Mailing List Archive

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>