Junta directiva de la Fundación Wikimedia/Convocatoria para recibir comentarios:puestos en la junta directiva/Reportes/Semana del 02-17-2021

Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:
Call for feedback: Community Board seats
Main Page
How to participate
Board ideas
Community ideas

Este es un reporte semanal de la convocatoria de comentarios sobre el proceso de selección de puestos de la comunidad de la junta directiva entre el 1 de febrero y el 14 de marzo. Este reporte contiene ideas y opiniones nuevas o relevantes en el contexto de la convocatoria de comentarios.

Con la ayuda de un equipo de facilitadores de la comunidad, estamos organizando conversaciones y recogiendo opiniones. Durante esta convocatoria de opiniones publicamos informes semanales y redactamos el informe final que se entregará a la junta. Este reporte cubre la nueva actividad del 8 al 14 de febrero.

Si crees que falta algo relevante, háznoslo saber en la página de comentarios y consideraremos su inclusión en el próximo informe semanal.

Únete a la conversación.


  • 2021-02-09: El equipo de facilitación publicó una línea de tiempo de eventos relacionados con la gobernanza de la junta directiva.
  • 2021-02-10: El equipo de facilitación publicó informes sobre la primera ronda de horas de oficina, incluyendo vídeos, notas, transcripciones y charlas.

Ideas de la junta

Sistema de votación por rango


Call for types of skills and experiences

Vetting of candidates

Board-delegated selection committee

Community-elected selection committee

Election of confirmed candidates

  • One person posed some questions prompted by previous situations (Arnon Geshuri)
    • It is unclear what will happen if a candidate is not confirmed.
    • Will a second-choice candidate be submitted for a new community vote?
    • Will there be a new call for candidates?
    • Will the seat remain vacant?
  • One person said this does not have the ability to accomplish the community’s goals and should be withdrawn and reworded to be more clear.
  • One person suggested a parallel with Iranian elections and suggested the people should overthrow such a regime.
  • Three people from Indonesia do not recommend Election of confirmed candidates.
  • Three people from Open Foundation West Africa group meeting were in support of the election of confirmed candidates.

Direct appointment of confirmed candidates

Ideas from the Community

Regional seats

  • One person suggested having a fully elected body with some quotas for gender, language, continent, developer-background, etc.) as a solution to representativeness for communities not aligned with a Regional body.
  • One person said to keep the system as simple as possible:
    • Hold a single election for all Board seats. If the quota is not met, replace the lowest ranking winning candidates with the highest ranking unsuccessful candidates from underrepresented regions.
    • Include all of americas outside of Canada and the US in the underrepresented regions. Include Japan and Korea as well.
    • Don’t tie eligibility to regional alignments. Communities should be free to join whichever body is most convenient to them without it affecting their members’ ability to run.

Specialization seats

This proposal was suggested by Csisc to increase specialists on the Board (legal, economist, linguist, GLAM) by replacing some appointed seats with elected specialist seats saying having such people on the Board is key for the development of Wikimedia Governance.

  • One person said appointed seats should be used to fill skill needs and think this might reduce the pool of candidates.
  • Some people said qualifications are not an issue for community-elected Board members as all previous ones have been well-qualified.
  • Everyone at a North Africa Wikimedia community meeting disagrees with this idea. They said there could be an advisory committee with experts instead.
  • One person in the Spanish Telegram chat said this idea will only work with training since access to education is different globally. Another in the chat said this proposal is less inclusive because of this.

Miscellaneous feedback

This section is organized by themes to help with the digestion of information. Some comments might fit more than one theme, but were placed with a judgement of best fit.

Increase participation

  • One person mentioned gave the following feedback:
    • Some research into why people don’t vote might be worthwhile.
    • The Wikimedia Foundation should improve outreach to communities to encourage participation: banners, messages in advance to call for candidates.
    • Encourage individuals to ask questions and notify members in different languages. (Translation of candidate information, a discussion on the village pump, and personal voting invitations increased participation in voting from the Ukrainian Wikipedia community with 25% of eligible voters voting).
  • A person from the Punjabi Wikimedians User Group mentioned more effort should be made to increase the voter turnout so that the results are not skewed in favour of a region.

