Mailing List Archive

Dear Patricio Lorente,

You can read a neat summary of Arnnon Geshuri's part in unlawful
activities at Google at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri. This
included Geshuri encouraging other organizations to take part in the
anticompetitive scheme, and firing Google employees who failed to
comply with the unlawful policies he implemented. It was determined in
court that Geshuri's actions damaged the careers of thousands of
people.

There is no doubt that Arnnon Geshuri should resign as a trustee for
the Wikimedia Foundation, and your board made a serious mistake in his
appointment. It is time for an independent governance review to shine
light on these problems.

I look forward to your public statement.

Fae


On 7 January 2016 at 10:38, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Patricio Lorente,
>
> I request that the WMF board take immediate action to publish a
> comprehensive account of why you appointed Geshuri as a trustee,
> despite his direct involvement and being named as a defendant in the
> on-going scandal of anticompetitive agreements at Google, or that
> Geshuri chooses to step down from his new position of trust.
>
> This is being separated out as an open letter to the board in a new
> discussion thread, to avoid getting confused with other issues. In the
> light of recent challenges to the WMF with regard to a dramatic loss
> of confidence in their senior management and the politicking behind
> the loss of James Heilman as a trustee openly advocating for
> transparency to the actions of the WMF board, Geshuri's background
> with anticompetitive practices can only damage confidence in the WMF
> board with regard to their duty to hold WMF senior management to
> account and acting with the highest possible accountability and public
> transparency.
>
> Links showing Geshuri's public footprint on this issue:
> 1. http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini
> 2. http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Antitrust/Apple-Google-Silicon-Valley-No-Cold-Calling.shtml
> 3. http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/23/google-shareholders-miffed-over-wage-fight.htm
> 4. https://www.quora.com/How-is-Arnnon-Geshuri-current-VP-HR-at-Tesla-and-former-chief-architect-of-staffing-at-Google-good-at-what-he-does
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Fae
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andrew Green <agreen@wikimedia.org>
> Date: 7 January 2016 at 08:58
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Interesting to note Arnnon's role in the Silicon Valley anti-poaching
> affair: http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini
>
> - Andrew
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

If it is true what is wroten thre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri

... then i think that Arnnon Geshuri schould be removed from the board ASAP.


With best regards,

> From: faewik@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:31:38 +0000
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; WMFboard@wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google
>
> Dear Patricio Lorente,
>
> You can read a neat summary of Arnnon Geshuri's part in unlawful
> activities at Google at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri. This
> included Geshuri encouraging other organizations to take part in the
> anticompetitive scheme, and firing Google employees who failed to
> comply with the unlawful policies he implemented. It was determined in
> court that Geshuri's actions damaged the careers of thousands of
> people.
>
> There is no doubt that Arnnon Geshuri should resign as a trustee for
> the Wikimedia Foundation, and your board made a serious mistake in his
> appointment. It is time for an independent governance review to shine
> light on these problems.
>
> I look forward to your public statement.
>
> Fae
>
>
> On 7 January 2016 at 10:38, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Patricio Lorente,
> >
> > I request that the WMF board take immediate action to publish a
> > comprehensive account of why you appointed Geshuri as a trustee,
> > despite his direct involvement and being named as a defendant in the
> > on-going scandal of anticompetitive agreements at Google, or that
> > Geshuri chooses to step down from his new position of trust.
> >
> > This is being separated out as an open letter to the board in a new
> > discussion thread, to avoid getting confused with other issues. In the
> > light of recent challenges to the WMF with regard to a dramatic loss
> > of confidence in their senior management and the politicking behind
> > the loss of James Heilman as a trustee openly advocating for
> > transparency to the actions of the WMF board, Geshuri's background
> > with anticompetitive practices can only damage confidence in the WMF
> > board with regard to their duty to hold WMF senior management to
> > account and acting with the highest possible accountability and public
> > transparency.
> >
> > Links showing Geshuri's public footprint on this issue:
> > 1. http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini
> > 2. http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Antitrust/Apple-Google-Silicon-Valley-No-Cold-Calling.shtml
> > 3. http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/23/google-shareholders-miffed-over-wage-fight.htm
> > 4. https://www.quora.com/How-is-Arnnon-Geshuri-current-VP-HR-at-Tesla-and-former-chief-architect-of-staffing-at-Google-good-at-what-he-does
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> > Fae
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Andrew Green <agreen@wikimedia.org>
> > Date: 7 January 2016 at 08:58
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >
> >
> > Interesting to note Arnnon's role in the Silicon Valley anti-poaching
> > affair: http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini
> >
> > - Andrew
> --
> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

(FYI) ... there is a discussion about Arnnon Geshuri at german signpost talkpage as well https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Das_neue_Kuratoriumsmittglied_Arnnon_Geshuri

> From: steinsplitter-wiki@live.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:37:41 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google
>
> If it is true what is wroten thre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri
>
> ... then i think that Arnnon Geshuri schould be removed from the board ASAP.
>
>
> With best regards,
>
> > From: faewik@gmail.com
> > Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:31:38 +0000
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; WMFboard@wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google
> >
> > Dear Patricio Lorente,
> >
> > You can read a neat summary of Arnnon Geshuri's part in unlawful
> > activities at Google at
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri. This
> > included Geshuri encouraging other organizations to take part in the
> > anticompetitive scheme, and firing Google employees who failed to
> > comply with the unlawful policies he implemented. It was determined in
> > court that Geshuri's actions damaged the careers of thousands of
> > people.
> >
> > There is no doubt that Arnnon Geshuri should resign as a trustee for
> > the Wikimedia Foundation, and your board made a serious mistake in his
> > appointment. It is time for an independent governance review to shine
> > light on these problems.
> >
> > I look forward to your public statement.
> >
> > Fae
> >
> >
> > On 7 January 2016 at 10:38, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dear Patricio Lorente,
> > >
> > > I request that the WMF board take immediate action to publish a
> > > comprehensive account of why you appointed Geshuri as a trustee,
> > > despite his direct involvement and being named as a defendant in the
> > > on-going scandal of anticompetitive agreements at Google, or that
> > > Geshuri chooses to step down from his new position of trust.
> > >
> > > This is being separated out as an open letter to the board in a new
> > > discussion thread, to avoid getting confused with other issues. In the
> > > light of recent challenges to the WMF with regard to a dramatic loss
> > > of confidence in their senior management and the politicking behind
> > > the loss of James Heilman as a trustee openly advocating for
> > > transparency to the actions of the WMF board, Geshuri's background
> > > with anticompetitive practices can only damage confidence in the WMF
> > > board with regard to their duty to hold WMF senior management to
> > > account and acting with the highest possible accountability and public
> > > transparency.
> > >
> > > Links showing Geshuri's public footprint on this issue:
> > > 1. http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini
> > > 2. http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Antitrust/Apple-Google-Silicon-Valley-No-Cold-Calling.shtml
> > > 3. http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/23/google-shareholders-miffed-over-wage-fight.htm
> > > 4. https://www.quora.com/How-is-Arnnon-Geshuri-current-VP-HR-at-Tesla-and-former-chief-architect-of-staffing-at-Google-good-at-what-he-does
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely,
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Andrew Green <agreen@wikimedia.org>
> > > Date: 7 January 2016 at 08:58
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >
> > >
> > > Interesting to note Arnnon's role in the Silicon Valley anti-poaching
> > > affair: http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini
> > >
> > > - Andrew
> > --
> > faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

The resolutions and voting records for these recent appointments have not
yet been posted to https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions

Could the page please be brought up to date?
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

My apologies. I just noticed the resolutions were in fact added on January
6, 2016.[1]

They are dated December 9, 2015. Both appointments were unanimous.

[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&diff=104423&oldid=104354

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:

> The resolutions and voting records for these recent appointments have not
> yet been posted to https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
>
> Could the page please be brought up to date?
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I'm going to publicly second (or third, or fifth,) the idea that given
Arnnon's role in an incident involving illegal anti-poaching agreements he
should either be removed from the board with haste, or the board should
publish an incredibly good reason as to why he should remain on it. Keep
in mind that Arnnon wasn't a bystander to this scandal, he actively fired a
recruiter who failed to follow the terms of an illegal anti-poaching
agreement in less than one hour of being informed about it in the first
place. I like to think of Wikimedia as a relatively humane movement, and
there are very few situations where I'm comfortable with someone who is
that comfortable with the idea of firing an employee (who had presumably
been there for some time) within sixty minutes of learning the employee
didn't follow an illegal agreement having the degree of influence over the
movement that members of the Board of Trustees have.

The Wikimedia movement is not a movement whose direction should be set by
someone with that degree of callousness - and the fact that he happily
participated in the sort of anti-competitive agreement he did, which he
must have known was illegal and which exposed his former employers to not
insignificant liability, brings forth significant doubt as to whether or
not he can reasonably be trusted to carry out his fiduciary duties as a
trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.

----
Kevin Gorman

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:

> My apologies. I just noticed the resolutions were in fact added on January
> 6, 2016.[1]
>
> They are dated December 9, 2015. Both appointments were unanimous.
>
> [1]
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&diff=104423&oldid=104354
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The resolutions and voting records for these recent appointments have not
> > yet been posted to https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
> >
> > Could the page please be brought up to date?
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Le 08/01/16 17:43, Kevin Gorman a écrit :
> I'm going to publicly second (or third, or fifth,) the idea that given
> Arnnon's role in an incident involving illegal anti-poaching agreements he
> should either be removed from the board with haste, or the board should
> publish an incredibly good reason as to why he should remain on it. Keep
> in mind that Arnnon wasn't a bystander to this scandal, he actively fired a
> recruiter who failed to follow the terms of an illegal anti-poaching
> agreement in less than one hour of being informed about it in the first
> place. I like to think of Wikimedia as a relatively humane movement, and
> there are very few situations where I'm comfortable with someone who is
> that comfortable with the idea of firing an employee (who had presumably
> been there for some time) within sixty minutes of learning the employee
> didn't follow an illegal agreement having the degree of influence over the
> movement that members of the Board of Trustees have.
>
> The Wikimedia movement is not a movement whose direction should be set by
> someone with that degree of callousness - and the fact that he happily
> participated in the sort of anti-competitive agreement he did, which he
> must have known was illegal and which exposed his former employers to not
> insignificant liability, brings forth significant doubt as to whether or
> not he can reasonably be trusted to carry out his fiduciary duties as a
> trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> ----
> Kevin Gorman

We can't be certain that he "happily" participated to that illegal
anti-competitive agreement.

But except for the use of that "happily" word, I fully support Kevin
statement.


Anthere

PS: another bed book :
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Upon hearing of Arnnon's history at Google, I confess to being surprised to
the point of a long silence.

If these news reports are true, this is disturbing to say the least.
Whether he was happy about it or not, it appears that he chose to
participate in illegal activity in a prominent role as a "Senior Staffing
Strategist", and described a Google employee's noncompliance with the
illegal scheme as "an error in judgment". I cannot think of an excuse from
an HR professional that I would accept for this.

Dariusz, you said in your statement that was published in the Wikimedia
Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over the world,
with not-for-profit and technology experience, and the highest professional
standards.” I would be interested to hear how you reconcile "highest
professional standards" with the prior actions of Arnnon,

Lila, you said that "Kelly and Arnnon bring a special combination of
expertise, integrity, and love for our mission." I am interested in hearing
how you reconcile this assessment with the reports about Arnnon's role in
this illegal scheme at Google.

Looking at the WMF situation more broadly in light of the Board's removal
of James and its surrounding circumstances, I am very disappointed with
what we are learning and I am losing confidence in the governance of WMF. I
am considering strategic options for the community.

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dariusz, you said in your statement that was published in the Wikimedia
> Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over the world,
> with not-for-profit and technology experience, and the highest professional
> standards.” I would be interested to hear how you reconcile "highest
> professional standards" with the prior actions of Arnnon,
>

I have read about these allegations today, and I am going to follow up on
that. I don't have an opinion formed, as jumping to conclusions is
definitely not just to people. I can assure you that in the whole process
Arnnon's expertise, professionalism, as well as technological connection
were clearly outstanding (but obviously we have not discussed this case).

best,

dariusz





--

__________________________
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i grupy badawczej NeRDS
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://n <http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl/>wrds.kozminski.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I wish the best for the new board, and for the movement. But I am
troubled to learn of this.

I have always welcomed the appointed seats on the board--in my
experience they brought useful perspectives and experience with their
view from the outside, and I don't expect them all to begin their
tenure as perfect representatives of the priorities and ideals of the
Wikimedia movement as the community-selected members are.

But as they are full voting members, participating in all decisions,
we have always expected them to share key values, and probably the
most important of those is integrity. It's always hard to judge
beforehand; what you really really want to know is how someone would
act in a situation they haven't yet been faced with. But if the news
reports are true (or even just mostly true) about Arnnon Geshuri's
role in the staffing scandal, then this is a disappointing choice by
the WMF board. (Of course, someone who refused to go along with it
probably would not have been visible to the selection
committee--uncompromising ethical standards make it much harder to get
and keep a position of responsibility and expertise in most
organizations; the exceptions exist but less commonly than I'd wish,
and I hope we're among them. But this is probably a systematic failure
in recruiting for us.)

The reason this bothers me so much--enough to break my list
silence--is that I think integrity is the most important and most
difficult thing for a board member of this organization. One of the
key things that distinguishes Wikimedia from other entities is that it
does not take the easy path: it does not sell the privacy of users, it
does not make restricted content deals, it does not believe influence
over content or governance should be able to be bought. If these
decisions were easy and came without tradeoffs or pressures everyone
would make them, but they don't; we see all over that Wikimedia is an
outlier, not the norm, while others make decisions that look good in
the short term but are damaging in the long term. Organizations with
tremendous reach and influence--such as Google and Wikipedia--have a
great responsibility not to take actions that systematically harm the
people that rely on them. To know that someone at such an organization
participated in something unethical in this way does not give me great
confidence in them for leadership in Wikimedia.

I don't envy the current board the problems they are faced with, and
recognize the difficulty in recruiting for it given the level of
commitment involved--and I don't doubt that the new appointee has much
to recommend him. But despite the wealth of experience he would bring,
if the situation is as it seems to be, I cannot be supportive of this
choice.

