• Rather infuriating that of all the changes we wanted them to make, that was the one the BCG decided to spot upon, and it's the one the Community doesn't have a clear consensus on! Nosebagbear (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This piece got already quite long and detailed, so it had to omit some explanatory background. For readers who might be wondering why the move from "community voting" to "community nomination" could be a big deal: An illustrative historical example is the James Heilman situation, where a community-elected trustee was removed from the board by his fellow trustees, only to be voted in again by the community in the next elections. Technically, the election results have never been binding - the Board has always been legally able to not approve a community election winner, preventing them from actually becoming a trustee. But it has never exerted this option, not even in that extreme case in 2017 - surely the backlash would have been enormous. In a possible future process though where the board picks new "community-sourced" trustees itself from a long list of nominations (evaluated against a list of vague criteria), it would have been politically easy in the above situation to come up with a plausible-sounding rationale for a decision that prevented Heilman from reentering the board. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "In this week's discussion on Facebook" - wait, we're holding governance discussions on Facebook now, rather than on-wiki? Mike Peel (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed this too. And for the record; I don't like it. I doubt I'm the only 1 who believes we have a well-functioning way off doing those things on-wiki and placing obstacles, like having to go to other social media, is unnecessary and even counter-productive as fewer will follow/participate. Even if they are aware of it. --Dutchy45 (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never had a Facebook account and won't be getting one. In a community full of opinionated and tech-savvy people, I can hardly be the only one to have made this choice as a matter of principle. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that a non-profit movement based on many of the principles of free software and following the principles of open copyright, should probably not be on Facebook, the antithesis of all of that. And I say that as someone who uses Facebook a lot. Definitely a bad idea -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 01:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Whereas I agree that it is generally not a good idea to discuss movement-related issues on Facebook, Meta as a discussion platform is a stone age technology compared to FB, and realistically we are not going to ever match FB even by setting up our own platform, so people will be always discussing these things on Facebook, Telegram and other venues.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ymblanter: We're obviously not going to stop discussion on a variety of platforms, but the WMF Board has absolutely no excuse for supporting GAFAM, or even worse, carrying out decision-making there under GAFAM control. For software technology, the Fediverse, with Mastodon (software) as the most popular, and the software and servers listed at https://switching.software are generally much more ethically compatible with Wikipedia.

As for throwing out Jimbo from his founder's position: I fully agree with Jimbo's comment stated above - yes, he should eventually lose power, but at the moment it's clear that he's necessary. Otherwise we'll end up with the Wikimedia community forking and effectively throwing out the WMF Board. Boud (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, agreed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Re. "wait, we're holding governance discussions on Facebook now...?" – yes, apparently we they are. Rebranding brainstorming was on FBook, Movement Strategy drafting was in Google Docs, and UCoC draft review was via (I think?) weekly video conference with very brief minutes/summaries posted on-wiki. And there's a "consultation" about how to "improve movement communications", for which you can volunteer to participate in a hand-picked real-time facilitated session. Pelagic ( messages ) – (14:36 Sat 05, AEDT) 03:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In this specific case, the idea did start on-wiki at Meta, but the news that the Board and W?F were taking it seriously appeared on Wikimedia-l [1] (possibly cross-posted from Meta, but I can't find the original "Update from the Board") and spread to a similar in-crowd at Facebook. It's notable that Jimbo and Natalia replied at Meta but María only at FB. Thanks, Signpost authors, for bringing this to wider attention. Pelagic ( messages ) – (16:43 Sat 05, AEDT) 05:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think most editors would agree, and within the historical importance of Wales in world progress, that you don't fuck with Jimmy Wales unless you have a damn good reason. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with both of the above. I don't like what's happening with the Founder position, and I don't like that the process is being discussed on Facebook, of all sites. Zarasophos (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I too agree with both of the above. This process should be discussed on the wiki and Jimmy Wales should be involved in our governance for a long as wants to be. --Bduke (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The Board shouldn't be so quick to dismiss Jimmy's value to them. (To say nothing of Jimmy himself!) While he remains the public face of Wikipedia leadership (however ceremonial or powerless that role may be), he'll naturally act as a sponge for social commentary regarding the Foundation and how it's run. Without him, they could end up being the butt of jokes like this classic Streeter Seidell piece poking fun at Wikipedia's (at the time) progressively-expanding fundraising messages. As long as Jimmy remains the figurehead here, it'll always be his cocaine problem, instead of cocaine orgies in the boardroom. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• One does not simply kick Jimbo Wales. His account has the power to destroy the WMF, and one does not simply kick the founder. This isn't Discord. I also agree with NBB and FeRDYNC on WMF's poor decision. Firestar464 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• His account really got the power to destroy wikipedia ?? --Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is like relationship of Notch and Mojang, post-acquistion in 2014 (except Jimmy Wales appears to be in the right side of this situation). SMB99thx my edits! 11:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have served on a number of charity boards. 13 members is probably too many unless you are carrying some semi active members, but at least it is an odd number. 16 is definitely too many and increases the risk of a tied vote, and such votes are to be avoided, even if you give the chair an extra tie breaking vote. I have been on a board with 11 members, ten of whom were limited to two five year terms. That one worked very well with a nice mix of turnover and longevity and one or two new members a year. Institutional memory is not something I'd limit to one person - when I was in my tenth year on the charity i mentioned there were also people coming up to their 8th and 9th anniversaries. The Jimmy debate is probably best had on Meta rather than on EN wiki as my understanding was that the non-English speaking communities have less affinity with Jimbo than his fellow English speakers do. Losing control is a real risk with a non profit, I've seen it happen more than once myself. One option is to have a maximum number of independent places and a number of needed areas of expertise with independents only appointed when the community doesn't nominate someone with a particular needed skillset. When I was on the board of a charity with an endowment and reserves similar to Wikimedia's we had a policy of always having someone with investment experience on the board, for different reasons we also made sure we had a retired medical Dr. Arguably Wikimedia needs the former but doesn't have to have the latter. So you could agree a skill requirement, and if the community doesn't elect someone with that expertise, appoint an independent from outside. ϢereSpielChequers 13:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Place wouldn't be the same without Jimbo. He should stay as long as he wants. There are always things we don't like about the directions we go. And all we can do is hope they don't make us do stupid things. So I continue to hope. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 14:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I find the idea of reducing community influence and the removal of Jimmy very disturbing. Wikipedia, as one of the highest traffic sites, is always under the constant threat of being taken over by those who would like to monetize it. It is—and always will be—up to the community to defend Wikipedia from people who want to profit from it. It will need as much power as possible, and all the help it can get to do so. Jimmy could have made a large fortune out of Wikipedia, but chose not to. He has been a constant defender of "Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia". The community will continue to need his help, for as long as he is willing to give it. Perhaps we need an RFC about this? Paul August ☎ 10:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said, sir. I agree. This is very alarming. I support the idea of an RfC or whatever we can do to bring attention to this matter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Copy of my post from Jimbo's talk page:

Signpost article/ Founder's Seat / Makeup of the WMF board

Jimbo, you need to have two votes on the WMF board, not zero. You are the one that can be most trusted for keeping things from going awry. If you've ever made a big mistake, it was in approving that mess of of set By-Laws that the current ones are and which are facilitating the issue described in Signpost. They are basically the Constitution of WMF/Wikipedia. Just imagine if the US had a Constitution that said that congress could unilaterally change the constitution any way any time that they wanted. And that congress could make the rules any way that they want as to the makeup of congress and who gets to be in congress. And one of the rules that they made up is that half of the congressman are appointed by congress, not elected. The by-laws have fundamental problems that prevent self-correction and need repair. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone have any idea as to why the board really wants to remove Mr Wales (whether they may have anything to hide, like plans for selling Wikipedia) ? Is this a "both sides want to achieve the same goal in different ways situation" or do they have clearly different views on Wikipedia's future? This sounds somewhat like how Apple kicked out Steve Jobs. 45.251.33.78 (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look here you would see that there is a strong sentiment coming from the community that the founder seat is not needed anymore (with Jimmy replying to it). In the otiginal proposal, they did not say anything about the founder seat.