Better communication and connection is needed

Inclusion and diversity

  • One person said the community is eager to embrace diversity in candidates, if those candidates are otherwise acceptable.
  • One person from the Spanish Telegram chat said the Board must ensure the inclusion of all people; i.e., remove barriers to entry, languages.
  • One person from the Spanish Telegram chat said people are often chosen based on popularity and it’s hard for new diverse voices to compete with people who have been in the movement for 20 years. This forms an inequality of origin. Enabling and expanding the space in a conscious and consistent manner is the solution.
  • A person from Punjabi community said to “anonymize” the candidates into certain profiles.

Comments not sorted into a theme

  • From the anonymous feedback form:
    • I believe the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are really looking to be inclusive.
    • The community should organize it, not the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • One person from Open Foundation West Africa group meeting suggested that Wikimedians of the year should be offered a seat on the board.
  • One person said, “The proposals here threaten to badly escalate an already bad relationship” referring to the relationship between the community and the Wikimedia Foundation.

CfF process feedback

  • Former board member Alice Wiegand criticized communication and timing of the Board’s expansion. She stated that the expansion might cause a less creative and more sluggish board, eventually causing a loss of its power.
  • One person said they feel the community’s vote will only count if it coincides with what the Board wants.
  • Remaining concerns from a Wikimedia Uganda User Group meeting:
    • Are Africans going to have a positive outcome from these discussions, considering Wikimedians from Europe and America are more than Wikimedians in underrepresented communities?
    • What happens when more Wikimedians from Europe and America participate in the discussions and they support different ideas than the few Wikimedians from Africa who are able to participate in the discussions?
    • Will the Board implement the ideas supported by the majority?
      • Does it mean our participation in the discussions has been in vain?
  • Several people shared feedback about the first weekly report:
    • Be more clear about who said what and where.
    • Be careful to use proper English in communication.
    • Include linking to places where things were said.

Note from the team of facilitators: we will be more explicit about who said what where. We will provide links where we are able to do so. Proofreading will be done, but please do excuse grammatical errors. These things happen, especially when efficiency is key to producing a report each week. We will aim to capture what was said and present content from conversations across the entire community.

What is happening next

Next week we start the second half of the Call for feedback. We will start identifying specific topics that welcome more attention and further discussion.


The Conversations page has an up-to-date list of conversations happening around the Call for Feedback. This includes future scheduled and proposed conversations. Reports from these conversations can be found on Meta.

  • 2021-02-08

Round 1 with Punjabi Wikimedians User Group

  • 2021-02-09

Round 1 with French Sub Saharan wikimedia communities Round 1 with Wikimedia Bangladesh Round 1 with Telugu community Round 1 with Urdu community / Dehlavi Wikimedia User Group

  • 2021-02-10

Round 2 with French Sub Saharan wikimedia communities Meeting with Wikimedia Uganda User Group members

  • 2021-02-11

Round 3 with French Sub Saharan wikimedia communities

  • 2021-02-12

Meeting with North Africa wikimedia communities Round 1 with Kannada Wikimedians

  • 2021-02-13

Round 2 with Punjabi Wikimedians User Group Round 1 with Wikipedians of Goa User Group Meeting with Open Foundation West Africa User Group members


The facilitator team thanks the following volunteers for:

  • @Csisc: continuous translational work of all Cff-pages into Italian. Wow!
  • @Sänger: for translational work to German.
  • @Manavpreet Kaur and Satpal Dandiwal: for organizing a meeting with Punjabi community, in Punjabi!
  • @NickK: and @Nosebagbear: for engaging in conversation and solution-focused discussion.