-Kat

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> Upon hearing of Arnnon's history at Google, I confess to being surprised to
> the point of a long silence.
>
> If these news reports are true, this is disturbing to say the least.
> Whether he was happy about it or not, it appears that he chose to
> participate in illegal activity in a prominent role as a "Senior Staffing
> Strategist", and described a Google employee's noncompliance with the
> illegal scheme as "an error in judgment". I cannot think of an excuse from
> an HR professional that I would accept for this.
>
> Dariusz, you said in your statement that was published in the Wikimedia
> Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over the world,
> with not-for-profit and technology experience, and the highest professional
> standards.” I would be interested to hear how you reconcile "highest
> professional standards" with the prior actions of Arnnon,
>
> Lila, you said that "Kelly and Arnnon bring a special combination of
> expertise, integrity, and love for our mission." I am interested in hearing
> how you reconcile this assessment with the reports about Arnnon's role in
> this illegal scheme at Google.
>
> Looking at the WMF situation more broadly in light of the Board's removal
> of James and its surrounding circumstances, I am very disappointed with
> what we are learning and I am losing confidence in the governance of WMF. I
> am considering strategic options for the community.
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dariusz, you said in your statement that was published in the Wikimedia
>> Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over the world,
>> with not-for-profit and technology experience, and the highest professional
>> standards.” I would be interested to hear how you reconcile "highest
>> professional standards" with the prior actions of Arnnon,
>
> I have read about these allegations today, and I am going to follow up on
> that. I don't have an opinion formed, as jumping to conclusions is
> definitely not just to people. I can assure you that in the whole process
> Arnnon's expertise, professionalism, as well as technological connection
> were clearly outstanding (but obviously we have not discussed this case).

Sorry for being harsh, but this is very lame.

The process of selecting Board-appointed seats has significant flaw,
which has the basis in very limited number of people involved in that.
This was true during the NomCom existence, as well.

The main problem with involvement of small number of people in the
selection procedure is related to the question how one person would
react if not selected. However, if it's totally open process, with
defined rules, I don't think anyone would feel particularly offended.

I suggest you the next procedure:

1) Define what you want from those four seats. Let's say: Seat one
should deal with HR, seat two should deal with climate change and
animal rights, seat three should deal with... Three of four selected
seats should be women (as we tend to elect men). And so on.

2) Give community a framework to propose, discuss and order the
candidates per seat. Find a curator, who would eliminate inappropriate
candidates (Election Committee?). For example, if you really care
about climate change and animal rights, it would be inappropriate to
select one of the Koch brothers in that place.

3) Invent a fair algorithm how to approach those people, ordered
inside of the list.

And you won't be surprised with issues like this one is.

Optionally, you could have typed his name into Google and browse to
the bottom of the first page. However, that requires super powers and
it's not reasonable to require that from the Board members. Thus,
sticking with the plan described above should work better.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

You'll find the allegations to be true, Dariusz. Although the link
provided was just to Pando, the internal email from Arnnon was released by
court order - and the entire anti-solicitation fiasco has been fairly
widely covered in the US tech news. I knew I recognized Arnnon's name from
somewhere, I just didn't remember where immediately. It recently resulted
in a $435 million settlement for employees of the the companies involved
due to lost competitive wages. There's also an ongoing shareholder lawsuit
about it still. Besides the news coverage, really, the damning thing is
just the direct emails. They were unsealed by the judge and a copy is
hosted here:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1019489/google-email-chain.pdf -
although you can also get a copy from PACER if you want a 100% verified one.

They show in Arnnon's own words that (a) he's willing to participate in an
illegal anti-solicitation agreement, and (b) he's willing to
instantaneously fire any employee who violates that illegal
anti-solicitation agreement. I know WMF has benefited from it's
relationship with Google historically... but in terms of board members, I
really think we need people who are not just talented but who uphold the
values of the movement - and I don't think Arnnon's behavior as covered in
the media and in the case filings do that. Also, since we're appointing a
fiduciary, it seems like it might not be the best idea to appoint a
fiduciary whose actions at another company were part of a chain of actions
that resulted in a $435 million settlement. That's a lot of Jimmyeyes from
the corner of my screen.

I'm additionally kind of worried because... this really should have come up
in background vetting of potential board members. Since there's
information explicitly about it within the first couple pages of any search
engine, this suggests that the process involved in vetting potential board
members didn't involve digging deep in to their backgrounds at all. Hiring
for pretty much *any* position should normally involve at least a cursory
scan of the internet to see if they are, say, a wanted fugitive, or
participated in illegal anti-competitive behavior like this in the past to
the point that it resulted in a settlement that large (and that is just for
the employees of the companies involved, several shareholder lawsuits are
ongoing.)

Here's a recent lawsuit from shareholders related to it. Keep in mind that
these are just allegations by the shareholders, but they're pretty well
supported by the court-ordered released emails -
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Googpoach.pdf - and a
class action by employees of the companies involved recently settled for
$435 million in lost competitive wages due to the illegal anti-solicitation
agreement.

"Defendant Arnnon Geshuri (“Geshuri”) has served as Google’s Director of
Recruiting at all times relevant to this lawsuit. Defendant Geshuri was
involved in developing and perpetuating the illegal collusive scheme
alleged herein. Defendant Geshuri knowingly, recklessly, or with gross
negligence: (i) oversaw the creation of the protocols governing
anticompetitive hiring agreements between Google and other companies; (ii)
caused or allowed Google to enter into such illegal anticompetitive
agreements; (iii) allowed Defendants Page, Brin, and Schmidt to dominate
and control the Google Board of Directors with little or no effective
oversight; and (iv) failed to implement adequate internal controls to
ensure that Google complied with federal laws and regulations"

Even though those are allegations from an unsettled shareholder lawsuit,
since the employee class action was settled for $435m and there are
extensive details of what went on in the settement documents, I'd give that
paragraph a bit more credence than I would a paragraph from an average
unsettled lawsuit. I'm sure that Arnnon is personally skilled, I just
really don't feel that his behavior as described in the settled class
action/documents related to it/the general news media is in line with the
values of the Wikimedia movement.

Best,
Kevin Gorman

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dariusz, you said in your statement that was published in the Wikimedia
> > Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over the world,
> > with not-for-profit and technology experience, and the highest
> professional
> > standards.” I would be interested to hear how you reconcile "highest
> > professional standards" with the prior actions of Arnnon,
> >
>
> I have read about these allegations today, and I am going to follow up on
> that. I don't have an opinion formed, as jumping to conclusions is
> definitely not just to people. I can assure you that in the whole process
> Arnnon's expertise, professionalism, as well as technological connection
> were clearly outstanding (but obviously we have not discussed this case).
>
> best,
>
> dariusz
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> __________________________
> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> i grupy badawczej NeRDS
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://n <http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl/>wrds.kozminski.edu.pl
>
> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>
> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>
> Recenzje
> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> Pacific Standard:
> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
> The Wikipedian:
> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Now this is something that's worthy of being dismissed (involuntarily, if
necessary) from the WMF board. This individual clearly does not meet our
community values of transparency and honesty, or at least such is in
serious question.

Is the Board considering doing so, or reading this at all? It's really time
to open up, not close the ranks.

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman@gmail.com> wrote:

> You'll find the allegations to be true, Dariusz. Although the link
> provided was just to Pando, the internal email from Arnnon was released by
> court order - and the entire anti-solicitation fiasco has been fairly
> widely covered in the US tech news. I knew I recognized Arnnon's name from
> somewhere, I just didn't remember where immediately. It recently resulted
> in a $435 million settlement for employees of the the companies involved
> due to lost competitive wages. There's also an ongoing shareholder lawsuit
> about it still. Besides the news coverage, really, the damning thing is
> just the direct emails. They were unsealed by the judge and a copy is
> hosted here:
> https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1019489/google-email-chain.pdf
> -
> although you can also get a copy from PACER if you want a 100% verified
> one.
>
> They show in Arnnon's own words that (a) he's willing to participate in an
> illegal anti-solicitation agreement, and (b) he's willing to
> instantaneously fire any employee who violates that illegal
> anti-solicitation agreement. I know WMF has benefited from it's
> relationship with Google historically... but in terms of board members, I
> really think we need people who are not just talented but who uphold the
> values of the movement - and I don't think Arnnon's behavior as covered in
> the media and in the case filings do that. Also, since we're appointing a
> fiduciary, it seems like it might not be the best idea to appoint a
> fiduciary whose actions at another company were part of a chain of actions
> that resulted in a $435 million settlement. That's a lot of Jimmyeyes from
> the corner of my screen.
>
> I'm additionally kind of worried because... this really should have come up
> in background vetting of potential board members. Since there's
> information explicitly about it within the first couple pages of any search
> engine, this suggests that the process involved in vetting potential board
> members didn't involve digging deep in to their backgrounds at all. Hiring
> for pretty much *any* position should normally involve at least a cursory
> scan of the internet to see if they are, say, a wanted fugitive, or
> participated in illegal anti-competitive behavior like this in the past to
> the point that it resulted in a settlement that large (and that is just for
> the employees of the companies involved, several shareholder lawsuits are
> ongoing.)
>
> Here's a recent lawsuit from shareholders related to it. Keep in mind that
> these are just allegations by the shareholders, but they're pretty well
> supported by the court-ordered released emails -
> http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Googpoach.pdf - and
> a
> class action by employees of the companies involved recently settled for
> $435 million in lost competitive wages due to the illegal anti-solicitation
> agreement.
>
> "Defendant Arnnon Geshuri (“Geshuri”) has served as Google’s Director of
> Recruiting at all times relevant to this lawsuit. Defendant Geshuri was
> involved in developing and perpetuating the illegal collusive scheme
> alleged herein. Defendant Geshuri knowingly, recklessly, or with gross
> negligence: (i) oversaw the creation of the protocols governing
> anticompetitive hiring agreements between Google and other companies; (ii)
> caused or allowed Google to enter into such illegal anticompetitive
> agreements; (iii) allowed Defendants Page, Brin, and Schmidt to dominate
> and control the Google Board of Directors with little or no effective
> oversight; and (iv) failed to implement adequate internal controls to
> ensure that Google complied with federal laws and regulations"
>
> Even though those are allegations from an unsettled shareholder lawsuit,
> since the employee class action was settled for $435m and there are
> extensive details of what went on in the settement documents, I'd give that
> paragraph a bit more credence than I would a paragraph from an average
> unsettled lawsuit. I'm sure that Arnnon is personally skilled, I just
> really don't feel that his behavior as described in the settled class
> action/documents related to it/the general news media is in line with the
> values of the Wikimedia movement.
>
> Best,
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dariusz, you said in your statement that was published in the Wikimedia
> > > Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over the world,
> > > with not-for-profit and technology experience, and the highest
> > professional
> > > standards.” I would be interested to hear how you reconcile "highest
> > > professional standards" with the prior actions of Arnnon,
> > >
> >
> > I have read about these allegations today, and I am going to follow up on
> > that. I don't have an opinion formed, as jumping to conclusions is
> > definitely not just to people. I can assure you that in the whole process
> > Arnnon's expertise, professionalism, as well as technological connection
> > were clearly outstanding (but obviously we have not discussed this case).
> >
> > best,
> >
> > dariusz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > __________________________
> > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> > i grupy badawczej NeRDS
> > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> > http://n <http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl/>wrds.kozminski.edu.pl
> >
> > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
> >
> > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
> > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
> >
> > Recenzje
> > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> > Pacific Standard:
> >
> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> > Motherboard:
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
> > The Wikipedian:
> > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Maybe here the best is to wait a bit for the WMF to come with a response,
before piling on - unless you actually have information to contribute.
Pile-on threads seem to lead these days to the original questions being
ignored/forgotten about.

Lodewijk

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now this is something that's worthy of being dismissed (involuntarily, if
> necessary) from the WMF board. This individual clearly does not meet our
> community values of transparency and honesty, or at least such is in
> serious question.
>
> Is the Board considering doing so, or reading this at all? It's really time
> to open up, not close the ranks.
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You'll find the allegations to be true, Dariusz. Although the link
> > provided was just to Pando, the internal email from Arnnon was released
> by
> > court order - and the entire anti-solicitation fiasco has been fairly
> > widely covered in the US tech news. I knew I recognized Arnnon's name
> from
> > somewhere, I just didn't remember where immediately. It recently resulted
> > in a $435 million settlement for employees of the the companies involved
> > due to lost competitive wages. There's also an ongoing shareholder
> lawsuit
> > about it still. Besides the news coverage, really, the damning thing is
> > just the direct emails. They were unsealed by the judge and a copy is
> > hosted here:
> >
> https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1019489/google-email-chain.pdf
> > -
> > although you can also get a copy from PACER if you want a 100% verified
> > one.
> >
> > They show in Arnnon's own words that (a) he's willing to participate in
> an
> > illegal anti-solicitation agreement, and (b) he's willing to
> > instantaneously fire any employee who violates that illegal
> > anti-solicitation agreement. I know WMF has benefited from it's
> > relationship with Google historically... but in terms of board members, I
> > really think we need people who are not just talented but who uphold the
> > values of the movement - and I don't think Arnnon's behavior as covered
> in
> > the media and in the case filings do that. Also, since we're appointing
> a
> > fiduciary, it seems like it might not be the best idea to appoint a
> > fiduciary whose actions at another company were part of a chain of
> actions
> > that resulted in a $435 million settlement. That's a lot of Jimmyeyes
> from
> > the corner of my screen.
> >
> > I'm additionally kind of worried because... this really should have come
> up
> > in background vetting of potential board members. Since there's
> > information explicitly about it within the first couple pages of any
> search
> > engine, this suggests that the process involved in vetting potential
> board
> > members didn't involve digging deep in to their backgrounds at all.
> Hiring
> > for pretty much *any* position should normally involve at least a cursory
> > scan of the internet to see if they are, say, a wanted fugitive, or
> > participated in illegal anti-competitive behavior like this in the past
> to
> > the point that it resulted in a settlement that large (and that is just
> for
> > the employees of the companies involved, several shareholder lawsuits are
> > ongoing.)
> >
> > Here's a recent lawsuit from shareholders related to it. Keep in mind
> that
> > these are just allegations by the shareholders, but they're pretty well
> > supported by the court-ordered released emails -
> > http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Googpoach.pdf -
> and
> > a
> > class action by employees of the companies involved recently settled for
> > $435 million in lost competitive wages due to the illegal
> anti-solicitation
> > agreement.
> >
> > "Defendant Arnnon Geshuri (“Geshuri”) has served as Google’s Director of
> > Recruiting at all times relevant to this lawsuit. Defendant Geshuri was
> > involved in developing and perpetuating the illegal collusive scheme
> > alleged herein. Defendant Geshuri knowingly, recklessly, or with gross
> > negligence: (i) oversaw the creation of the protocols governing
> > anticompetitive hiring agreements between Google and other companies;
> (ii)
> > caused or allowed Google to enter into such illegal anticompetitive
> > agreements; (iii) allowed Defendants Page, Brin, and Schmidt to dominate
> > and control the Google Board of Directors with little or no effective
> > oversight; and (iv) failed to implement adequate internal controls to
> > ensure that Google complied with federal laws and regulations"
> >
> > Even though those are allegations from an unsettled shareholder lawsuit,
> > since the employee class action was settled for $435m and there are
> > extensive details of what went on in the settement documents, I'd give
> that
> > paragraph a bit more credence than I would a paragraph from an average
> > unsettled lawsuit. I'm sure that Arnnon is personally skilled, I just
> > really don't feel that his behavior as described in the settled class
> > action/documents related to it/the general news media is in line with the
> > values of the Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > Best,
> > Kevin Gorman
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dariusz, you said in your statement that was published in the
> Wikimedia
> > > > Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over the
> world,
> > > > with not-for-profit and technology experience, and the highest
> > > professional
> > > > standards.” I would be interested to hear how you reconcile "highest
> > > > professional standards" with the prior actions of Arnnon,
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have read about these allegations today, and I am going to follow up
> on
> > > that. I don't have an opinion formed, as jumping to conclusions is
> > > definitely not just to people. I can assure you that in the whole
> process
> > > Arnnon's expertise, professionalism, as well as technological
> connection
> > > were clearly outstanding (but obviously we have not discussed this
> case).
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > dariusz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > __________________________
> > > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> > > i grupy badawczej NeRDS
> > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> > > http://n <http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl/>wrds.kozminski.edu.pl
> > >
> > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> > > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
> > >
> > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
> > > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> > > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
> > >
> > > Recenzje
> > > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> > > Pacific Standard:
> > >
> >
> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> > > Motherboard:
> > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
> > > The Wikipedian:
> > >
> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 8 January 2016 at 22:41, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:

> Maybe here the best is to wait a bit for the WMF to come with a response,
> before piling on - unless you actually have information to contribute.
> Pile-on threads seem to lead these days to the original questions being
> ignored/forgotten about.
>
>
They've had over 24 hours. How long do you think they need?



