Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Florence Devouard]

Le 08/01/16 17:43, Kevin Gorman a écrit :

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

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


Kevin Gorman


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


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



Anthere

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



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] What happened on the Board of Trustees?

[Tobias]

Dear all,

right now, we know very little about the removal of James. It is hard
for anyone not involved (which is the vast majority of this community)
to come up with any safe conclusions, because there is a lack of
evidence. This opens up the possibility of speculation. I would prefer
the stating of facts instead of speculation, but since that's not
happening, I think speculation might be a way to incentivize more
insiders to come forward with facts, if only to refute the content of
speculation.

I am going to attempt to do this in a neutral fashion, and I will also
follow another important tradition in the movement, assume good faith. I
do not subscribe to conspiracy theories that allege a secret plan by
Google or intentions of harming Wikipedia on anyone's part.

Here's what I think might have happened:

James, a longstanding community member, is accustomed to how we do
things on Wikipedia -- with transparency, an open discourse, but also
endless discussions on talk pages. Other members of the board have less
of a "Wikipedian" background, and are more accustomed to how things work
in companies: board meetings in secret, focus on being effective at the
cost of transparency, with a frank tone on the inside, and a diplomatic
and collective voice to the outside.
These very different conceptions clash, for instance when it comes to
the plans of a "Wikipedia knowledge engine": some prefer early community
involvement and plead openness, others, perhaps scared of the harsh
criticism of early announced and unfinished products by the community,
wish to wait with giving out more information. James is frustrated and
tries to push other board members towards more transparency, which in
turn makes them wary of him and they mutually develop distrust.
The pivotal part of the story then is the question of WMF leadership,
and the fact that there is a lot of discontent among WMF staff with
senior leadership, as indicated by an employee engagement survey. James,
being used to transparent discussions, pushes for a thorough and open
review, and talks to staff members to gain more information. The other
board members, perhaps somewhat in panic, think he will initiate a
public discussion about replacing senior leadership and (perhaps
inadvertently) will cause a major disruption to the entire foundation,
so they decide to call a halt before it's too late and remove him from
the board.


This is what, given the information publicly available, is in my opinion
at least one likely explanation of what happened. Please take it with a
grain of salt, it /is/ speculation. I intend this to undergo the process
of falsification and encourage anyone involved to call me out on what
they perceive is incorrect.

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Pine W]

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

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

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

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

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

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Kat Walsh]

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

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

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

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

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

-Kat

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

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W  wrote:

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

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

best,

dariusz





-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i grupy badawczej NeRDS
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://n wrds.kozminski.edu.pl

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

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Milos Rancic]

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

Sorry for being harsh, but this is very lame.

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

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

I suggest you the next procedure:

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

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

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

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

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

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thank you, Jan-Bart and Stu

[Katy Love]

I've worked with Jan-Bart for three years,  and I too want to thank him for
his many years of service to the movement and the board, as well as to the
annual plan grant program and to the Funds Dissemination Committee!

As one of the Board FDC representatives to the FDC for several years,
Jan-Bart, you provided leadership and support to us as we developed,
refined and evaluated the program. As others have said, it's clear how much
this movement means to you, and you've been a significant presence and
supporter to many.

Thank you for all you've given!
Katy

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:

> Thank you for this message Lodewijk !
>
> I would like to join the messages already posted to thank both Stu and
> Jan-Bart. I was on the board when we ask them to join us and I have no
> memory of ever regretting that decision ;)
>
> I wish you both the best !
> JB, can we expect to see you in Italy next summer ? I sure hope so...
>
> Anthere
>
>  Le 06/01/16 08:10, Lodewijk a écrit :
>
> While we have long discussions on this list about board composition, we
>> seem to almost ignore the fact that two long time veterans are leaving the
>> Wikimedia Foundation board, as scheduled. Jan-Bart de Vreede and Stu West
>> have been around longer than many regular editors nowadays, and I think
>> there are not many people who can recall the days that the board didn't
>> have them on it. I have never had the pleasure to serve on the board with
>> them, but a little thank-you from our community side, would seem in place.
>>
>> Stu joined the board already in 2008 (filling Michael Davis' seat), and
>> has
>> been a solid power on the board's audit responsibilities (I believe he
>> chaired the audit committee for quite a while) and was a force behind the
>> accountability of movement affiliates. While we often strongly disagreed
>> on
>> affiliate issues, I appreciate the fact that he always remained
>> constructive and wanted to think about solutions rather than problems. He
>> served both as treasurer and vice chair.
>>
>> Jan-Bart was on the board even longer, since early 2007, and I recall
>> already working with him through Kennisnet (a Dutch foundation for
>> education and IT) before that. Jan-Bart is one of those rare people who
>> went to ALL wikimania conferences, and can be easily recognised there with
>> his big smile. I can't remember a theme Jan-Bart didn't work on in the
>> past
>> years (Affiliates, HR, searching a new Executive Director) and he served
>> the board in many positions, including as chair.
>>
>> I'm sure that the WMF communications staff and/or board has a nice
>> thankyou
>> coming up - with a more accurate description of the awesome work they did,
>> that I now made up from the top of my head. But in the mean time, I'd like
>> to do it myself: Thank you Jan-Bart and Stu for all the time, energy and
>> effort that you poured into our movement. I know that not all of us
>> appreciate this as much as we perhaps should, and sometimes you may even
>> have perceived us as hostile. I do sincerely hope that you had fun with us
>> though, and I'm confident that you made a big dent in our impossible
>> mission of sharing the sum of all knowledge with everyone.
>>
>> I hope to meet you again soon, at least in Italy at Wikimania, and I hope
>> to see you around in our movement in many different ways.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Lodewijk
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Todd Allen]

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

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

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> You'll find the allegations to be true, Dariusz.  Although the link
> provided was just to Pando, the internal email from Arnnon was released by
> court order - and the entire anti-solicitation fiasco has been fairly
> widely covered in the US tech news.  I knew I recognized Arnnon's name from
> somewhere, I just didn't remember where immediately. It recently resulted
> in a $435 million settlement for employees of the the companies involved
> due to lost competitive wages.  There's also an ongoing shareholder lawsuit
> about it still.  Besides the news coverage, really, the damning thing is
> just the direct emails.  They were unsealed by the judge and a copy is
> hosted here:
> https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1019489/google-email-chain.pdf
> -
> although you can also get a copy from PACER if you want a 100% verified
> one.
>
> They show in Arnnon's own words that (a) he's willing to participate in an
> illegal anti-solicitation agreement, and (b) he's willing to
> instantaneously fire any employee who violates that illegal
> anti-solicitation agreement.  I know WMF has benefited from it's
> relationship with Google historically... but in terms of board members, I
> really think we need people who are not just talented but who uphold the
> values of the movement - and I don't think Arnnon's behavior as covered in
> the media and in the case filings do that.  Also, since we're appointing a
> fiduciary, it seems like it might not be the best idea to appoint a
> fiduciary whose actions at another company were part of a chain of actions
> that resulted in a $435 million settlement.  That's a lot of Jimmyeyes from
> the corner of my screen.
>
> I'm additionally kind of worried because... this really should have come up
> in background vetting of potential board members.  Since there's
> information explicitly about it within the first couple pages of any search
> engine, this suggests that the process involved in vetting potential board
> members didn't involve digging deep in to their backgrounds at all.  Hiring
> for pretty much *any* position should normally involve at least a cursory
> scan of the internet to see if they are, say, a wanted fugitive, or
> participated in illegal anti-competitive behavior like this in the past to
> the point that it resulted in a settlement that large (and that is just for
> the employees of the companies involved, several shareholder lawsuits are
> ongoing.)
>
> Here's a recent lawsuit from shareholders related to it.  Keep in mind that
> these are just allegations by the shareholders, but they're pretty well
> supported by the court-ordered released emails -
> http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Googpoach.pdf - and
> a
> class action by employees of the companies involved recently settled for
> $435 million in lost competitive wages due to the illegal anti-solicitation
> agreement.
>
> "Defendant Arnnon Geshuri (“Geshuri”) has served as Google’s Director of
> Recruiting at all times relevant to this lawsuit. Defendant Geshuri was
> involved in developing and perpetuating the illegal collusive scheme
> alleged herein. Defendant Geshuri knowingly, recklessly, or with gross
> negligence: (i) oversaw the creation of the protocols governing
> anticompetitive hiring agreements between Google and other companies; (ii)
> caused or allowed Google to enter into such illegal anticompetitive
> agreements; (iii) allowed Defendants Page, Brin, and Schmidt to dominate
> and control the Google Board of Directors with little or no effective
> oversight; and (iv) failed to implement adequate internal controls to
> ensure that Google complied with federal laws and regulations"
>
> Even though those are allegations from an unsettled shareholder lawsuit,
> since the employee class action was settled for $435m and there are
> extensive details of what went on in the settement documents, I'd give that
> paragraph a bit more credence than I would a paragraph from an average
> unsettled lawsuit.  I'm sure that Arnnon is personally skilled, I just
> really don't feel that his behavior as described in the settled class
> action/documents related to it/the general news media is in line with the
> values of the Wikimedia movement.
>
> Best,
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Dariusz, you said in your statement that was published in the Wikimedia
> > > Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over 

[Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[James Heilman]

Hey All

Here is my statement of apology which I sent to my fellow board members Dec
19, 2015 and which has been commented on by a number of them on this list:

To my fellow board members,

After our conversation today it dawned upon me that I have not
communicated well just how much I have learned from this difficult
process. Over the last month I have put a great deal of thought into
what has brought us to where we are today.

First off, I acknowledge a large degree of responsibility for it. My
actions showed inexperience.  What I did was out of process. I did not
communicate sufficiently.  I ignored some of the advice that I
received.

Still, it seems I have not apologized in a meaningful way  I want to
say clearly that I am sorry for my arrogant start as a board member,
and for the disruption it caused.

I need to mention how much I appreciate all the extra effort from
other board members to constructively address the issues we have been
facing. I especially note Guy and Jimmy's efforts with respect to
putting in place extra measures so that the staff can be heard.

While we have disagreed, I have committed to and have supported our
final decision. I have followed the agreed process since our
deliberations.  I believe I have constructively contributed to the
fact that the WMF staff has taken the Board’s decision with a measured
degree of acceptance. I have been working hard on getting WMF staff,
as well as other stakeholders on board.

I have seriously considered stepping down; however, I am not one to
give up easily. I do learn from my mistakes. I know that I have great
deal to offer the board and feel a deep sense of responsibility to the
community that elected me.

You do need a Board member you can trust. I would like to ask you to
give me the second chance to prove that I deserve your trust--I intend
to work hard to earn it.  Our board made the decision to give Lila a
second chance in the face of staff mistrust. In the long road ahead to
improve our movement, I would like to have the same opportunity to
continue working together with you as well.

Sincerely,

James Heilman


-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Thomas Goldammer]

2016-01-09 0:40 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :

>
> Our board made the decision to give Lila a
> second chance in the face of staff mistrust.
>

Now that's interesting. Where can I read more about this?

Th.
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Vituzzu]

Il 09/01/2016 01:08, Thomas Goldammer ha scritto:

2016-01-09 0:40 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :


Our board made the decision to give Lila a
second chance in the face of staff mistrust.


Now that's interesting. Where can I read more about this?

Th.


I wonder how did this kind of leak weigh in removal.

Anyway it's terribly interesting.

Apart from drama, allegations, mistrust, etc. I think no one can 
disagree the whole process is terribly broken.
Before defying any "strategy", any "vision", any [put a cool word here] 
we should re-start from the basics of what the Board is supposed to be 
but, above all, *how* it is supposed to work.


What I read made me  think James' removal was harsh but still fair. But 
if so many people are disappointed then there's something wrong with the 
process.


