Mailing List Archive

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
... 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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google [ In reply to ]
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>

1 2 3 4  View All