--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into the
matter, and prepare an answer relevant parties can agree on.

Lodewijk

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 9:18 AM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8 January 2016 at 22:41, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>
> > Maybe here the best is to wait a bit for the WMF to come with a response,
> > before piling on - unless you actually have information to contribute.
> > Pile-on threads seem to lead these days to the original questions being
> > ignored/forgotten about.
> >
> >
> They've had over 24 hours. How long do you think they need?
>
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

> I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into the
> matter, and prepare an answer

Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.

In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about
strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now. It is
in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key parts
of the solution have to happen in private.

I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and energy in
these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an organisation
that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate the
pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a deep
breath and think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board members
are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying to
coordinate between three different continents.

In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone speculates
and demands answers to their particular questions (and some people
downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who spends
5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading all the
emails....

Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon, which
they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet more
emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.

Regards,

Chris Keating
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Chris,

Thanks for saying that. I'd also add that while the situation with Arrnon
looks damning on the face of it, I'm a little disappointed that people are
breaking out the pitchforks based purely on media reports, before he has a
chance to present his own side of the story and before Dariusz and the
others can properly look into the matter. I also think that some of the
more 'excitable' commentary on this list in the past couple of weeks is
more likely to push the trustees away than get us the explanations we
want. Yes, what is happening is deeply concerning, but lets not all lose
our heads.

Cheers,
Craig

On 9 January 2016 at 19:06, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into
> the
> > matter, and prepare an answer
>
> Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.
>
> In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about
> strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now. It is
> in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key parts
> of the solution have to happen in private.
>
> I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and energy in
> these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an organisation
> that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate the
> pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a deep
> breath and think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board members
> are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying to
> coordinate between three different continents.
>
> In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone speculates
> and demands answers to their particular questions (and some people
> downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who spends
> 5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading all the
> emails....
>
> Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon, which
> they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet more
> emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Keating
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 9 January 2016 at 09:06, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon, which
> they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet more
> emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.
...

Correction to "they [the board] were clearly not aware":

Yesterday Jimmy Wales confirmed that:[1]
"I cannot speak for the entire board. As for myself, I was aware (from
googling him and reading news reports) that he had a small part in the
overall situation when he was told by Eric Schmidt that Google had a
policy of not recruiting from Apple, and that a recruiter had done it,
and that the recruiter should be fired, and he agreed to do so."

It is not true that the WMF board were unaware before Arnnon was
offered a seat on the board, when there were trustees that knew he
took part in illegal activities at Google. The first page of results
of a google search shows that Arnnon was a named defence party in the
court case.

Links
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=698802294&oldid=698801520

Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

And more to the point; not knowing is a poor defence. Surely any level of
due diligence on new board members would have exposed this troubling
incident?

Tom

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:27 Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 January 2016 at 09:06, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> ...
> > Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon,
> which
> > they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet
> more
> > emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.
> ...
>
> Correction to "they [the board] were clearly not aware":
>
> Yesterday Jimmy Wales confirmed that:[1]
> "I cannot speak for the entire board. As for myself, I was aware (from
> googling him and reading news reports) that he had a small part in the
> overall situation when he was told by Eric Schmidt that Google had a
> policy of not recruiting from Apple, and that a recruiter had done it,
> and that the recruiter should be fired, and he agreed to do so."
>
> It is not true that the WMF board were unaware before Arnnon was
> offered a seat on the board, when there were trustees that knew he
> took part in illegal activities at Google. The first page of results
> of a google search shows that Arnnon was a named defence party in the
> court case.
>
> Links
> 1.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=698802294&oldid=698801520
>
> Fae
> --
> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Having waited two days for any kind of meaningful response from either
the Board or from individual trustees, I have to say that Kat's
comments (unsurprisingly) nailed it.

I mean, seriously, nobody googled him?

Austin


On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Kat Walsh <kat@mindspillage.org> wrote:
> I wish the best for the new board, and for the movement. But I am
> troubled to learn of this.
>
> I have always welcomed the appointed seats on the board--in my
> experience they brought useful perspectives and experience with their
> view from the outside, and I don't expect them all to begin their
> tenure as perfect representatives of the priorities and ideals of the
> Wikimedia movement as the community-selected members are.
>
> But as they are full voting members, participating in all decisions,
> we have always expected them to share key values, and probably the
> most important of those is integrity. It's always hard to judge
> beforehand; what you really really want to know is how someone would
> act in a situation they haven't yet been faced with. But if the news
> reports are true (or even just mostly true) about Arnnon Geshuri's
> role in the staffing scandal, then this is a disappointing choice by
> the WMF board. (Of course, someone who refused to go along with it
> probably would not have been visible to the selection
> committee--uncompromising ethical standards make it much harder to get
> and keep a position of responsibility and expertise in most
> organizations; the exceptions exist but less commonly than I'd wish,
> and I hope we're among them. But this is probably a systematic failure
> in recruiting for us.)
>
> The reason this bothers me so much--enough to break my list
> silence--is that I think integrity is the most important and most
> difficult thing for a board member of this organization. One of the
> key things that distinguishes Wikimedia from other entities is that it
> does not take the easy path: it does not sell the privacy of users, it
> does not make restricted content deals, it does not believe influence
> over content or governance should be able to be bought. If these
> decisions were easy and came without tradeoffs or pressures everyone
> would make them, but they don't; we see all over that Wikimedia is an
> outlier, not the norm, while others make decisions that look good in
> the short term but are damaging in the long term. Organizations with
> tremendous reach and influence--such as Google and Wikipedia--have a
> great responsibility not to take actions that systematically harm the
> people that rely on them. To know that someone at such an organization
> participated in something unethical in this way does not give me great
> confidence in them for leadership in Wikimedia.
>
> I don't envy the current board the problems they are faced with, and
> recognize the difficulty in recruiting for it given the level of
> commitment involved--and I don't doubt that the new appointee has much
> to recommend him. But despite the wealth of experience he would bring,
> if the situation is as it seems to be, I cannot be supportive of this
> choice.
>
> -Kat
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Upon hearing of Arnnon's history at Google, I confess to being surprised to
>> the point of a long silence.
>>
>> If these news reports are true, this is disturbing to say the least.
>> Whether he was happy about it or not, it appears that he chose to
>> participate in illegal activity in a prominent role as a "Senior Staffing
>> Strategist", and described a Google employee's noncompliance with the
>> illegal scheme as "an error in judgment". I cannot think of an excuse from
>> an HR professional that I would accept for this.
>>
>> Dariusz, you said in your statement that was published in the Wikimedia
>> Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over the world,
>> with not-for-profit and technology experience, and the highest professional
>> standards.” I would be interested to hear how you reconcile "highest
>> professional standards" with the prior actions of Arnnon,
>>
>> Lila, you said that "Kelly and Arnnon bring a special combination of
>> expertise, integrity, and love for our mission." I am interested in hearing
>> how you reconcile this assessment with the reports about Arnnon's role in
>> this illegal scheme at Google.
>>
>> Looking at the WMF situation more broadly in light of the Board's removal
>> of James and its surrounding circumstances, I am very disappointed with
>> what we are learning and I am losing confidence in the governance of WMF. I
>> am considering strategic options for the community.
>>
>> Pine
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Very good point Chris.

I also think it would be good to remember that WMF transformation from
the "Superprotect disaster" to a very much appreciated 2015 Community
Wishlist Survey. To go from an "inside-out" to an "outside-in" model in
deciding what functionality to develop is a revolution. And even if we
as users all applaud this change, we should also respect it can be felt
tough to adjust to if you are "inside"

I give Lila 100% credit for this change and thank the Board for
supporting this change (and also to have recruited Lila with this as
main purpose)

Anders

Den 2016-01-09 kl. 10:06, skrev Chris Keating:
>> I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into the
>> matter, and prepare an answer
> Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.
>
> In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about
> strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now. It is
> in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key parts
> of the solution have to happen in private.
>
> I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and energy in
> these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an organisation
> that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate the
> pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a deep
> breath and think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board members
> are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying to
> coordinate between three different continents.
>
> In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone speculates
> and demands answers to their particular questions (and some people
> downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who spends
> 5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading all the
> emails....
>
> Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon, which
> they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet more
> emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Keating
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

The removal of a community elected member whiteout a community consultation is a scandal. I can see nothing which justifies a immediately removal (such as unlawful behavior). A scandal.

That James was replaced with Geshuri, who was involved in a scandal is yet a other scandal.

IMHO Geshuri schould be removed from the Board ASAP (if it is true what was wrote about him on media - even in non english media) to restore the trust of the community.

If the Board is ignoring Community voice, then we have to start a formal procedure (RFC, Open letter) to remove Mr. Geshuri. Or to start a re-election.

I am highly disappointed . Trust is broken. :-(

With best regards,
Steinsplitter

> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> From: mail@anderswennersten.se
> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 12:12:34 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google
>
> Very good point Chris.
>
> I also think it would be good to remember that WMF transformation from
> the "Superprotect disaster" to a very much appreciated 2015 Community
> Wishlist Survey. To go from an "inside-out" to an "outside-in" model in
> deciding what functionality to develop is a revolution. And even if we
> as users all applaud this change, we should also respect it can be felt
> tough to adjust to if you are "inside"
>
> I give Lila 100% credit for this change and thank the Board for
> supporting this change (and also to have recruited Lila with this as
> main purpose)
>
> Anders
>
> Den 2016-01-09 kl. 10:06, skrev Chris Keating:
> >> I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into the
> >> matter, and prepare an answer
> > Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.
> >
> > In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about
> > strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now. It is
> > in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key parts
> > of the solution have to happen in private.
> >
> > I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and energy in
> > these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an organisation
> > that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate the
> > pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a deep
> > breath and think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board members
> > are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying to
> > coordinate between three different continents.
> >
> > In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone speculates
> > and demands answers to their particular questions (and some people
> > downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who spends
> > 5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading all the
> > emails....
> >
> > Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon, which
> > they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet more
> > emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chris Keating
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2016-01-09 12:54, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
> That James was replaced with Geshuri, who was involved in a scandal is
> yet a other scandal.
>

James Heilman was never replaced by Arnnon Geshuri. Arnnon replaced Stu
West, and James will be replaced by a to-be-elected community member
later this year.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Yes but this overlapping generates this kind of misunderstanding.

For people being outside wikimedia community there are several changes too
much complicated.
Il 09/Gen/2016 13:08, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" <putevod@mccme.ru> ha scritto:

> On 2016-01-09 12:54, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
>
>> That James was replaced with Geshuri, who was involved in a scandal is
>> yet a other scandal.
>>
>>
> James Heilman was never replaced by Arnnon Geshuri. Arnnon replaced Stu
> West, and James will be replaced by a to-be-elected community member later
> this year.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2016-01-09 13:14, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> Yes but this overlapping generates this kind of misunderstanding.
>
> For people being outside wikimedia community there are several changes
> too
> much complicated.
> Il 09/Gen/2016 13:08, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" <putevod@mccme.ru> ha
> scritto:
>

To be honest, I think people outside the Wikimedia community do not
care.

The problem at this point is the lack of mutual trust between WMF and
the community, which started to get repaired in the second half of 2015,
and which was not helped by the recent events.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Yes but this list is public.

Being in the shoes of an external I would have so much material to do a
science fictional romance.
Il 09/Gen/2016 13:21, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" <putevod@mccme.ru> ha scritto:

> On 2016-01-09 13:14, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>
>> Yes but this overlapping generates this kind of misunderstanding.
>>
>> For people being outside wikimedia community there are several changes too
>> much complicated.
>> Il 09/Gen/2016 13:08, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" <putevod@mccme.ru> ha
>> scritto:
>>
>>
> To be honest, I think people outside the Wikimedia community do not care.
>
> The problem at this point is the lack of mutual trust between WMF and the
> community, which started to get repaired in the second half of 2015, and
> which was not helped by the recent events.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Wikimedians can have misunderstandings as well, can't they?

(sorry for the offtopic)

Steinsplitter
> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:23:56 +0100
> From: valdelli@gmail.com
> To: putevod@mccme.ru
> CC: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google
>
> Yes but this list is public.
>
> Being in the shoes of an external I would have so much material to do a
> science fictional romance.
> Il 09/Gen/2016 13:21, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" <putevod@mccme.ru> ha scritto:
>
> > On 2016-01-09 13:14, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> >
> >> Yes but this overlapping generates this kind of misunderstanding.
> >>
> >> For people being outside wikimedia community there are several changes too
> >> much complicated.
> >> Il 09/Gen/2016 13:08, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" <putevod@mccme.ru> ha
> >> scritto:
> >>
> >>
> > To be honest, I think people outside the Wikimedia community do not care.
> >
> > The problem at this point is the lack of mutual trust between WMF and the
> > community, which started to get repaired in the second half of 2015, and
> > which was not helped by the recent events.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2016-01-09 13:30, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
> Wikimedians can have misunderstandings as well, can't they?
>
> (sorry for the offtopic)
>

Sure, but they should have developed a habit of double-checking
statements and recognizing which sources are reliable.

(getting closer to my January limit on the number of messages).

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

ObDisclaimer: This reply consists of my own personal views and in no way
represents anything official.

I think I can leak a little useful information on this topic without fear.
;)

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se>
wrote:

> I also think it would be good to remember that WMF transformation from
> the "Superprotect disaster" to a very much appreciated 2015 Community
> Wishlist Survey. To go from an "inside-out" to an "outside-in" model in
> deciding what functionality to develop is a revolution. And even if we as
> users all applaud this change, we should also respect it can be felt tough
> to adjust to if you are "inside"
>

You seem to be assuming that staff have had a negative reaction to the idea
of the Community Wishlist. From what I've seen on the internal mailing
list, staff are very supportive of this. The word "awesome" was used
several times in replies on the thread announcing it.