Shit happens, leaks happen, mistake happens. It seems current 
Foundation-side architecture lies upon the assertion no Board member, no 
higher staff will ever break bad. Also, it seems to forget our universe 
is run by volunteering. Till now we were so lucky (or at least most of 
troubles were internally sanitized).


I belong to the "pure online" class of volunteers and I don't feel so 
comfortable with a Board which seems to be turning into a Silicon Valley 
management board, denying our nature. Surely WMF financial dimensions 
need a professional management but this kind of skill (and stability) 
should come from a motivated staff instead of from a de facto co-opted 
Board.



Vito

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Nathan]

I hope some day someone will be bold enough to tell the rest of us what
this is all really about. I'm sure I'm not alone (though perhaps in the
minority!) in not having inside staff contacts to provide the straight
dope.
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Kevin Gorman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,
Kevin Gorman

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Lodewijk]

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

Lodewijk

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> Now this is something that's worthy of being dismissed (involuntarily, if
> necessary) from the WMF board. This individual clearly does not meet our
> community values of transparency and honesty, or at least such is in
> serious question.
>
> Is the Board considering doing so, or reading this at all? It's really time
> to open up, not close the ranks.
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>
> > You'll find the allegations to be true, Dariusz.  Although the link
> > provided was just to Pando, the internal email from Arnnon was released
> by
> > court order - and the entire anti-solicitation fiasco has been fairly
> > widely covered in the US tech news.  I knew I recognized Arnnon's name
> from
> > somewhere, I just didn't remember where immediately. It recently resulted
> > in a $435 million settlement for employees of the the companies involved
> > due to lost competitive wages.  There's also an ongoing shareholder
> lawsuit
> > about it still.  Besides the news coverage, really, the damning thing is
> > just the direct emails.  They were unsealed by the judge and a copy is
> > hosted here:
> >
> https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1019489/google-email-chain.pdf
> > -
> > although you can also get a copy from PACER if you want a 100% verified
> > one.
> >
> > They show in Arnnon's own words that (a) he's willing to participate in
> an
> > illegal anti-solicitation agreement, and (b) he's willing to
> > instantaneously fire any employee who violates that illegal
> > anti-solicitation agreement.  I know WMF has benefited from it's
> > relationship with Google historically... but in terms of board members, I
> > really think we need people who are not just talented but who uphold the
> > values of the movement - and I don't think Arnnon's behavior as covered
> in
> > the media and in the case filings do that.  Also, since we're appointing
> a
> > fiduciary, it seems like it might not be the best idea to appoint a
> > fiduciary whose actions at another company were part of a chain of
> actions
> > that resulted in a $435 million settlement.  That's a lot of Jimmyeyes
> from
> > the corner of my screen.
> >
> > I'm additionally kind of worried because... this really should have come
> up
> > in background vetting of potential board members.  Since there's
> > information explicitly about it within the first couple pages of any
> search
> > engine, this suggests that the process involved in vetting potential
> board
> > members didn't involve digging deep in to their backgrounds at all.
> Hiring
> > for pretty much *any* position should normally involve at least a cursory
> > scan of the internet to see if they are, say, a wanted fugitive, or
> > participated in illegal anti-competitive behavior like this in the past
> to
> > the point that it resulted in a settlement that large (and that is just
> for
> > the employees of the companies involved, several shareholder lawsuits are
> > ongoing.)
> >
> > Here's a recent lawsuit from shareholders related to it.  Keep in mind
> that
> > these are just allegations by the shareholders, but they're pretty well
> > supported by the court-ordered released emails -
> > http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Googpoach.pdf -
> and
> > a
> > class action by employees of the companies involved recently settled for
> > $435 million in lost competitive wages due to the illegal
> anti-solicitation
> > agreement.
> >
> > "Defendant Arnnon Geshuri (“Geshuri”) has served as Google’s Director of
> > Recruiting at all times relevant to this lawsuit. Defendant Geshuri was
> > involved in developing and perpetuating the illegal collusive scheme
> > alleged herein. Defendant Geshuri knowingly, recklessly, or with gross
> > negligence: (i) oversaw the creation of the protocols governing
> > anticompetitive hiring agreements between Google and other companies;
> (ii)
> > caused or allowed Google to enter into such illegal anticompetitive
> > agreements; (iii) allowed Defendants Page, Brin, and Schmidt to dominate
> > and control the Google Board of Directors with little or no effective
> > oversight; and (iv) failed to implement adequate internal controls to
> > ensure that Google complied with federal laws and regulations"
> >
> > Even though those are allegations from an unsettled shareholder lawsuit,
> > since the employee class action was settled for $435m and there are
> > extensive details of what went on in the settement documents, I'd give
> that
> > paragraph a bit more credence than I would a paragraph from an average
> > unsettled lawsuit.  I'm sure that Arnnon is personally skilled, I just
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thank you, Jan-Bart and Stu

