Optional: write a lede — not necessarily a WP:LEAD. Interesting > encyclopedic.

Conflict of Interest note – Some of these comments directly discuss The Signpost. The writers and editors of The Signpost did not consult or confer with any interviewees in writing this piece, beyond posing the interview questions.

TKTK - Alter WP:LEDE accordingly

During the 2025 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections, 6 candidates out of 12 were shortlisted for the final voting. Days before the voting began, the Board of Trustees announced the disqualification of two candidates, Lane Rasberry and Ravan J Al-Taie.

This has led to protests, boycotts of the elections, as well as multiple community discussions calling for reform. The full timeline of events can be read at Special Report.

In this article, we interview the two disqualified candidates, as well as two sitting BoT members.

1. According to BoT member Victoria Doronina, you were disqualified because you were "going to disclose non-public financial information".

I advocate for openness, which means making public information accessible. Openness does not mean making private information public.

2. The Signpost and your journalistic background is also brought up as another source of Conflict of Interest for you. In your opinion, how should the BoT/WMF deal with such conflicts?

The dilemma is that candidates will only win the election if they are active participants in Wikimedia community organizations, but since those organizations have a conflict of interest with the Wikimedia Foundation, our system requires that election winners cease community activities which lead to election. In my case, I offered to resolve conflict by quitting The Signpost and collaborating with the Wikimedia Foundation to quit or manage other identified conflicts.

3. During this removal process, the community often has not understood what happened at all. Based on the post by BoT chair Nataliia Tymkiv, the BoT have provided you a summary of their decision, but are okay if you share with the community. Would you like to share any of their concerns to the community?

I have asked the Wikimedia Foundation to share all these details. The Wikimedia Foundation has asked me to not publish the emails they sent. Because The Signpost itself is part of this story, I shared the emails with my colleagues here on the editorial team and asked them to respect the Wikimedia Foundation's wish to keep the information private.

4. Multiple communities are protesting the current BoT election, and reforming the entire process. Ideally, what should such a reform involve?

I am confident that the Wikimedia Foundation can tell the story of where we are going next.

Writer's Note – This was a general note appended to the interview responses

I talked with the Wikimedia Foundation to review points in the initial message which I posted, and from then, this has been the Wikimedia Foundation's story to tell. They have advised me to not comment further, and I respect that.

5. Without breaking confidentiality, could you clarify what "They have advised me to not comment further" implies? What are the WMF expectations from Candidates/you regarding the confidentiality of these processes?

The Wikimedia Foundation asked for me to not talk about the election. They specifically asked that I not publish the reasons they gave me for removing me from the ballot. This is the Wikimedia Foundation’s story to tell and I respect that.

1. During this BoT election cycle, you have been the subject of attacks from politically motivated media outlets. In your opinion, what should have been the WMF/community's ideal response to that?

Yes, I was unfortunately targeted by politically motivated media outlets during this election. It was painful to see my words and personal beliefs twisted and used to question my integrity and my commitment to the Wikimedia mission. Those attacks were not just about me personally, they also misrepresented what our movement stands for: openness, diversity, and respect for different voices. Throughout that period, I chose to stay silent, not because I agreed with what was said, but because I believed that responding publicly would only feed the attacks and harm the Foundation’s reputation. I trusted that integrity and truth would speak for themselves.

In my opinion, the ideal response from the Foundation and community should have been one of clear and principled support for those values, publicly reaffirming that political intimidation or external pressure should never influence internal governance or the fair treatment of community members. A transparent, factual statement distancing the Foundation from politically driven narratives would have both protected the integrity of the election process and sent a strong signal of support for freedom of expression and diversity within our movement.

I truly hope that in the future, when any Wikimedian faces similar external pressure, our institutions can respond with clarity and compassion, protecting both the individual and the integrity of our shared mission.

2. According to BoT member Victoria Doronina, you were disqualified because "the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity". Do you believe that was a disqualifiable metric? Would you like to address her concerns?

I do not believe that "the risks for the public reputation of WMF outweigh the risks to gender equity" is a valid or objective metric for disqualification. In fact, I find such reasoning deeply concerning, as it suggests that external political pressures or public narratives could override the Foundation’s long-standing commitment to fairness, inclusion, and diversity, values that are meant to protect rather than penalize individuals for their identity or opinions expressed in good faith.