The closest thing to a negative comment I see wasn't very negative at all.
Paraphrased, "At first I was afraid this would be more lip-serivce, but now
I see it and you're really interested in community input."

For more positive comments you can see some of the staff replies to <
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080329.html>,
since that announcement was CCed to the internal list and some people used
"reply all".


> I give Lila 100% credit for this change and thank the Board for supporting
> this change (and also to have recruited Lila with this as main purpose)


IMO, you should give credit to the Community Tech team. They're the ones
who came up with the wishlist idea and did it, unless I'm totally mistaken.

You could also give some credit to the staffers who originally proposed
creating the Community Tech team. It wasn't a top-down proposal.


--
Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
Senior Software Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
>IMO, you should give credit to the Community Tech team. They're the ones
>who came up with the wishlist idea and did it, unless I'm totally
>mistaken.
>
>You could also give some credit to the staffers who originally proposed
>creating the Community Tech team. It wasn't a top-down proposal.

I think I've said this elsewhere, but the idea of having a "Community
Tech" team continues to strike me as very strange as it immediately raises
the question of what everyone else is working on. "What do you mean
there's a Community Tech team? Are there technology teams at the Wikimedia
Foundation working on technology not for the Wikimedia community?" Or put
another way: every team at the Wikimedia Foundation should be carefully
considering the needs of the Wikimedia community and working with it.

It's also really not impressive to create a survey and solicit ideas.
In my brief skimming, a lot of the proposals listed at
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey> aren't
even new ideas. I'm happy to give credit when some of these proposals are
properly implemented, by whoever takes the time to create a plan of
action, write the necessary code, and get it deployed. But for now, it
seems pretty silly to try to give credit for essentially having a group of
people vote on Phabricator Maniphest tasks.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hello everyone, I would like to put out a friendly reminder that good
practice is to keep threads on topic within reason, and to create new
discussion threads for distinct tangents or complete spin off
discussions.

"Community Tech Team" and "Lila's performance" are interesting, and to
be fair they deserve their own threads. If your email to this thread
does not mention the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri as a new WMF
trustee (see thread title), it is worth considering which thread it
ought to be posted under, or whether it is time to create a new
subject line.

Thanks,
Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Austin Hair wrote:
>Having waited two days for any kind of meaningful response from either
>the Board or from individual trustees, I have to say that Kat's
>comments (unsurprisingly) nailed it.
>
>I mean, seriously, nobody googled him?

Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned in this thread already, one
of the trustees, Jimmy Wales, has provided some responses on his English
Wikipedia talk page. He directly mentions googling and Google.

---
I cannot speak for the entire board. As for myself, I was aware (from
googling him and reading news reports) that he had a small part in the
overall situation when he was told by Eric Schmidt that Google had a
policy of not recruiting from Apple, and that a recruiter had done it, and
that the recruiter should be fired, and he agreed to do so. As for your
other allegations, that he "helped manage that collusion", the part about
some "ugly and humiliating" termination, and chastisement by a Federal
Judge, I don't (yet) know anything about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:41,
8 January 2016 (UTC)
---

In response to a request to further expand on Mr. Geshuri's suitability to
be a trustee:

---
Sure, I'll offer my views when the time is right. At the moment, I'm
waiting for a staff report and some board discussion to take place. It
would be inappropriate for me to offer a public opinion at this early
stage.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
---

There's also:

---
I don't think this board has any unhealthy relationship with
Google.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
---

Source: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/699004139>.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

... and the court papers, and the smoking gun documents, and ...

This is the sort of thing that needs some serious explaining. Assume
good faith, but we're starting from some pretty *startling*
circumstances and evidence here.


- d.

On 9 January 2016 at 09:19, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> Thanks for saying that. I'd also add that while the situation with Arrnon
> looks damning on the face of it, I'm a little disappointed that people are
> breaking out the pitchforks based purely on media reports, before he has a
> chance to present his own side of the story and before Dariusz and the
> others can properly look into the matter. I also think that some of the
> more 'excitable' commentary on this list in the past couple of weeks is
> more likely to push the trustees away than get us the explanations we
> want. Yes, what is happening is deeply concerning, but lets not all lose
> our heads.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 9 January 2016 at 19:06, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into
>> the
>> > matter, and prepare an answer
>>
>> Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.
>>
>> In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about
>> strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now. It is
>> in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key parts
>> of the solution have to happen in private.
>>
>> I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and energy in
>> these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an organisation
>> that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate the
>> pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a deep
>> breath and think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board members
>> are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying to
>> coordinate between three different continents.
>>
>> In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone speculates
>> and demands answers to their particular questions (and some people
>> downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who spends
>> 5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading all the
>> emails....
>>
>> Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon, which
>> they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet more
>> emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Chris Keating
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 9 January 2016 at 17:34, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> I don't think this board has any unhealthy relationship with
> Google.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
> Source: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/699004139>.

LOL.

A new WMF trustee was proven in court to have been *acting illegally
for Google*, yet the WMF board are completely confident that they have
no "unhealthy relationship with Google" and the WMF Chairman has
firmly stated in writing that they have no plans to have an
independent review of the board governance because they are so darn
happy with their professional self-governance.

Jeez, this board are complacent beyond the point of incompetence. We
are well overdue for a major turnover of board members. For goodness
sake, what a bunch of clowns we have put in charge of the cash cow.

Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 9 January 2016 at 10:09, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> <snip>
>


> We are well overdue for a major turnover of board members.
> Fae
> --
>
>

While I have largely kept out of this thread to this time, this statement
needs to be rebutted. There are ten seats on the board. Five of them -
all three "community-selected" seats and two of the four board-appointed
seats - have changed hands in the last six months. An additional
board-selected seat changed hands not long before Wikimania last year (Guy
Kawasaki). That means six of the 10 board members have less than a year's
experience in the role. (One of those has now been removed, but that still
means half the board has very limited experience.)

Of the remaining seats, two are "Chapter/Thorg-selected" seats that will be
contested in the near future. Historically, only one of the incumbents of
those seats have been reseated, and I make no predictions for this year.
Jimmy Wales is assumed to still hold the Founder seat, and the fourth
board-appointed seat is held by longtime community member Alice Weigand.

We do not know how the board will decide to fill the recently vacated
"community-selected" seat - the options appear to be narrowed to appointing
the fourth-place candidate from the last election (which would bring an
experienced board member back to the table) or an election, which could
also bring a completely new trustee.

At minimum, we already have five board members who weren't board members
this time last year. By the end of their Wikimania board meeting, we could
have as many as eight trustees with less than 18 months of experience under
their belt. Of all the problems the board has, insufficient turnover is
NOT one of them.

Risker
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

There is still a significant problem the Board does have, though.
"Chapter/thorg selected seats" are not community seats. And we've recently
found out that none of the seats at all are actually considered to be
community-selected, and that a community elected board member can be
removed without referendum to the community.

A majority, at least six seats, on the Board, should be directly elected by
the Wikimedia community. (Not "chapters", the entire community). And
"directly elected" should mean that the member cannot be removed
involuntarily except by vote of that same electorate, whether by referendum
or the community's own initiative.

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 January 2016 at 10:09, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
>
>
> > We are well overdue for a major turnover of board members.
> > Fae
> > --
> >
> >
>
> While I have largely kept out of this thread to this time, this statement
> needs to be rebutted. There are ten seats on the board. Five of them -
> all three "community-selected" seats and two of the four board-appointed
> seats - have changed hands in the last six months. An additional
> board-selected seat changed hands not long before Wikimania last year (Guy
> Kawasaki). That means six of the 10 board members have less than a year's
> experience in the role. (One of those has now been removed, but that still
> means half the board has very limited experience.)
>
> Of the remaining seats, two are "Chapter/Thorg-selected" seats that will be
> contested in the near future. Historically, only one of the incumbents of
> those seats have been reseated, and I make no predictions for this year.
> Jimmy Wales is assumed to still hold the Founder seat, and the fourth
> board-appointed seat is held by longtime community member Alice Weigand.
>
> We do not know how the board will decide to fill the recently vacated
> "community-selected" seat - the options appear to be narrowed to appointing
> the fourth-place candidate from the last election (which would bring an
> experienced board member back to the table) or an election, which could
> also bring a completely new trustee.
>
> At minimum, we already have five board members who weren't board members
> this time last year. By the end of their Wikimania board meeting, we could
> have as many as eight trustees with less than 18 months of experience under
> their belt. Of all the problems the board has, insufficient turnover is
> NOT one of them.
>
> Risker
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Anders,

Your perspective is very different from mine or from any I've heard, and
I'd like to understand it better:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se>
wrote:

> I also think it would be good to remember that WMF transformation from
> the "Superprotect disaster"

I do not see the transition you suggest. As I understand it, we are still
very much in the "Superprotect disaster" era -- one which began under the
same Executive Director we have today and, I believe, four of the present
Trustees. None has publicly acknowledged the existence of the letter signed
by 1,000 people,[1] nor addressed the (IMO more important) second of the
letter's two requests.

These sentiments reflect the more-or-less-unanimous (depending how you
interpret the comments) perspectives of those responding to an informal
poll I requested,[2] which was presented in a November 2015 op-ed I
published in the English Wikipedia Signpost.[3]

Since the poll is informal, it is in no way "closed" -- if you have a
different perspective, Anders (or for any who agree, for that matter), I
would appreciate any additions to that page.

to a very much appreciated 2015 Community Wishlist Survey.

I am aware of the existence of the Community Wishlist Survey, and I
appreciate that it reflects a desire to move forward, which is a good
thing; but I would stop well short of "very much appreciated," for two
reasons:

(a) In the absence of a clear assertion from the WMF about the role of
local projects (along the lines of what was requested in the letter), I am
personally reluctant to engage in WMF-directed engagement processes (on the
principle "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.") I
prefer to put my time into efforts where I have confidence that I will have
appropriate influence.

(b) The name "Community Wishlist Survey" continues a misguided notion that
has been prevalent at WMF for many years: Namely, that "the community" is a
constituency among others, which should be appeased. My experience of
people in "the community" is utterly different: many volunteers are just as
concerned about the future of Wikipedia, and issues like demographic
biases, the needs of readers, etc. as WMF personnel. These things are in
fact what *drive* us to volunteer to begin with. But according to the
artificial distinction of "community" as a stakeholder group distinct from
"reader" that is prevalent at the WMF, it is a truism that "community
interests" are something other from "reader interests." That truism is in
fact false.

I would rather see a "Wishlist Survey" (another name for which could be
"Open Strategic Planning Process"), than a *community-specific* wishlist
survey. But this year, unlike the five year plan created in 2010, we have
no such thing.

To go from an "inside-out" to an "outside-in" model in deciding what
> functionality to develop is a revolution.


The trend in recent years, in my view, has been in the opposite direction.


> And even if we as users all applaud this change, we should also respect it
> can be felt tough to adjust to if you are "inside"
>

It is my view that many who are "inside" -- staff at the WMF -- have been
pushing hard to have the kind of "revolution" you seem to think has already
happened. Given the number of staff who have lost their jobs, I believe
they are doing so at their own peril, which makes that work all the more
admirable. I wish I could name names here, as there has been excellent work
done within the walls of WMF by a large number of people; but I expect that
in the present environment, they would prefer *not* to be named and
acknowledged.


> I give Lila 100% credit for this change and thank the Board for supporting
> this change (and also to have recruited Lila with this as main purpose)
>

I would have to give this final point a big "citation needed" tag.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_Wikimedia_Foundation:_Superprotect_and_Media_Viewer
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Letter_to_Wikimedia_Foundation:_Superprotect_and_Media_Viewer#November_2015_poll:_Has_the_letter_achieved_its_goal.3F
> [3]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-11/Op-ed
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > I give Lila 100% credit for this change and thank the Board for
> supporting
> > this change (and also to have recruited Lila with this as main purpose)
> >
>
> I would have to give this final point a big "citation needed" tag.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> ​Pete, it does seem that since Lila arrived a lot of the tension between
the Foundation and community has gone. I've several times heard her talk of
the need to respect the community because Wikipedia is nothing without it. ​


​You wrote above: "​As I understand it, we are still very much in the
'Superprotect disaster' era -- one which began under the same Executive
Director we have today."

Superprotect was implemented just after Lila arrived, but it was a decision
of Erik's. The tensions behind it were very much a product of the pre-Lila
era, and had been growing for years. It appeared that Lila quickly
understood that it needed to go.

Sarah
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Sarah, thanks for the response -- but I find this puzzling. I don't want to
get into too many details here, as I think the comment thread on the
Signpost op-ed, or the poll on the letter's talk page, are more appropriate
venues for that; but briefly:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:30 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pete, it does seem that since Lila arrived a lot of the tension between
> the Foundation and community has gone. I've several times heard her talk of
> the need to respect the community because Wikipedia is nothing without it.
>

I am more interested in discussing actions than words.


> ​You wrote above: "​As I understand it, we are still very much in the
> 'Superprotect disaster' era -- one which began under the same Executive
> Director we have today."
>
> Superprotect was implemented just after Lila arrived, but it was a decision
> of Erik's.


I'd say "citation needed," but in this case I am highly confident that no
citation exists. We have had no formal statement whatsoever on which to
base speculation. Beyond that, Lila was Erik's boss; and people closer to
the situation than myself have actually (privately) asserted just the
opposite, that Lila was the driving force.

The tensions behind it were very much a product of the pre-Lila
> era, and had been growing for years.


I very much agree with this, yes.


> It appeared that Lila quickly understood that it needed to go.
>

I do not agree with this. She did acknowledge that the software feature had
been a problem, when she announced its removal. (Keep in mind, its
implementation happened on a Sunday afternoon, and its removal took a year
and a half -- so I'm not sure about "quickly.")

But more importantly, neither she nor the board have acknowledged, much
less moved to address, non-technical aspects of the letter.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I used the word Superprotect but could just as well said the disastrous
implementation of Visual Editor, which definitely was not the doing of
Lila. And the very positive response to Community Wishlist i have read
on this list (and on the talkpages), I have not co,me across any real
negative feedback.across

I am happy to read that there were several in the tech org who initiated
this, and that there is a positive feeling of it. I was 25 years ago for
seven years was a manager of a org developing sw tools for 3000 sw
developer (very similar the WMF setup) and I went through the process
of going from inside-out. And I learned that the setup of "wishlists"
etc was the easy part. I learned that when this was in place the
internal org and roles had to be redefined (it was not upwards you had
to look what to implement but to the community). And there were a lot of
squeaks before the org got sorted out, but then the people got very
stimulated working in a outside-in organisation.