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd just like to note that the strong sentiment to remove the founder seat is not exactly coming from the whole community, it's coming from the very small subsection that posted on that Meta page. This talk page seems to indicate that among Signpost readers, things are very much the other way around. Maybe there should be steps taken to see what the actual community at large thinks of this issue, if anything? Zarasophos (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely, I think the community is divided over the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As I suggested above an RFC might be a good thing. Paul August ☎ 14:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd support an RfC. Zarasophos (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter, and thanks for the link. But I think you have misunderstood me. I meant to ask whether anyone else believes that a portion of the WMF Board wants to remove some of Mr Wales' powers for some of their ulterior motives (maybe selling Wikipedia to Google? Or censoring Wikipedia to enter China?) and are using recent events as a front for their attempt. I know that it almost sounds like QAnon, but then again it is possible..... 45.251.33.78 (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Board seems to be proposing a lot of changes that not everyone is comfortable with, which together would make it less responsive to the volunteer communities. Maybe I'm too willing to see conspiracies where none exist, but it's getting harder to assume good faith here. -- llywrch (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As a starting minimum to everyone here...PLEASE GO REGISTER YOUR VIEWPOINTS on meta! (as well - I've been enjoying the discussion here, too) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Can you please give a link for that meta discussion? Paul August ☎ 14:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August: - m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/October 2020 - Proposed Bylaws changes is probably the most suited page. The whole "board rubric", which is part of the attempted end-run around community election, is on a different page Nosebagbear (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to register my opposition to these changes. However, the discussion on the page you've linked to seems to have ended (it was soliciting input back in October), & the primary center of discussion appears currently to be over at FaceBook, where many of us do not want to participate. It's as if the people pushing for these changes are moving where you can add input so to reduce the objections. -- llywrch (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FaceBook is a non-starter for me. Paul August ☎ 23:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well... at least to me, Enwiki feels like 'friendly territory' here in a way that Meta doesn't necessarily. —2d37 (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The talk on m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/October 2020 - Proposed Bylaws changes#Founder seat seems to be more along the lines of a non-voting Founder seat, where the quote from Sefidari in this article says "remove the founder seat". Pelagic ( messages ) – (15:59 Sat 05, AEDT) 04:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The only obvious reason why anybody would wish to eject Jimmy Wales and to ignore community wishes would be to enable whoever was left at the helm to drive the ship exactly as they pleased with no interference, i.e. a totalitarian putsch. Not a happy thought. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We will have to prepare for a Post-Jimbo era eventually. Jimbo isn't immortal, and he may retire at any time he wants. If the Wikimedia Foundation wants Wikipedia to be a long term project (talking about centuries here), we need a line of succession in place and also need plans to train new generations of Wikipedians. Many policies are just Jimbo's Word. We will need to codify them properly in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.6.205 (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@94.175.6.205: - what policies would you say exist through "Jimbo's word" and are followed but have not been codified? Given the rate of technological change, I would be amazed if we saw out one century, though that doesn't break the underlying point about succession planning. However, as a community (and the one most tied in to Jimbo) we have already done that. Power has been released steadily over time, but always with the community deciding we wanted it to go. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Spooky, Wikipedia should be run by the community not by the mighty hand of the Cabal. Although obviously all hail the Cabal. If new measures are taken that reduces the communities footprint and power that Wikipedians hold, if as an example bad actors start to get into Bureaucratic positions we will be powerless to fight them. I am firmly believe the community needs to run Wikipedia. We as editors, administrators, reviewers are the ones who create Wikipedia, and therefor we should be the main force running it. Then again this might be scare mongering, however it is spooky stuff. Des Vallee (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record: This piece made the front page of Hacker News on December 7; here is the discussion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This WMF statement from 24 Sep 2020 on freezing the rebranding until March 2021 seems to show that the WMF has been forced to accept community pressure, at least temporarily. The idea of Wikipedia being a brand is fundamentally opposed to the whole idea of Wikipedia: we aim to encourage knowledge, including its NPOV nuances and cross-links between different parts of knowledge, based on the best external sources that we can find and respectful but critical debate on editing the content, while branding is about encouraging emotional gut reactions and loyalty, and discouraging real knowledge. Boud (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As a small correction to the Arbitration Committee section: TonyBallioni has withdrawn from the election. Their name should be removed and the number of candidates updated to reflect this Asartea ^{Talk Contributions} 18:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I've changed it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]