Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024

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

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) Reply

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

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

@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) Reply

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) Reply

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) Reply

@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) Reply

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) Reply

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) Reply

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) Reply

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) Reply

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) Reply

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) Reply

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

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) Reply

@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) Reply

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) Reply

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) Reply

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) Reply

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

  @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) Reply

  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) Reply

  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) Reply

  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) Reply

  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) Reply

  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) Reply

  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) Reply

  I'm not sure I understand your kpoint, 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 JN 466 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Reply

• "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) Reply

  @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) Reply

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

• 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) Reply

  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) Reply

  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) Reply

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

  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) Reply

• 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) Reply

  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) Reply

  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) Reply

  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) Reply

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

  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) Reply

  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) Reply

  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) Reply

• 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) Reply
• "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) Reply
• 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) Reply

  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) Reply

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 JN 466 22:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC) Reply