And from this perspective I actually think the Board made a very good
work identifying the competence Geshuri has which I believe is just what
the Board and WMF needs just now. The problems associated with him is
already identified and I am not denying these, but please give the Board
also credit for their good work, not just blaming when (and if) they
make mistakes

Anders







Den 2016-01-09 kl. 21:46, skrev Pete Forsyth:
> Sarah, thanks for the response -- but I find this puzzling. I don't want to
> get into too many details here, as I think the comment thread on the
> Signpost op-ed, or the poll on the letter's talk page, are more appropriate
> venues for that; but briefly:
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:30 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pete, it does seem that since Lila arrived a lot of the tension between
>> the Foundation and community has gone. I've several times heard her talk of
>> the need to respect the community because Wikipedia is nothing without it.
>>
> I am more interested in discussing actions than words.
>
>
>> ​You wrote above: "​As I understand it, we are still very much in the
>> 'Superprotect disaster' era -- one which began under the same Executive
>> Director we have today."
>>
>> Superprotect was implemented just after Lila arrived, but it was a decision
>> of Erik's.
>
> I'd say "citation needed," but in this case I am highly confident that no
> citation exists. We have had no formal statement whatsoever on which to
> base speculation. Beyond that, Lila was Erik's boss; and people closer to
> the situation than myself have actually (privately) asserted just the
> opposite, that Lila was the driving force.
>
> The tensions behind it were very much a product of the pre-Lila
>> era, and had been growing for years.
>
> I very much agree with this, yes.
>
>
>> It appeared that Lila quickly understood that it needed to go.
>>
> I do not agree with this. She did acknowledge that the software feature had
> been a problem, when she announced its removal. (Keep in mind, its
> implementation happened on a Sunday afternoon, and its removal took a year
> and a half -- so I'm not sure about "quickly.")
>
> But more importantly, neither she nor the board have acknowledged, much
> less moved to address, non-technical aspects of the letter.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Anders, thank you for your thoughtful message; I understand your position
much better now, and see much to agree with:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se>
wrote:

> I used the word Superprotect but could just as well said the disastrous
> implementation of Visual Editor, which definitely was not the doing of
> Lila. And the very positive response to Community Wishlist i have read on
> this list (and on the talkpages), I have not co,me across any real negative
> feedback.across
>

Yes, I agree -- the organization's software development processes are
improved under Lila's leadership. Significant positive steps have been
taken, no question -- and she certainly deserves some credit for that.

I am happy to read that there were several in the tech org who initiated
> this, and that there is a positive feeling of it. I was 25 years ago for
> seven years was a manager of a org developing sw tools for 3000 sw
> developer (very similar the WMF setup) and I went through the process of
> going from inside-out. And I learned that the setup of "wishlists" etc was
> the easy part. I learned that when this was in place the internal org and
> roles had to be redefined (it was not upwards you had to look what to
> implement but to the community).


I don't know for sure, but my impression is that in this case, much of this
has been done simultaneously; internal structures have been changing
alongside the processes for community engagement. I expect there is much
credit for that to be shared among various parties, including Lila.

And there were a lot of squeaks before the org got sorted out, but then the
> people got very stimulated working in a outside-in organisation.
>

Glad to hear of this experience.


> And from this perspective I actually think the Board made a very good work
> identifying the competence Geshuri has which I believe is just what the
> Board and WMF needs just now.


That very well may be the case. I do not have a strong opinion on Mr.
Geshuri's competencies, and am happy to defer to your more-informed
perspective. I am heartened to hear that the Board may have done good work
in identifying and addressing certain missing competencies (even if there
may be separate issues with the specific choice).

I do think there are two significant issues with Mr. Geshuri's appointment,
though -- the second of which has not been brought up yet:
(1) The Board did not apparently do basic due diligence in looking into his
background
(2) Mr. Geshuri himself did not highlight the Google firing issue to the
board prior to his appointment, which makes me wonder about his judgment.

The problems associated with him is already identified and I am not denying
> these, but please give the Board also credit for their good work, not just
> blaming when (and if) they make mistakes


I am happy to do so, but I must say -- so much of the board's work is
invisible to me, that I rarely have enough information to do so.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Though I'm trying to cut back on the number of posts I make to this list, I
want to respond to a couple points made in this thread.

First I totally understand - and agree - that we can't expect immediate
board comment on Arnnon's appointment. Although I think the degree of the
issue should've been discovered in pre-appointment due diligence, it seems
like the issue and it's degree has caught many of the trustees by surprise
- even if figuring out how to respond to issues like this was their full
time (and since even the trustees are volunteers, it's certainly not,) it
would take some time to come up with a reasonable response, and they should
certainly be given the time they need to form an appropriate response.

However, I also want to respond to the suggestion that people are bringing
out their pitchforks based solely on media coverage of Arnnon's actions.
Although there are still shareholder lawsuits underway and there has
certainly been gossipy media coverage, the employee settlement has already
been agreed to upon by the companies (and class representatives) involved,
many of the documents involved have been released by order of the federal
judge involved, etc. Arnnon's emails that I sent a copy of out earlier on
this thread don't come from someone leaking to Gawker - they were given by
Google to a federal judge, and then unsealed by her order. We're not in a
situation where there's just media gossip that Arnnon was involved in some
way in setting up an illegal and unethical anti-solicitation agreement
between tech companies - rather, he was found to play a fairly integral
role in it's creation by a federal judge. Some lawsuits are settled to
make them go away, but nearly half a billion dollars is not "This is a
groundless lawsuit, but it'll cost less to settle it than to make it go
away" territory - even for the companies involved, as large as they are.

Best,
Kevin Gorman

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anders, thank you for your thoughtful message; I understand your position
> much better now, and see much to agree with:
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> mail@anderswennersten.se>
> wrote:
>
> > I used the word Superprotect but could just as well said the disastrous
> > implementation of Visual Editor, which definitely was not the doing of
> > Lila. And the very positive response to Community Wishlist i have read on
> > this list (and on the talkpages), I have not co,me across any real
> negative
> > feedback.across
> >
>
> Yes, I agree -- the organization's software development processes are
> improved under Lila's leadership. Significant positive steps have been
> taken, no question -- and she certainly deserves some credit for that.
>
> I am happy to read that there were several in the tech org who initiated
> > this, and that there is a positive feeling of it. I was 25 years ago for
> > seven years was a manager of a org developing sw tools for 3000 sw
> > developer (very similar the WMF setup) and I went through the process of
> > going from inside-out. And I learned that the setup of "wishlists" etc
> was
> > the easy part. I learned that when this was in place the internal org and
> > roles had to be redefined (it was not upwards you had to look what to
> > implement but to the community).
>
>
> I don't know for sure, but my impression is that in this case, much of this
> has been done simultaneously; internal structures have been changing
> alongside the processes for community engagement. I expect there is much
> credit for that to be shared among various parties, including Lila.
>
> And there were a lot of squeaks before the org got sorted out, but then the
> > people got very stimulated working in a outside-in organisation.
> >
>
> Glad to hear of this experience.
>
>
> > And from this perspective I actually think the Board made a very good
> work
> > identifying the competence Geshuri has which I believe is just what the
> > Board and WMF needs just now.
>
>
> That very well may be the case. I do not have a strong opinion on Mr.
> Geshuri's competencies, and am happy to defer to your more-informed
> perspective. I am heartened to hear that the Board may have done good work
> in identifying and addressing certain missing competencies (even if there
> may be separate issues with the specific choice).
>
> I do think there are two significant issues with Mr. Geshuri's appointment,
> though -- the second of which has not been brought up yet:
> (1) The Board did not apparently do basic due diligence in looking into his
> background
> (2) Mr. Geshuri himself did not highlight the Google firing issue to the
> board prior to his appointment, which makes me wonder about his judgment.
>
> The problems associated with him is already identified and I am not denying
> > these, but please give the Board also credit for their good work, not
> just
> > blaming when (and if) they make mistakes
>
>
> I am happy to do so, but I must say -- so much of the board's work is
> invisible to me, that I rarely have enough information to do so.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

> I do think there are two significant issues with Mr. Geshuri's appointment,
> though -- the second of which has not been brought up yet:
> (1) The Board did not apparently do basic due diligence in looking into his
> background
> (2) Mr. Geshuri himself did not highlight the Google firing issue to the
> board prior to his appointment, which makes me wonder about his judgment.
>
​
Do we know who suggested ​
Arnnon Geshuri
​ for a board seat?

Sarah
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:02 AM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we know who suggested
> Arnnon Geshuri
> for a board seat?

Spoiler: As "trust and honesty" are highly valued, his name likely
appeared inside of a list "we compiled in the past".

--
Milos

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hey Fae

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> LOL.


> Jeez, this board are complacent beyond the point of incompetence. We
> are well overdue for a major turnover of board members. For goodness
> sake, what a bunch of clowns we have put in charge of the cash cow.


I know there is a good bit of frustration and disappointment around, but
language like that is not helpful. I say this with appreciation for all the
research and relevant comments you've made so far. You are doing yourself
and the conversation a disservice by comments like that. A "bunch of clowns
we have put in charge of the cash cow" is wrong on so many levels, and I
know you realise it too.

Don't reduce the level of conversation here, you have been doing well here.
It will only make it easier to marginalise and ignore all your effort.

Kind Regards
Theo
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I think Fae's frustration (and everyone else's) is quite understandable. I
understand your concern with keeping the discussion civil, but there does
come a time to move from "Please provide more information about this" to
"Stop stonewalling and giving nonanswers, and tell us what in the hell is
actually going on here." If we're not at that point, we're sure close to
it. I think we passed it on the first non-answer-answer about James
Heilman, not to mention the deafening silence about the accusation that he
was denied access to documents. It's time for some answers that actually
provide information.

Todd
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone, I would like to put out a friendly reminder that good
> practice is to keep threads on topic within reason, and to create new
> discussion threads for distinct tangents or complete spin off
> discussions.
>
> "Community Tech Team" and "Lila's performance" are interesting, and to
> be fair they deserve their own threads. If your email to this thread
> does not mention the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri as a new WMF
> trustee (see thread title), it is worth considering which thread it
> ought to be posted under, or whether it is time to create a new
> subject line.

Not exactly coming from the source I would expect, but indeed, please
keep your comments germane to subject line. (Starting new threads is
entirely appropriate, and welcomed.)

Austin

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I think Mr. Geshuri schould comment on the issue.


And....
I don't know Mr. Geshuri, have never seen editing him. So i can't trust him, especially after the google scandal.

> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:21:03 -0800
> From: peteforsyth@gmail.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google
>
> Anders, thank you for your thoughtful message; I understand your position
> much better now, and see much to agree with:
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se>
> wrote:
>
> > I used the word Superprotect but could just as well said the disastrous
> > implementation of Visual Editor, which definitely was not the doing of
> > Lila. And the very positive response to Community Wishlist i have read on
> > this list (and on the talkpages), I have not co,me across any real negative
> > feedback.across
> >
>
> Yes, I agree -- the organization's software development processes are
> improved under Lila's leadership. Significant positive steps have been
> taken, no question -- and she certainly deserves some credit for that.
>
> I am happy to read that there were several in the tech org who initiated
> > this, and that there is a positive feeling of it. I was 25 years ago for
> > seven years was a manager of a org developing sw tools for 3000 sw
> > developer (very similar the WMF setup) and I went through the process of
> > going from inside-out. And I learned that the setup of "wishlists" etc was
> > the easy part. I learned that when this was in place the internal org and
> > roles had to be redefined (it was not upwards you had to look what to
> > implement but to the community).
>
>
> I don't know for sure, but my impression is that in this case, much of this
> has been done simultaneously; internal structures have been changing
> alongside the processes for community engagement. I expect there is much
> credit for that to be shared among various parties, including Lila.
>
> And there were a lot of squeaks before the org got sorted out, but then the
> > people got very stimulated working in a outside-in organisation.
> >
>
> Glad to hear of this experience.
>
>
> > And from this perspective I actually think the Board made a very good work
> > identifying the competence Geshuri has which I believe is just what the
> > Board and WMF needs just now.
>
>
> That very well may be the case. I do not have a strong opinion on Mr.
> Geshuri's competencies, and am happy to defer to your more-informed
> perspective. I am heartened to hear that the Board may have done good work
> in identifying and addressing certain missing competencies (even if there
> may be separate issues with the specific choice).
>
> I do think there are two significant issues with Mr. Geshuri's appointment,
> though -- the second of which has not been brought up yet:
> (1) The Board did not apparently do basic due diligence in looking into his
> background
> (2) Mr. Geshuri himself did not highlight the Google firing issue to the
> board prior to his appointment, which makes me wonder about his judgment.
>
> The problems associated with him is already identified and I am not denying
> > these, but please give the Board also credit for their good work, not just
> > blaming when (and if) they make mistakes
>
>
> I am happy to do so, but I must say -- so much of the board's work is
> invisible to me, that I rarely have enough information to do so.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Apologies for a slightly off-topic reply, but:

On 01/10/2016 01:21 PM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:
> I don't know Mr. Geshuri, have never seen editing him. So i can't
> trust him, especially after the google scandal.

I don't think board members need to be active editors.

The board is supposed to have expert knowledge. And expertise is not
just editing Wikipedia, but also overseeing a large organization such as
WMF. It's good to have both board members who are expert on wikis, and
to have experts on financial management and administration.

(The Google scandal is an entirely different thing of course, and a much
better reason to question the decision to make Arnnon a board member)

Tobias

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I don't disagree that we need an explanation not only of his actions, but
also on how he was selected without this being disclosed to existing
trustees, but even at a show trial it's usually considered necessary to
allow the accused to say a few words in their own defense. I'll be
reserving my judgement until I hear his side of the story (or he declines
to provide one).

Cheers,
Craig

On 10 January 2016 at 03:51, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:

> ... and the court papers, and the smoking gun documents, and ...
>
> This is the sort of thing that needs some serious explaining. Assume
> good faith, but we're starting from some pretty *startling*
> circumstances and evidence here.
>
>
> - d.
>
> On 9 January 2016 at 09:19, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
> wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > Thanks for saying that. I'd also add that while the situation with
> Arrnon
> > looks damning on the face of it, I'm a little disappointed that people
> are
> > breaking out the pitchforks based purely on media reports, before he has
> a
> > chance to present his own side of the story and before Dariusz and the
> > others can properly look into the matter. I also think that some of the
> > more 'excitable' commentary on this list in the past couple of weeks is
> > more likely to push the trustees away than get us the explanations we
> > want. Yes, what is happening is deeply concerning, but lets not all lose
> > our heads.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 9 January 2016 at 19:06, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> > I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into
> >> the
> >> > matter, and prepare an answer
> >>
> >> Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.
> >>
> >> In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about
> >> strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now.
> It is
> >> in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key
> parts
> >> of the solution have to happen in private.
> >>
> >> I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and energy
> in
> >> these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an
> organisation
> >> that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate the
> >> pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a deep
> >> breath and think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board
> members
> >> are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying to
> >> coordinate between three different continents.
> >>
> >> In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone
> speculates
> >> and demands answers to their particular questions (and some people
> >> downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who
> spends
> >> 5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading all
> the
> >> emails....
> >>
> >> Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon,
> which
> >> they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet
> more
> >> emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Chris Keating
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

It would be great if we could have Arrnon's input and perspective on
the events that have caused the concern raised in this thread.
However, it's been stated that major shareholder litigation involving
the issue is still pending. If that is so, it is very unlikely that
he's going to be able to make any public statement about the subject.