My advocacy has always been rooted in empathy and human rights, never in partisanship. To frame that as a "risk" to the Foundation’s reputation not only misrepresents my intent but also sets a troubling precedent, one where silence in the face of injustice becomes safer than compassion.

I believe our movement is strongest when it embraces courageous, ethical voices that reflect our shared human values. Reputational integrity should come from standing by those principles, not distancing ourselves from them.

3. During this removal process, the community often has not understood what happened at all. Based on the post by BoT chair Nataliia Tymkiv, the BoT have provided you a summary of their decision, but are okay if you share with the community. Would you like to share any of their concerns to the community?

I prefer not to go into details about the internal deliberations or the specific concerns raised by the Board, as I continue to respect the confidentiality of the process and the mutual understanding I had with the Board Chair and the Foundation’s leadership.

What I can say is that I fully acknowledge the community’s confusion and concern about the lack of clarity surrounding my exclusion. From my side, I have always aimed to act in good faith, maintain transparency, and uphold the values of fairness and trust that our movement stands for.

Unfortunately, some public statements made by others have misrepresented the situation and disclosed confidential information without my consent, which has further complicated community understanding. I believe that institutional matters should be addressed through proper channels, not through speculation or public disclosure of private discussions.

My focus remains on ensuring that our processes are fair, respectful, and in line with the movement principles of integrity and equity.

4. Follow-up question. Without breaking confidentiality, could you clarify what was the "mutual understanding I had with the Board Chair and the Foundation's leadership"?

The mutual understanding I had with the Board Chair and the Foundation's leadership was that the reasons behind my exclusion would not be discussed publicly, and I agreed not to comment in order to avoid any inconvenience to the Foundation and the movement. I fully respected this agreement until I was surprised to see Victoria publicly sharing misinformation, which has unfortunately misled many Wikimedians.

Writer's Note – Ravan has started a U4C case against Victoria for breach of UCoC because of these comments.

5. Multiple communities are protesting the current BoT election, and reforming the entire process. Ideally, what should such a reform involve?

I think the protests show something important, that many community members feel unheard or unsure about how decisions are being made. Any reform should focus on rebuilding trust through clarity, fairness, and participation.

Ideally, the process should be more transparent about how candidates are evaluated, include stronger community involvement, and offer a fair way to question or appeal decisions. It should also protect candidates from external attacks or political pressure.

In the end, it's not just about changing procedures, it's about restoring confidence that our movement truly lives by its values of openness, equity, and respect.

Writer's Note – BoT member Maciej and BoT chair-elect Lorenzo elected to answer all the questions at once. They also cited this further comment from Lorenzo on behalf of the Board.

1. During this removal process, the community often has not understood what happened at all. Based on the post by BoT chair Nataliia Tymkiv, the BoT have provided the candidates a summary of their decision, but do not consider it confidential, should the candidates choose to share them with the community. Could you confirm this? Is there anything else about either candidacy that you want to speak on, personally? Or on behalf of the Board as a whole?

2. A significant concern throughout this process has been the lack of transparency from the Board of Trustees, with nearly all of the sitting 12 BoT members making a singular comment, or none at all. How much are BoT members encouraged to comment on matters in their personal capacity? Some community members consider such a "strongly unified board" to imply the BoT is also "vetting for unanimity".

3. These disqualifications happened after the Affiliates had already shortlisted 6 candidates. Additionally, there are concerns raised about the "Board of Trustees Review Process" policy being passed days before you announced these disqualifications. Community members have felt blindsided by this decision, and called changing the rules during the campaigning period as out of process.

4. In his comments, Lane indicated that BoT offered him "training to get [him] ready to the standard that they expect of candidates". Why was his candidacy disqualifying enough to warrant immediate removal, but not so severe that it could be improved over time?

5. In her comments, Ravan discussed a "smear campaign" and indicated that the BoT "may have relied on this biased and inaccurate article in forming their views or actions".

