involving problematic sysop on pt.Wiki

I need help solving a serious problem that currently occurs on Wikipedia in Portuguese. I don't know if this is the most appropriate place, but I need to draw attention somehow. At this moment, a Wiki-pt sysop is submitting several articles with references and sources for deletion by community consensus. Even if users point out that there is an explicit conflict of interest in their actions, administrators do not want to take any action. Some even want to do something, but they can't because it is quite problematic and has already caused several problems.

A few years ago, this administrator already committed editorial harassment by stalking all my edits and apparently this behavior has not stopped. I try to demand explanations, but he ignores everything and still acts mocking my arguments.

Please, I ask for an urgent collaboration to solve this case. can't go on like this! wiki-pt has become a very hostile and toxic environment. .J. tlk 05:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

In case this is not the appropriate place to report this, please direct me to the correct place. In this case, the local team is not managing to deal with the situation, so I need to expose it to larger instances. .J. tlk 05:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Archives/2022&oldid=27212436"