Newyorkbrad/IBM


On 1/10/16, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net> wrote:
> I don't disagree that we need an explanation not only of his actions, but
> also on how he was selected without this being disclosed to existing
> trustees, but even at a show trial it's usually considered necessary to
> allow the accused to say a few words in their own defense. I'll be
> reserving my judgement until I hear his side of the story (or he declines
> to provide one).
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 10 January 2016 at 03:51, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ... and the court papers, and the smoking gun documents, and ...
>>
>> This is the sort of thing that needs some serious explaining. Assume
>> good faith, but we're starting from some pretty *startling*
>> circumstances and evidence here.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> On 9 January 2016 at 09:19, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Chris,
>> >
>> > Thanks for saying that. I'd also add that while the situation with
>> Arrnon
>> > looks damning on the face of it, I'm a little disappointed that people
>> are
>> > breaking out the pitchforks based purely on media reports, before he has
>> a
>> > chance to present his own side of the story and before Dariusz and the
>> > others can properly look into the matter. I also think that some of the
>> > more 'excitable' commentary on this list in the past couple of weeks is
>> > more likely to push the trustees away than get us the explanations we
>> > want. Yes, what is happening is deeply concerning, but lets not all
>> > lose
>> > our heads.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Craig
>> >
>> > On 9 January 2016 at 19:06, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig
>> >> > into
>> >> the
>> >> > matter, and prepare an answer
>> >>
>> >> Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.
>> >>
>> >> In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about
>> >> strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now.
>> It is
>> >> in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key
>> parts
>> >> of the solution have to happen in private.
>> >>
>> >> I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and energy
>> in
>> >> these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an
>> organisation
>> >> that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate the
>> >> pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a deep
>> >> breath and think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board
>> members
>> >> are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying to
>> >> coordinate between three different continents.
>> >>
>> >> In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone
>> speculates
>> >> and demands answers to their particular questions (and some people
>> >> downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who
>> spends
>> >> 5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading all
>> the
>> >> emails....
>> >>
>> >> Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon,
>> which
>> >> they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet
>> more
>> >> emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Chris Keating
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 01/08/2016 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dariusz, you said in your statement that was published in the Wikimedia
>> Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over the world,
>> with not-for-profit and technology experience, and the highest professional
>> standards.” I would be interested to hear how you reconcile "highest
>> professional standards" with the prior actions of Arnnon,
>>
>
> I have read about these allegations today, and I am going to follow up on
> that.

WMF doesn't have the excuse of ignorance, or that the case is in
progress. When you appointed him:

1. The documents were unsealed.
2. The Department of Justice case was fully complete.
3. The civil case by employees was fully complete and payouts had either
started or were fully complete.

Saying you learned about this *after* voting to appoint him is
incredibly frustrating and disappointing.

Being ignorant of the allegations is even worse than coming up with some
dubious reason why we should forgive him, and he's still high-integrity
enough to represent a non-profit backing movement with strong values.

The board had an obligation to fully research both candidates, and
insist on more time as needed to do so.

There is nothing to wait for (the shareholder lawsuit will probably also
be settled, but there is no need to wait for it given the released
documents and fully complete cases above).

See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation
for details (though I'm sure someone has linked this from the list).

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Can someone on the Board comment on the Board's general approach to vetting
Trustee candidates?

I would hope that someone neutral is explicitly responsible for reviewing
candidates and providing at least a cursory report to the Board on their
background, qualifications, and any potential liabilities. Such a
responsible person might be WMF staff, though an independent HR agency
might be even better.

It wouldn't have taken a lot effort to identify and highlight the potential
issues with Arrnon. The fact that some people are now expressing a degree
of ignorance about these issues suggests that the recent candidates didn't
receive much in the way of scrutiny.

Obviously one hopes each member of the board would also take the time to
learn about each candidate and make an informed decision before voting on a
new appointment. However, Board members are busy people which is one of
the reasons why also having a third-party report seems worthwhile.

If the Board knew about Arrnon's past and made an informed decision to
appoint him anyway, then that is at least a decision that could be argued
and defended. However, if the Board is overlooking such things due
primarily to a lack of scrutiny then that suggests the process of vetting
Board candidates is in serious need of improvement.

-Robert Rohde


On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:

> On 01/08/2016 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dariusz, you said in your statement that was published in the Wikimedia
>>> Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over the world,
>>> with not-for-profit and technology experience, and the highest
>>> professional
>>> standards.” I would be interested to hear how you reconcile "highest
>>> professional standards" with the prior actions of Arnnon,
>>>
>>>
>> I have read about these allegations today, and I am going to follow up on
>> that.
>>
>
> WMF doesn't have the excuse of ignorance, or that the case is in
> progress. When you appointed him:
>
> 1. The documents were unsealed.
> 2. The Department of Justice case was fully complete.
> 3. The civil case by employees was fully complete and payouts had either
> started or were fully complete.
>
> Saying you learned about this *after* voting to appoint him is incredibly
> frustrating and disappointing.
>
> Being ignorant of the allegations is even worse than coming up with some
> dubious reason why we should forgive him, and he's still high-integrity
> enough to represent a non-profit backing movement with strong values.
>
> The board had an obligation to fully research both candidates, and insist
> on more time as needed to do so.
>
> There is nothing to wait for (the shareholder lawsuit will probably also
> be settled, but there is no need to wait for it given the released
> documents and fully complete cases above).
>
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation
> for details (though I'm sure someone has linked this from the list).
>
> Matt Flaschen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

@NYB: at least one major pension fund has ongoing litigation related to the
nonsolicit, so I agree with you Arnnon is unlikely to be able to comment
publicly.

Best,
KG

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> wrote:

> It would be great if we could have Arrnon's input and perspective on
> the events that have caused the concern raised in this thread.
> However, it's been stated that major shareholder litigation involving
> the issue is still pending. If that is so, it is very unlikely that
> he's going to be able to make any public statement about the subject.
>
> Newyorkbrad/IBM
>
>
> On 1/10/16, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net> wrote:
> > I don't disagree that we need an explanation not only of his actions, but
> > also on how he was selected without this being disclosed to existing
> > trustees, but even at a show trial it's usually considered necessary to
> > allow the accused to say a few words in their own defense. I'll be
> > reserving my judgement until I hear his side of the story (or he declines
> > to provide one).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > On 10 January 2016 at 03:51, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ... and the court papers, and the smoking gun documents, and ...
> >>
> >> This is the sort of thing that needs some serious explaining. Assume
> >> good faith, but we're starting from some pretty *startling*
> >> circumstances and evidence here.
> >>
> >>
> >> - d.
> >>
> >> On 9 January 2016 at 09:19, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Chris,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for saying that. I'd also add that while the situation with
> >> Arrnon
> >> > looks damning on the face of it, I'm a little disappointed that people
> >> are
> >> > breaking out the pitchforks based purely on media reports, before he
> has
> >> a
> >> > chance to present his own side of the story and before Dariusz and the
> >> > others can properly look into the matter. I also think that some of
> the
> >> > more 'excitable' commentary on this list in the past couple of weeks
> is
> >> > more likely to push the trustees away than get us the explanations we
> >> > want. Yes, what is happening is deeply concerning, but lets not all
> >> > lose
> >> > our heads.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Craig
> >> >
> >> > On 9 January 2016 at 19:06, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig
> >> >> > into
> >> >> the
> >> >> > matter, and prepare an answer
> >> >>
> >> >> Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.
> >> >>
> >> >> In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about
> >> >> strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now.
> >> It is
> >> >> in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key
> >> parts
> >> >> of the solution have to happen in private.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and
> energy
> >> in
> >> >> these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an
> >> organisation
> >> >> that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate
> the
> >> >> pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a
> deep
> >> >> breath and think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board
> >> members
> >> >> are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying
> to
> >> >> coordinate between three different continents.
> >> >>
> >> >> In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone
> >> speculates
> >> >> and demands answers to their particular questions (and some people
> >> >> downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who
> >> spends
> >> >> 5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading
> all
> >> the
> >> >> emails....
> >> >>
> >> >> Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon,
> >> which
> >> >> they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet
> >> more
> >> >> emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> Chris Keating
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Matthew Flaschen <
matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:


> The board had an obligation to fully research both candidates, and insist
> on more time as needed to do so.
>
> Boryana Dineva, the Foundation's Vice-President of Human Resources
​, wrote [1] to this mailing list in October 2015:

"Having narrowed down the number in several rounds of review​ ... we are
meeting with finalists to collect more information and get acquainted over
this week and next. After that, all finalists will interview with Lila, and
finally with our panel comprised by the BGC ​[Board Governance Committee]
​(and likely also the Board Chair). The BGC will decide and present
recommendations of chosen candidates to the whole Board. ... I am copying
Dariusz, our BGC chair, in case he would like to add anything also."

But a few days ago Dariusz said on this list that he wasn't aware of the
background of Geshuri's that is causing concern, even though it was fourth
in a Google search for Geshuri's name.

Sarah

[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-October/079583.html
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:42 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Matthew Flaschen <
> matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > The board had an obligation to fully research both candidates, and insist
> > on more time as needed to do so.
> >
> > Boryana Dineva, the Foundation's Vice-President of Human Resources
> ​, wrote [1] to this mailing list in October 2015:
>
> "Having narrowed down the number in several rounds of review​ ... we are
> meeting with finalists to collect more information and get acquainted over
> this week and next. After that, all finalists will interview with Lila, and
> finally with our panel comprised by the BGC ​[Board Governance Committee]
> ​(and likely also the Board Chair). The BGC will decide and present
> recommendations of chosen candidates to the whole Board. ... I am copying
> Dariusz, our BGC chair, in case he would like to add anything also."
>
> But a few days ago Dariusz said on this list that he wasn't aware of the
> background of Geshuri's that is causing concern, even though it was fourth
> in a Google search for Geshuri's name.
>
> Sarah
>
>
It sounds like Boryana and Lila manage the search until after the finalists
are vetted by staff, and then the last slate of candidates is provided for
the BGC to review. I wonder how many candidates the BGC reviewed directly -
hopefully the number was greater than two. This model suggests that the
failure of vetting rests with the staff and the reliance of the Board on
the staff.

The fact that Dariusz was unaware of the Google issue suggests that the
vetting failure wasn't in not realizing the magnitude of the problem - it
seems the staff missed it entirely. If they were doing even a cursory
review and reference check of the candidates through the very last stage,
it's hard to imagine how that could happen. Perhaps more likely is that the
staff happened upon the issue but didn't forward it to the Board?

~Nathan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

11.01.2016 5:42 PM "SarahSV" <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com> napisał(a):
>
>
> But a few days ago Dariusz said on this list that he wasn't aware of the
> background of Geshuri's that is causing concern, even though it was fourth
> in a Google search for Geshuri's name.

It was tenth several days ago, in Google.com. unfortunate and silly as it
may sound, it was not in top ten on Google.pl or .de / .it for that matter.
I'm not making excuses, just stating the fact.

I'm investigating with the BGC what went wrong with the whole process (that
some Board members did not have full information) and we're hoping to come
back with learning from this failure, as it was just one point of several
that were suboptimal.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:

>
> It was tenth several days ago, in Google.com. unfortunate and silly as it
> may sound, it was not in top ten on Google.pl or .de / .it for that matter.
> I'm not making excuses, just stating the fact.
>
> I'm investigating with the BGC what went wrong with the whole process (that
> some Board members did not have full information) and we're hoping to come
> back with learning from this failure, as it was just one point of several
> that were suboptimal.
>
> ​Okay, thank you, ​
Dariusz
​, I appreciate that you're responding and trying to find out what happened.

Sarah​
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:27 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>
>

<snip>

we're hoping to come back with learning <snip>

Dariusz

​, I appreciate that you're responding and trying to find out what happened.
>
> Sarah​


+1

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I find it amazing – alarming – unbelievable – that some board members knew,
and did not tell the others.

Andreas

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:27 AM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > It was tenth several days ago, in Google.com. unfortunate and silly as it
> > may sound, it was not in top ten on Google.pl or .de / .it for that
> matter.
> > I'm not making excuses, just stating the fact.
> >
> > I'm investigating with the BGC what went wrong with the whole process
> (that
> > some Board members did not have full information) and we're hoping to
> come
> > back with learning from this failure, as it was just one point of several
> > that were suboptimal.
> >
> > ​Okay, thank you, ​
> Dariusz
> ​, I appreciate that you're responding and trying to find out what
> happened.
>
> Sarah​
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Dariusz,

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
>
>
> I'm investigating with the BGC what went wrong with the whole process (that
> some Board members did not have full information) and we're hoping to come
> back with learning from this failure, as it was just one point of several
> that were suboptimal.

In your investigation it might be worthwhile noting that both Boryana
Dineva and Arnnon were at one stage Tesla employees?

My apologies if this has already been raised prior?

Ruslan

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 9 January 2016 at 08:22, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:

> I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into the
> matter, and prepare an answer relevant parties can agree on.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
They've had a few days. Any further speculation?



--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Dear Patricio Lorente,

My open letter to the board was six days ago. Could you please take
the following three actions?

1. Acknowledge my open letter sent to you and the board and its
request. This is a courtesy I would expect of the WMF board chair that
needs no discussion or trustee decision making, and is expected within
a day or two, not a week or more.

2. A week has past, so there can be no doubt that you have set a
timetable for talking with Geshuri and for the board of trustees to
make a joint decision as to whether he is fit to remain a trustee.
Please make your timetable public, so that the community is reassured
that formal communications such as this letter to the board are not a
waste of time, and that the WMF chair is not only aware of community
concerns but is taking these questions seriously.

3. Please publish the work-flow of when and how the nomination for
Geshuri came to the board, and make that information public rather
than leaving it to speculation and pundits. Trustee appointments are a
key part of your governance responsibilities and are so fundamental to
confidence in the WMF there is no excuse to keep basic details a
secret. This should include who recommended Geshuri to the board,
there can be no reasons of confidentiality that apply apart from the
personal embarrassment that may arise from poor judgement, and is of
clear public interest if a trustee or past trustee made the
recommendation.

I look forward to seeing you personally take open and transparent
action rather than only acting in secret or through others with
plausible deniability.