6. Multiple communities are protesting the current BoT election, and discussing reforming the entire process. Is the BoT open to reform? What concessions would the BoT be willing to make should such a process happen?

Since the announcement of the final ballot and further messages, we have been closely following conversations over the past week. We agree with the sentiments that we do not have an ideal process for board selection, and as such, we are continuously reviewing it and attempting improvements. We welcome suggestions on how to change this process for the next election here on this talk page.

Order of the current checks

When the board announced the final ballot, we shared the steps we took to improve our processes this year. As in past years, this included background checks, media checks, reference checks, and an interview with members of the Board’s Governance Committee. A change was made to the order in which these things happened (announced in August), and the checks were applied to the whole group of the shortlisted candidates, not just to the ones who received the most votes.

We wanted to learn from past decisions and avoid a situation where the Board is unable to implement the outcome following the community vote. There was always a possibility in the past that the candidates who got the most votes would not pass the background checks and vetting. Luckily, that did not happen in the past, but in good governance, one has to rely on established processes and procedures. Taking into consideration the needs of the board and the higher level of scrutiny our work globally is facing, our decision was to make changes in the order of the process to make sure that the board can seat anyone on the final ballot elected by volunteers. And to avoid people voting for a candidate that we would not be able to seat this year.

We also shared how the candidates were assessed, including more subjective criteria like a candidate's judgment, discernment, discretion, and ability to engage in the duties and requirements of being a Trustee, some of which can be complex and difficult to measure. Our decision as a Board was based entirely on these factors, and no others, as also clarified in the follow-up.

Reasons

Not unlike many selection processes (or even hiring processes) across organizations globally, it is a best practice to explain the process and not appropriate to discuss specific reasons for why people may or may not be selected. In accordance with this, the Board will not be answering specific questions or releasing information about individual people.

Decision-making on the board

We also said that the decision was unanimous. The results of the candidates' vetting process, their interviews and other relevant information went through a round of discussion in the Governance Committee, which is responsible for overseeing the elections. There was a debate about the possible decisions, following which the Governance Committee members voted unanimously to recommend a decision to the full Board. The full board also had a debate, and the decision was unanimous at the end of the discussion. We made this difficult decision as a collective of Trustees, each of us with our own views, and after an active debate and a process which took weeks to complete, we reached a difficult, but unanimous agreement on the final ballot. The whole role of the Board is to exercise judgement, and this was us doing our duty.

Let me be clear: the board does not conduct "vetting for unanimity". As mentioned above, dissent is not uncommon, but each board member needs to be able to work with the board, even if their opinion is against the majority of the body. This is how a board needs to work: with diverse opinions, different perspectives, and difficult debates, but then collectively agree to make and stick to difficult decisions. The Board has always had members – historic and current – who have been critics of the Foundation and of the Board itself. This is the nature of our governance system, and this will not change. This commitment to diversity makes us a stronger movement and, we believe, a stronger Board.

Training

Each of the removed candidates received a list of concerns from the Board. It included topics that could help candidates develop for the future, including participation in future board elections and other leadership roles.

More broadly, we are actively building avenues for community members to develop governance skills: for example, last year, all Board candidates (including us) participated in a full-day workshop during Wikimania, as well as a few online sessions. The sessions included working on strategy and the duties and responsibilities required of Trustees. This year, the training was broadened to include the members of the Global Resource Distribution Council. Some training sessions are also offered to sitting Trustees to enhance their skills and capabilities. The specific concerns and areas for development were communicated to each candidate following a call and a series of written discussions.

Writer's Note – We have sent the following follow-up questions to the BoT members. As of the time of writing, there has been no response.

7. From the Point of View of the candidates, how confidential is this? Are BoT candidates not permitted to comment on the elections? The public and private statements on this from WMF/BoT on this contradict or are very unclear.

8. Many in the community lost faith in BoT because of transparency. Community members do not feel heard by BoT, and the comments from sitting BoT members are often sanitized to the point of losing meaning entirely. What specific measures will the Board take to improve this transparency and restore trust with the community?

9. The Board has committed to reform in the past, only to veto or reject any specific measures. What specific improvements are the BoT willing to consider? Will the BoT accept external oversight? How does the community guarantee this is not empty talk?