Re: WMF Board of Trustees: Board Selection Process Update

I fully agree with you Luis, thank you for adding that insight.

I shared an earlier version of this on meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2027/Proposed_eligibility_criteria#How_to_get_better_candidates
(I missed the conversation here and had been chewing on this for a while)

There are really a few different sets of skills that we'd be looking for in
board members, from my understanding. There's the "minimum competency"
skills, the "unique skills" that make that you bring something special to
the table, and the stuff that would disqualify you (unable to pass
background checks, you name it). The community can be an excellent judge of
those unique skills, which include political acumen, personal connections,
etc.

Those minimum skills are however ones that might be partially acquired
through the committee work cited, but I doubt it's a very good proxy for
most of the ones that the board actually needs. It may show that you have
the ability to learn them, maybe. We risk using a poor metric to filter out
people based on engrained inequity. Basically, we will end up being allowed
to choose between mostly people that look like me.

We have been talking for a long time about improving the governance skills
(financial literacy, negotiation skills, constructive criticism,
facilitation etc) in our community for a long time. We usually end up doing
a bit of low-effort coursework that community members can pick up
asynchronously. Maybe it is time to actually commit to indeed invest in a
few cohorts of leaders - because it's not just the WMF board that would
benefit from these skills. It is our entire movement.

Best,
Lodewijk


On Sun, Aug 9, 2026 at 10:38 PM Luis Villa via Wikimedia-l <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Since there is more board news today, sending a long-drafted followup:
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 7:45 PM Erik Moeller via Wikimedia-l <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Wikimedia Foundation needs folks with relevant governance experience
>> for an organization of this scale, but it also needs voices that
>> challenge it and push it in new directions on the Board. The trick is
>> to find the right balance between those goals. Requiring that people
>> advance along an internal functionary ladder towards the possibility
>> of standing for trusteeship is not that balance; it is the kind of
>> requirement structure you find in institutions that drift towards
>> stagnancy and self-reinforcement, often out of institutionalized fear.
>>
>> A compromise proposal:
>> * Change the word "must" to "should" when it comes to the governance
>> experience criteria
>> * Require that candidates indicate comparable or equivalent experience
>> in their candidate profile if they do not meet these criteria.
>>
>
> To echo and add to what Erik said: Governance of an organization like WMF
> is a wickedly complex problem, requiring many different skillsets. It's not
> enough to have good *ideas* - you have to have the *skills* to make those
> ideas happen: how to understand an auditor's report; how to think through
> the human politics of governance; employee management skills; etc. etc.
>
> So I think tightening skills and experience requirements is pretty
> reasonable.
>
> I like Erik's suggestions, and would add: WMF should invest in board
> skills development, not just restrict those who don't yet have the skills.
> Among other things, this could be formal training through services like
> https://boardsource.org/; or experiential learning through board observer
> seats/fellowships like Haas does for their b-school students:
> https://haas.berkeley.edu/cssl/programs-events/board-fellows/ The former
> would be good skills development for the movement, and the latter would
> double as a transparency move.
>
> I mean *invest*, not "commit to invest"; the Foundation should do a few
> years of this investment and *then* put in stricter rules, since otherwise
> the temptation for new board members to say "this is not necessary" and
> pull the drawbridge up after them would be very strong.
>
> I would also add, beating my recent drum: much of the energy that goes
> into Foundation board questions should instead be going into making the
> Foundation less central to the movement. That goes for the board -- who
> should be following through on the "infrastructure for open" commitments of
> 2030, not re-centralizing, so that the exact composition of the board is
> less important -- and for many movement leaders: *you can be a movement
> leader without being on the WMF board*. There are so many ways to lead.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/3PVQCKMSBHVCBQESA2D4EZEGTU74REJH/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/LELP766S6YYSWV2JIIRQ7U36ZEVXJT27/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org