Yours sincerely,
Fae

On 7 January 2016 at 10:38, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Patricio Lorente,
>
> I request that the WMF board take immediate action to publish a
> comprehensive account of why you appointed Geshuri as a trustee,
> despite his direct involvement and being named as a defendant in the
> on-going scandal of anticompetitive agreements at Google, or that
> Geshuri chooses to step down from his new position of trust.
>
> This is being separated out as an open letter to the board in a new
> discussion thread, to avoid getting confused with other issues. In the
> light of recent challenges to the WMF with regard to a dramatic loss
> of confidence in their senior management and the politicking behind
> the loss of James Heilman as a trustee openly advocating for
> transparency to the actions of the WMF board, Geshuri's background
> with anticompetitive practices can only damage confidence in the WMF
> board with regard to their duty to hold WMF senior management to
> account and acting with the highest possible accountability and public
> transparency.
>
> Links showing Geshuri's public footprint on this issue:
> 1. http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini
> 2. http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Antitrust/Apple-Google-Silicon-Valley-No-Cold-Calling.shtml
> 3. http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/23/google-shareholders-miffed-over-wage-fight.htm
> 4. https://www.quora.com/How-is-Arnnon-Geshuri-current-VP-HR-at-Tesla-and-former-chief-architect-of-staffing-at-Google-good-at-what-he-does
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Fae
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andrew Green <agreen@wikimedia.org>
> Date: 7 January 2016 at 08:58
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Interesting to note Arnnon's role in the Silicon Valley anti-poaching
> affair: http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini
>
> - Andrew
> --
> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Yeah, I kinda expected them to at least acknowledge the issue (which
Dariusz did by the way, in his capacity as the chair of the committee
responsible for this process) and outline a timeline for a response, or say
there will be none.

I see Fae wrote a similar email with such surprise. Lets see where that
goes.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:37 PM, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 January 2016 at 08:22, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>
> > I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into
> the
> > matter, and prepare an answer relevant parties can agree on.
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> >
> They've had a few days. Any further speculation?
>
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

We are now approaching 2 weeks since the open letter to the Chairman
of the WMF board. There has been no formal response, nor any
commitment to take action. Consequently a simple open and public vote
of confidence for Geshuri's appointment has been created.

Link:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vote_of_confidence:Arnnon_Geshuri

Please vote or add your comment there.

Thanks,
Fae

On 7 January 2016 at 10:38, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Patricio Lorente,
>
> I request that the WMF board take immediate action to publish a
> comprehensive account of why you appointed Geshuri as a trustee,
> despite his direct involvement and being named as a defendant in the
> on-going scandal of anticompetitive agreements at Google, or that
> Geshuri chooses to step down from his new position of trust.
>
> This is being separated out as an open letter to the board in a new
> discussion thread, to avoid getting confused with other issues. In the
> light of recent challenges to the WMF with regard to a dramatic loss
> of confidence in their senior management and the politicking behind
> the loss of James Heilman as a trustee openly advocating for
> transparency to the actions of the WMF board, Geshuri's background
> with anticompetitive practices can only damage confidence in the WMF
> board with regard to their duty to hold WMF senior management to
> account and acting with the highest possible accountability and public
> transparency.
>
> Links showing Geshuri's public footprint on this issue:
> 1. http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini
> 2. http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Antitrust/Apple-Google-Silicon-Valley-No-Cold-Calling.shtml
> 3. http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/23/google-shareholders-miffed-over-wage-fight.htm
> 4. https://www.quora.com/How-is-Arnnon-Geshuri-current-VP-HR-at-Tesla-and-former-chief-architect-of-staffing-at-Google-good-at-what-he-does
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Fae
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andrew Green <agreen@wikimedia.org>
> Date: 7 January 2016 at 08:58
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Interesting to note Arnnon's role in the Silicon Valley anti-poaching
> affair: http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini
>
> - Andrew
> --
> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae



--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Has Arnnon been actually convicted of a felony? Where is presumption of
innocence?
The firing was part of a larger system he seems unlikely to have set up
on his own volition.
Look at his face
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arnnon_Geshuri_-_January_2016_by_Myleen_Hollero.jpg

Il 08/01/2016 17:43, Kevin Gorman ha scritto:
> I'm going to publicly second (or third, or fifth,) the idea that given
> Arnnon's role in an incident involving illegal anti-poaching agreements he
> should either be removed from the board with haste, or the board should
> publish an incredibly good reason as to why he should remain on it. Keep
> in mind that Arnnon wasn't a bystander to this scandal, he actively fired a
> recruiter who failed to follow the terms of an illegal anti-poaching
> agreement in less than one hour of being informed about it in the first
> place. I like to think of Wikimedia as a relatively humane movement, and
> there are very few situations where I'm comfortable with someone who is
> that comfortable with the idea of firing an employee (who had presumably
> been there for some time) within sixty minutes of learning the employee
> didn't follow an illegal agreement having the degree of influence over the
> movement that members of the Board of Trustees have.
>
> The Wikimedia movement is not a movement whose direction should be set by
> someone with that degree of callousness - and the fact that he happily
> participated in the sort of anti-competitive agreement he did, which he
> must have known was illegal and which exposed his former employers to not
> insignificant liability, brings forth significant doubt as to whether or
> not he can reasonably be trusted to carry out his fiduciary duties as a
> trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> ----
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Andreas Kolbe<jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My apologies. I just noticed the resolutions were in fact added on January
>> 6, 2016.[1]
>>
>> They are dated December 9, 2015. Both appointments were unanimous.
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&diff=104423&oldid=104354
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Andreas Kolbe<jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The resolutions and voting records for these recent appointments have not
>>> yet been posted tohttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
>>>
>>> Could the page please be brought up to date?
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Ricordisamoa, I don't believe anybody has said he was convicted of a felony
(though there was, briefly, a related inaccuracy on the Meta page). The
details are explored pretty well here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri#Geshuri.27s_personal_role

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org>
wrote:

> Has Arnnon been actually convicted of a felony? Where is presumption of
> innocence?
> The firing was part of a larger system he seems unlikely to have set up on
> his own volition.
> Look at his face
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arnnon_Geshuri_-_January_2016_by_Myleen_Hollero.jpg
>
>
> Il 08/01/2016 17:43, Kevin Gorman ha scritto:
>
>> I'm going to publicly second (or third, or fifth,) the idea that given
>> Arnnon's role in an incident involving illegal anti-poaching agreements he
>> should either be removed from the board with haste, or the board should
>> publish an incredibly good reason as to why he should remain on it. Keep
>> in mind that Arnnon wasn't a bystander to this scandal, he actively fired
>> a
>> recruiter who failed to follow the terms of an illegal anti-poaching
>> agreement in less than one hour of being informed about it in the first
>> place. I like to think of Wikimedia as a relatively humane movement, and
>> there are very few situations where I'm comfortable with someone who is
>> that comfortable with the idea of firing an employee (who had presumably
>> been there for some time) within sixty minutes of learning the employee
>> didn't follow an illegal agreement having the degree of influence over the
>> movement that members of the Board of Trustees have.
>>
>> The Wikimedia movement is not a movement whose direction should be set by
>> someone with that degree of callousness - and the fact that he happily
>> participated in the sort of anti-competitive agreement he did, which he
>> must have known was illegal and which exposed his former employers to not
>> insignificant liability, brings forth significant doubt as to whether or
>> not he can reasonably be trusted to carry out his fiduciary duties as a
>> trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>>
>> ----
>> Kevin Gorman
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Andreas Kolbe<jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My apologies. I just noticed the resolutions were in fact added on January
>>> 6, 2016.[1]
>>>
>>> They are dated December 9, 2015. Both appointments were unanimous.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>>
>>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&diff=104423&oldid=104354
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Andreas Kolbe<jayen466@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The resolutions and voting records for these recent appointments have not
>>>> yet been posted tohttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
>>>>
>>>> Could the page please be brought up to date?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

There was a finding of civil, not criminal, liability in the case. Against the companies as a whole not individuals.

Generally such never becomes individual liability or criminality.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org> wrote:
>
> Has Arnnon been actually convicted of a felony? Where is presumption of innocence?
> The firing was part of a larger system he seems unlikely to have set up on his own volition.
> Look at his face https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arnnon_Geshuri_-_January_2016_by_Myleen_Hollero.jpg
>
> Il 08/01/2016 17:43, Kevin Gorman ha scritto:
>> I'm going to publicly second (or third, or fifth,) the idea that given
>> Arnnon's role in an incident involving illegal anti-poaching agreements he
>> should either be removed from the board with haste, or the board should
>> publish an incredibly good reason as to why he should remain on it. Keep
>> in mind that Arnnon wasn't a bystander to this scandal, he actively fired a
>> recruiter who failed to follow the terms of an illegal anti-poaching
>> agreement in less than one hour of being informed about it in the first
>> place. I like to think of Wikimedia as a relatively humane movement, and
>> there are very few situations where I'm comfortable with someone who is
>> that comfortable with the idea of firing an employee (who had presumably
>> been there for some time) within sixty minutes of learning the employee
>> didn't follow an illegal agreement having the degree of influence over the
>> movement that members of the Board of Trustees have.
>>
>> The Wikimedia movement is not a movement whose direction should be set by
>> someone with that degree of callousness - and the fact that he happily
>> participated in the sort of anti-competitive agreement he did, which he
>> must have known was illegal and which exposed his former employers to not
>> insignificant liability, brings forth significant doubt as to whether or
>> not he can reasonably be trusted to carry out his fiduciary duties as a
>> trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>>
>> ----
>> Kevin Gorman
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Andreas Kolbe<jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My apologies. I just noticed the resolutions were in fact added on January
>>> 6, 2016.[1]
>>>
>>> They are dated December 9, 2015. Both appointments were unanimous.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&diff=104423&oldid=104354
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Andreas Kolbe<jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The resolutions and voting records for these recent appointments have not
>>>> yet been posted tohttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
>>>>
>>>> Could the page please be brought up to date?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I decided to support that vote.

This has not been an easy decision because I find it *tremendously*
painful to vote against a person and it hurts me in my feelings to do so.
I hoped very dearly that the board would actually issue a statement that
would have helped me understand the decision and convinced me that this
appointement was a good decision. I hoped very dearly Arnnon would post
on this list to address the issue and to convince me he was a good fit
in spite of the whole situation. I waited... waited... waited... but
nothing came.

I can't sit and say nothing.



Learning the whole story about Arnnon was a disappointment to me as it
means the board selection process is not working as it should be (for a
mature organization as WMF ought to be by now). If the screening process
had been done properly, I believe the board would have refrained from
selecting him, or at least would have taken the time to address the
issue before any appointement announcement. This decreased my trust in
the board a bit, but I can live with that. Such mistakes do happen ;)

Secundly, Kat completely nailed it with regards to integrity being one
of our core values.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080854.html.
I do feel unconfortable with Arnnon being on the board.

Then I was astonished when I discovered that Dariusz, who has been a
board member for over 6 months, was not aware of the existence of the
Conflict of Interest Policy, which include a pledge of commitment and an
obligation to disclose potential conflicts of interest. A policy voted
by the board several years ago and mandatory for all board members. It
is apparently not enforced anymore, even though it is an approved policy
and obviously a good governance practice. This makes me think the board
is not operating properly anymore on this serious matter.

Last, and not least, over two weeks after the issue was raised on the
mailing list, by several trusted members of our community, the current
board of trustees has not addressed the issue.

I hesitate between two interpretations. Either the board is completely
paralyzed and no more able to make any decision as to what they should
do. Or the board has decided not to provide any feedback, which I
consider completely disrespectful to the community and unhealthy
generally. Either way, I consider this lack of responsiveness from the
board an even WORSE consideration than Arnnon being a board member.

I love you guys... Patricio, Alice, Frieda, Dariusz, Denny, and Jimbo
(*). I love you very much. I know each of you. I value every one of you.
You guys rock in most of what you do and I know it is hard. It is a big
commitment, it is a lot of pressure, it is time-consuming. And I thank
every one of you for your gardianship as well as boldness in taking some
tough decisions.

But here... I do not understand what you are doing. Please take my vote
as a respectful record of my perplexity.


Anthere

(*)Citing community-born members only. Appointed members bring great
perspective, but I do not expect them to know it all about Wikimedia
community.



Le 21/01/16 01:04, Fæ a écrit :
> We are now approaching 2 weeks since the open letter to the Chairman
> of the WMF board. There has been no formal response, nor any
> commitment to take action. Consequently a simple open and public vote
> of confidence for Geshuri's appointment has been created.
>
> Link:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vote_of_confidence:Arnnon_Geshuri
>
> Please vote or add your comment there.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 7 January 2016 at 10:38, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Patricio Lorente,
>>
>> I request that the WMF board take immediate action to publish a
>> comprehensive account of why you appointed Geshuri as a trustee,
>> despite his direct involvement and being named as a defendant in the
>> on-going scandal of anticompetitive agreements at Google, or that
>> Geshuri chooses to step down from his new position of trust.
>>
>> This is being separated out as an open letter to the board in a new
>> discussion thread, to avoid getting confused with other issues. In the
>> light of recent challenges to the WMF with regard to a dramatic loss
>> of confidence in their senior management and the politicking behind
>> the loss of James Heilman as a trustee openly advocating for
>> transparency to the actions of the WMF board, Geshuri's background
>> with anticompetitive practices can only damage confidence in the WMF
>> board with regard to their duty to hold WMF senior management to
>> account and acting with the highest possible accountability and public
>> transparency.
>>
>> Links showing Geshuri's public footprint on this issue:
>> 1. http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini
>> 2. http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Antitrust/Apple-Google-Silicon-Valley-No-Cold-Calling.shtml
>> 3. http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/23/google-shareholders-miffed-over-wage-fight.htm
>> 4. https://www.quora.com/How-is-Arnnon-Geshuri-current-VP-HR-at-Tesla-and-former-chief-architect-of-staffing-at-Google-good-at-what-he-does
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>> Fae
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Andrew Green <agreen@wikimedia.org>
>> Date: 7 January 2016 at 08:58
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>
>>
>> Interesting to note Arnnon's role in the Silicon Valley anti-poaching
>> affair: http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-jobs-eric-schmidt-paul-otellini
>>
>> - Andrew
>> --
>> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
>
>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 01/20/2016 09:36 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> There was a finding of civil, not criminal, liability in the case. Against the companies as a whole not individuals.
>
> Generally such never becomes individual liability or criminality.

You're right that we shouldn't expect criminal charges of Geshuri.

Also, we shouldn't expect key new facts will emerge (the main civil
cases have completed). The jury is not out.

However, what Geshuri did ethically is just as important, if not more.
The board had available information they needed to assess that, but not
all of them found or used it.

Geshuri's choice not to reveal this information is also an ethical problem.

Matt Flaschen


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 01/13/2016 12:00 PM, Fæ wrote:
> Please make your timetable public, so that the community is reassured
> that formal communications such as this letter to the board are not a
> waste of time, and that the WMF chair is not only aware of community
> concerns but is taking these questions seriously.

Thank you.

I don't know if the board is able to make the timetable public, but I
also think it's important that we know whether the board is still
working on this issue, or whether they consider it done.

