Just 25 WCA Voting Members Can Force a Board Accountability Meeting
More than 5,300 people have signed a petition opposing the decision to remove Clock.
But ordinary competitors cannot directly vote out the WCA Board.
Under the WCA bylaws, voting power belongs to a much smaller group: Full Delegates, Committee and Team Leaders, Committee and Team Senior Members, directors, and officers. Regular competitors are non-voting members.
Here is the important part:
A petition signed by just 5% of voting members can call a special meeting.
Based on public WCA staffing numbers, that appears to be roughly 25 people, although the exact number depends on the current list of eligible voting members.
Those 25 people would not remove the Board by themselves. They would force the accountability question onto the table.
At that meeting, quorum requires at least one-third of all voting members to be present. If quorum is met, directors can be removed with or without cause by a majority vote of the members present.
That means the path is real:
Find roughly 25 voting members to call the meeting.
Get enough voting members to attend so quorum is met.
Then hold a majority vote on whether the current Board should remain in office.
The current Board members responsible for this decision are Abdullah Gulab, Sachin Arvind, Glib Vedmid, Oliver Hexter, Rubén López de Juan.
The Board announced that Clock will be removed after Worlds 2027. The community response has been overwhelming. More than 5,300 people have said this decision badly misreads the community.
I am not a WCA voting member, so I cannot start this process myself.
But WCA voting members can.
Just 25 delegates.
But why should the WCA Board be removed?
Not because they made a difficult decision.
Not because people disagree with them.
Because the Board's most important responsibility is to serve and represent the speedcubing community.
The WCA's own purpose is to "empower the global speedcubing community and uphold a fun and fair competitive environment for all." Its stated values include Community, Fairness, Fun, Excellence, and Volunteerism.
Yet on one of the most consequential decisions in WCA history, the Board appears to have badly misread the community it exists to serve.
More than 5,300 people have publicly opposed this decision.
And it is not just competitors.
Roman Wofford, a member of the Competition Events Working Group, publicly stated:
> "I learned about this decision several days before it became public and I fought extremely hard to have them reconsider."
> "This was a decision solely made by the WCA’s Executives with no advisory input from the CEWG, and against the interests of the survey results."
> "I'm extremely disgusted and rather demoralized on this decision and it seriously makes me reconsider my role in the WCA."
> "This is a horrible, horrible decision by the Board and I highly recommend you voice your displeasure as loudly as possible."
If Roman's account is accurate, then this was not simply a controversial decision. It was a decision made over the objections of people tasked with advising on competition events, and contrary to survey feedback gathered from the community.
Whether you love Clock or hate Clock is beside the point.
The question is whether the current WCA Board still has the confidence of the community it serves.
In my view, the answer is no.
That is why WCA voting members should use the process available to them, call a special meeting, and allow the community's representatives to decide whether Abdullah Gulab, Sachin Arvind, Glib Vedmid, Oliver Hexter, Rubén López de Juan should remain in office.
If the Board still has the confidence of the voting membership, let them prove it.
If they do not, it is time for new leadership - the bylaws provide a path for new leadership.
Please forward this post to a delegate!