To that effect, I appreciated your update yesterday
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_no_confidence_on_Arnnon_Geshuri/sig&diff=prev&oldid=15265066),
where you relayed that (per Patricio) the board is still discussing the
issue.

I am glad to know the Board is working on this. It needs to be handled
properly, but we also need to see movement.

Thanks,

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

We are not "seeing movement" by a vague statement of "we're working on it".

In the case of James Heilman, they said essentially the same thing. What
resulted was a vague statement that used a lot of words to say nothing at
all. There needs to be full disclosure and specifics, not a lot of waffle.

We need a commitment to give a fully detailed statement by a specific time,
or else this isn't "movement", just delaying and obfuscating like last time.

Todd

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:

> On 01/13/2016 12:00 PM, Fæ wrote:
>
>> Please make your timetable public, so that the community is reassured
>> that formal communications such as this letter to the board are not a
>> waste of time, and that the WMF chair is not only aware of community
>> concerns but is taking these questions seriously.
>>
>
> Thank you.
>
> I don't know if the board is able to make the timetable public, but I also
> think it's important that we know whether the board is still working on
> this issue, or whether they consider it done.
>
> To that effect, I appreciated your update yesterday (
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_no_confidence_on_Arnnon_Geshuri/sig&diff=prev&oldid=15265066),
> where you relayed that (per Patricio) the board is still discussing the
> issue.
>
> I am glad to know the Board is working on this. It needs to be handled
> properly, but we also need to see movement.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt Flaschen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Florence Devouard wrote:
>I hesitate between two interpretations. Either the board is completely
>paralyzed and no more able to make any decision as to what they should
>do. Or the board has decided not to provide any feedback, which I
>consider completely disrespectful to the community and unhealthy
>generally. Either way, I consider this lack of responsiveness from the
>board an even WORSE consideration than Arnnon being a board member.
>
>I love you guys... Patricio, Alice, Frieda, Dariusz, Denny, and Jimbo
>(*). I love you very much. I know each of you. I value every one of you.
>You guys rock in most of what you do and I know it is hard. It is a big
>commitment, it is a lot of pressure, it is time-consuming. And I thank
>every one of you for your gardianship as well as boldness in taking some
>tough decisions.
>
>But here... I do not understand what you are doing. Please take my vote
>as a respectful record of my perplexity.
>
>(*)Citing community-born members only. Appointed members bring great
>perspective, but I do not expect them to know it all about Wikimedia
>community.

Very well put. Thank you for writing this e-mail.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2016-01-21 7:08 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> Either the board is completely paralyzed and no more able to make any
> decision as to what they should do. Or the board has decided not to
> provide any feedback, which I consider completely disrespectful to the
> community and unhealthy generally.

It would seem to me, Florence, that the board has fallen into a very
unhealthy pattern: when it becomes evident they have made a mistake,
rather than own up to it and correct it they dig trenches and try to
pretend nothing is wrong - letting things degenerate. Ego? Fear of
appearing fallible? Regardless of /why/, the effect is that they stick
by a decision (I really hope) they know was bad.

And now they're doing it again with Arnnon, it seems.

-- Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hello Fae,

To be very clear, is it that you reproach A.G. that he did not disclose
relevant questionable behavior, prior to running as a candidate?

Kind regards
Ziko
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 22 January 2016 at 18:46, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Fae,
>
> To be very clear, is it that you reproach A.G. that he did not disclose
> relevant questionable behavior, prior to running as a candidate?
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko

TL;DR
No, I don't reproach Geshuri personally, everyone makes mistakes, I
certainly have. For all I know he has no past trustee experience and
the level of scrutiny he would be exposed to once appointed may never
have been made clear to him. I do not expect Geshuri to be a fall guy,
I expect the board of trustees to come forward and handle their
governance failure fully and honestly, even if that means that more
than one trustee will need to find the right words to exit gracefully.

BACKGROUND
Let's emphasise this point, the WMF is a very unusual organization,
the board is scrutinized by the eyes of many passionate and committed
volunteers - some to the level of a compulsive disorder - and the n *
$100,000,000 the trustees are trusted to oversee during their terms to
the benefit of open knowledge is considered a huge responsibility by
us, the community.

When this first was raised by my open letter two weeks ago, were I in
Patricio's shoes I would have had a 30 minute phone call with Geshuri
that day, and talked through allegations about his background. As the
allegations in this case are entirely factual, there's a legal case to
refer to, I would have advised him that if he thought he might resign
to avoid a potential fuss in public, that it is better to do it within
a couple of days rather than letting it run and get entrenched. If
there had been a good chance that it would blow over as there was no
meaningful conflict of interest/loyalties, nor any significant
reputational damage that could damage the WMF, then I would suggest we
talk to all trustees by phone that week, to answer their questions and
go over the facts, as I would hope that the full board would continue
to support him as a trustee despite the likelihood for criticism of
the board's decision to appoint him.

Unfortunately in this case I could see no chance that his part in the
Google scandal would just blow over ($400m+ in damages is a *big*
mistake). I expect Patricio would have made the same deduction. By not
giving Geshuri frank advice on day one, we now have a Wikipedia
article about him, a public vote of no confidence and a rising profile
about his past on Google searches that he no doubt wants to leave
forgotten.

Lastly, adding "is there anything in your past" to a standard set of
questions is not good governance. Trustees with this high a public
profile *must* understand what it means to be a trustee on the WMF
board. The Trustee who nominated Geshuri created this problem but not
having a frank chat before his name was ever put forward, and the rest
of the board of Trustees compounded it by never personally checking
whether Geshuri understood the unusual commitment he would be making -
as well as blatantly failing their duty of oversight to ensure the
most basic background checks; such as Geshuri being named in past
legal cases which should be a standard report to the board from WMF
legal for candidates. More detailed checks than this are made for
teachers with access to children, or shop staff with access to a cash
till, but nothing is done for prospective trustees with decisions to
make for our future, as well as approving how that huge pile of money
gets spent and to whom... In this particular case, we have no reasons
given as to why when Jimmy Wales knew about the Google antitrust
scandal in advance of Geshuri's appointment, he failed to ask the
obvious question of Geshuri's role, he failed to either talk to his
fellow trustees about it or quietly ask the governance committee to
look into it before a board vote. Instead we see the repeated excuse
that this was not on the first page of Google searches in various
languages. Bizarre.

So, Geshuri probably deserves an apology from the board because they
failed him. The board urgently requires an independent governance
review, and if one does not happen because a few plasters have been
stuck on the current process and exactly the same people who made this
mistake think they are experts in good governance, that will be
extreme hubris which inevitably leads to falling down another deep
hole in no time at all. If anyone doubts this, they need to go back to
the WMF blog post only a fortnight ago with glowing quotes from Lila
and Dariusz which are now embarrassing to read. Hopefully they will
never put themselves in this position
again.<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/05/new-wikimedia-foundation-trustees>

Fae
--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi,

Thanks Fae, I agree 100% with that.
The biggest mistake is not from A.G., but from the board as you mention.
So A. G. resigning won't solve the issue. We need a complete review of
the board governance and appointment process.

Regards,

Yann

2016-01-22 21:00 GMT+01:00 Fæ <faewik@gmail.com>:
> On 22 January 2016 at 18:46, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello Fae,
>>
>> To be very clear, is it that you reproach A.G. that he did not disclose
>> relevant questionable behavior, prior to running as a candidate?
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>
> TL;DR
> No, I don't reproach Geshuri personally, everyone makes mistakes, I
> certainly have. For all I know he has no past trustee experience and
> the level of scrutiny he would be exposed to once appointed may never
> have been made clear to him. I do not expect Geshuri to be a fall guy,
> I expect the board of trustees to come forward and handle their
> governance failure fully and honestly, even if that means that more
> than one trustee will need to find the right words to exit gracefully.
>
> BACKGROUND
> Let's emphasise this point, the WMF is a very unusual organization,
> the board is scrutinized by the eyes of many passionate and committed
> volunteers - some to the level of a compulsive disorder - and the n *
> $100,000,000 the trustees are trusted to oversee during their terms to
> the benefit of open knowledge is considered a huge responsibility by
> us, the community.
>
> When this first was raised by my open letter two weeks ago, were I in
> Patricio's shoes I would have had a 30 minute phone call with Geshuri
> that day, and talked through allegations about his background. As the
> allegations in this case are entirely factual, there's a legal case to
> refer to, I would have advised him that if he thought he might resign
> to avoid a potential fuss in public, that it is better to do it within
> a couple of days rather than letting it run and get entrenched. If
> there had been a good chance that it would blow over as there was no
> meaningful conflict of interest/loyalties, nor any significant
> reputational damage that could damage the WMF, then I would suggest we
> talk to all trustees by phone that week, to answer their questions and
> go over the facts, as I would hope that the full board would continue
> to support him as a trustee despite the likelihood for criticism of
> the board's decision to appoint him.
>
> Unfortunately in this case I could see no chance that his part in the
> Google scandal would just blow over ($400m+ in damages is a *big*
> mistake). I expect Patricio would have made the same deduction. By not
> giving Geshuri frank advice on day one, we now have a Wikipedia
> article about him, a public vote of no confidence and a rising profile
> about his past on Google searches that he no doubt wants to leave
> forgotten.
>
> Lastly, adding "is there anything in your past" to a standard set of
> questions is not good governance. Trustees with this high a public
> profile *must* understand what it means to be a trustee on the WMF
> board. The Trustee who nominated Geshuri created this problem but not
> having a frank chat before his name was ever put forward, and the rest
> of the board of Trustees compounded it by never personally checking
> whether Geshuri understood the unusual commitment he would be making -
> as well as blatantly failing their duty of oversight to ensure the
> most basic background checks; such as Geshuri being named in past
> legal cases which should be a standard report to the board from WMF
> legal for candidates. More detailed checks than this are made for
> teachers with access to children, or shop staff with access to a cash
> till, but nothing is done for prospective trustees with decisions to
> make for our future, as well as approving how that huge pile of money
> gets spent and to whom... In this particular case, we have no reasons
> given as to why when Jimmy Wales knew about the Google antitrust
> scandal in advance of Geshuri's appointment, he failed to ask the
> obvious question of Geshuri's role, he failed to either talk to his
> fellow trustees about it or quietly ask the governance committee to
> look into it before a board vote. Instead we see the repeated excuse
> that this was not on the first page of Google searches in various
> languages. Bizarre.
>
> So, Geshuri probably deserves an apology from the board because they
> failed him. The board urgently requires an independent governance
> review, and if one does not happen because a few plasters have been
> stuck on the current process and exactly the same people who made this
> mistake think they are experts in good governance, that will be
> extreme hubris which inevitably leads to falling down another deep
> hole in no time at all. If anyone doubts this, they need to go back to
> the WMF blog post only a fortnight ago with glowing quotes from Lila
> and Dariusz which are now embarrassing to read. Hopefully they will
> never put themselves in this position
> again.<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/05/new-wikimedia-foundation-trustees>
>
> Fae
> --
> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

So, Fae, it's not someone's obligation to inform about his past, but
its the obligation of the other to examine?
Ziko

2016-01-22 21:00 GMT+01:00 Fæ <faewik@gmail.com>:
> On 22 January 2016 at 18:46, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello Fae,
>>
>> To be very clear, is it that you reproach A.G. that he did not disclose
>> relevant questionable behavior, prior to running as a candidate?
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>
> TL;DR
> No, I don't reproach Geshuri personally, everyone makes mistakes, I
> certainly have. For all I know he has no past trustee experience and
> the level of scrutiny he would be exposed to once appointed may never
> have been made clear to him. I do not expect Geshuri to be a fall guy,
> I expect the board of trustees to come forward and handle their
> governance failure fully and honestly, even if that means that more
> than one trustee will need to find the right words to exit gracefully.
>
> BACKGROUND
> Let's emphasise this point, the WMF is a very unusual organization,
> the board is scrutinized by the eyes of many passionate and committed
> volunteers - some to the level of a compulsive disorder - and the n *
> $100,000,000 the trustees are trusted to oversee during their terms to
> the benefit of open knowledge is considered a huge responsibility by
> us, the community.
>
> When this first was raised by my open letter two weeks ago, were I in
> Patricio's shoes I would have had a 30 minute phone call with Geshuri
> that day, and talked through allegations about his background. As the
> allegations in this case are entirely factual, there's a legal case to
> refer to, I would have advised him that if he thought he might resign
> to avoid a potential fuss in public, that it is better to do it within
> a couple of days rather than letting it run and get entrenched. If
> there had been a good chance that it would blow over as there was no
> meaningful conflict of interest/loyalties, nor any significant
> reputational damage that could damage the WMF, then I would suggest we
> talk to all trustees by phone that week, to answer their questions and
> go over the facts, as I would hope that the full board would continue
> to support him as a trustee despite the likelihood for criticism of
> the board's decision to appoint him.
>
> Unfortunately in this case I could see no chance that his part in the
> Google scandal would just blow over ($400m+ in damages is a *big*
> mistake). I expect Patricio would have made the same deduction. By not
> giving Geshuri frank advice on day one, we now have a Wikipedia
> article about him, a public vote of no confidence and a rising profile
> about his past on Google searches that he no doubt wants to leave
> forgotten.
>
> Lastly, adding "is there anything in your past" to a standard set of
> questions is not good governance. Trustees with this high a public
> profile *must* understand what it means to be a trustee on the WMF
> board. The Trustee who nominated Geshuri created this problem but not
> having a frank chat before his name was ever put forward, and the rest
> of the board of Trustees compounded it by never personally checking
> whether Geshuri understood the unusual commitment he would be making -
> as well as blatantly failing their duty of oversight to ensure the
> most basic background checks; such as Geshuri being named in past
> legal cases which should be a standard report to the board from WMF
> legal for candidates. More detailed checks than this are made for
> teachers with access to children, or shop staff with access to a cash
> till, but nothing is done for prospective trustees with decisions to
> make for our future, as well as approving how that huge pile of money
> gets spent and to whom... In this particular case, we have no reasons
> given as to why when Jimmy Wales knew about the Google antitrust
> scandal in advance of Geshuri's appointment, he failed to ask the
> obvious question of Geshuri's role, he failed to either talk to his
> fellow trustees about it or quietly ask the governance committee to
> look into it before a board vote. Instead we see the repeated excuse
> that this was not on the first page of Google searches in various
> languages. Bizarre.
>
> So, Geshuri probably deserves an apology from the board because they
> failed him. The board urgently requires an independent governance
> review, and if one does not happen because a few plasters have been
> stuck on the current process and exactly the same people who made this
> mistake think they are experts in good governance, that will be
> extreme hubris which inevitably leads to falling down another deep
> hole in no time at all. If anyone doubts this, they need to go back to
> the WMF blog post only a fortnight ago with glowing quotes from Lila
> and Dariusz which are now embarrassing to read. Hopefully they will
> never put themselves in this position
> again.<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/05/new-wikimedia-foundation-trustees>
>
> Fae
> --
> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>