[Samuel Klein]

Goodness, yes.  Lodewijk, what a fitting thread.

We spend more time reflecting on mistakes made, but JB and Stu were often
responsible for the things that were done well, and without fanfare.  They
could always be relied upon to consider the impact of decisions on the
movement and society, and not just on [the current version of] the
Foundation.

Thank you both for the dedication and creativity you put into your work -
going above and beyond the requirements of being a trustee. Future trustees
of all stripes have some mighty large shoes to fill.

Sam
On Jan 8, 2016 2:29 PM, "Katy Love"  wrote:

> I've worked with Jan-Bart for three years,  and I too want to thank him for
> his many years of service to the movement and the board, as well as to the
> annual plan grant program and to the Funds Dissemination Committee!
>
> As one of the Board FDC representatives to the FDC for several years,
> Jan-Bart, you provided leadership and support to us as we developed,
> refined and evaluated the program. As others have said, it's clear how much
> this movement means to you, and you've been a significant presence and
> supporter to many.
>
> Thank you for all you've given!
> Katy
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Florence Devouard 
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for this message Lodewijk !
> >
> > I would like to join the messages already posted to thank both Stu and
> > Jan-Bart. I was on the board when we ask them to join us and I have no
> > memory of ever regretting that decision ;)
> >
> > I wish you both the best !
> > JB, can we expect to see you in Italy next summer ? I sure hope so...
> >
> > Anthere
> >
> >  Le 06/01/16 08:10, Lodewijk a écrit :
> >
> > While we have long discussions on this list about board composition, we
> >> seem to almost ignore the fact that two long time veterans are leaving
> the
> >> Wikimedia Foundation board, as scheduled. Jan-Bart de Vreede and Stu
> West
> >> have been around longer than many regular editors nowadays, and I think
> >> there are not many people who can recall the days that the board didn't
> >> have them on it. I have never had the pleasure to serve on the board
> with
> >> them, but a little thank-you from our community side, would seem in
> place.
> >>
> >> Stu joined the board already in 2008 (filling Michael Davis' seat), and
> >> has
> >> been a solid power on the board's audit responsibilities (I believe he
> >> chaired the audit committee for quite a while) and was a force behind
> the
> >> accountability of movement affiliates. While we often strongly disagreed
> >> on
> >> affiliate issues, I appreciate the fact that he always remained
> >> constructive and wanted to think about solutions rather than problems.
> He
> >> served both as treasurer and vice chair.
> >>
> >> Jan-Bart was on the board even longer, since early 2007, and I recall
> >> already working with him through Kennisnet (a Dutch foundation for
> >> education and IT) before that. Jan-Bart is one of those rare people who
> >> went to ALL wikimania conferences, and can be easily recognised there
> with
> >> his big smile. I can't remember a theme Jan-Bart didn't work on in the
> >> past
> >> years (Affiliates, HR, searching a new Executive Director) and he served
> >> the board in many positions, including as chair.
> >>
> >> I'm sure that the WMF communications staff and/or board has a nice
> >> thankyou
> >> coming up - with a more accurate description of the awesome work they
> did,
> >> that I now made up from the top of my head. But in the mean time, I'd
> like
> >> to do it myself: Thank you Jan-Bart and Stu for all the time, energy and
> >> effort that you poured into our movement. I know that not all of us
> >> appreciate this as much as we perhaps should, and sometimes you may even
> >> have perceived us as hostile. I do sincerely hope that you had fun with
> us
> >> though, and I'm confident that you made a big dent in our impossible
> >> mission of sharing the sum of all knowledge with everyone.
> >>
> >> I hope to meet you again soon, at least in Italy at Wikimania, and I
> hope
> >> to see you around in our movement in many different ways.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Lodewijk
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thank you, Jan-Bart and Stu

[Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Hasive)]

All the best and Thanks you Jan-Bart de Vreede and Stu West.

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Goodness, yes.  Lodewijk, what a fitting thread.
>
> We spend more time reflecting on mistakes made, but JB and Stu were often
> responsible for the things that were done well, and without fanfare.  They
> could always be relied upon to consider the impact of decisions on the
> movement and society, and not just on [the current version of] the
> Foundation.
>
> Thank you both for the dedication and creativity you put into your work -
> going above and beyond the requirements of being a trustee. Future trustees
> of all stripes have some mighty large shoes to fill.
>
> Sam
> On Jan 8, 2016 2:29 PM, "Katy Love"  wrote:
>
> > I've worked with Jan-Bart for three years,  and I too want to thank him
> for
> > his many years of service to the movement and the board, as well as to
> the
> > annual plan grant program and to the Funds Dissemination Committee!
> >
> > As one of the Board FDC representatives to the FDC for several years,
> > Jan-Bart, you provided leadership and support to us as we developed,
> > refined and evaluated the program. As others have said, it's clear how
> much
> > this movement means to you, and you've been a significant presence and
> > supporter to many.
> >
> > Thank you for all you've given!
> > Katy
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Florence Devouard 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for this message Lodewijk !
> > >
> > > I would like to join the messages already posted to thank both Stu and
> > > Jan-Bart. I was on the board when we ask them to join us and I have no
> > > memory of ever regretting that decision ;)
> > >
> > > I wish you both the best !
> > > JB, can we expect to see you in Italy next summer ? I sure hope so...
> > >
> > > Anthere
> > >
> > >  Le 06/01/16 08:10, Lodewijk a écrit :
> > >
> > > While we have long discussions on this list about board composition, we
> > >> seem to almost ignore the fact that two long time veterans are leaving
> > the
> > >> Wikimedia Foundation board, as scheduled. Jan-Bart de Vreede and Stu
> > West
> > >> have been around longer than many regular editors nowadays, and I
> think
> > >> there are not many people who can recall the days that the board
> didn't
> > >> have them on it. I have never had the pleasure to serve on the board
> > with
> > >> them, but a little thank-you from our community side, would seem in
> > place.
> > >>
> > >> Stu joined the board already in 2008 (filling Michael Davis' seat),
> and
> > >> has
> > >> been a solid power on the board's audit responsibilities (I believe he
> > >> chaired the audit committee for quite a while) and was a force behind
> > the
> > >> accountability of movement affiliates. While we often strongly
> disagreed
> > >> on
> > >> affiliate issues, I appreciate the fact that he always remained
> > >> constructive and wanted to think about solutions rather than problems.
> > He
> > >> served both as treasurer and vice chair.
> > >>
> > >> Jan-Bart was on the board even longer, since early 2007, and I recall
> > >> already working with him through Kennisnet (a Dutch foundation for
> > >> education and IT) before that. Jan-Bart is one of those rare people
> who
> > >> went to ALL wikimania conferences, and can be easily recognised there
> > with
> > >> his big smile. I can't remember a theme Jan-Bart didn't work on in the
> > >> past
> > >> years (Affiliates, HR, searching a new Executive Director) and he
> served
> > >> the board in many positions, including as chair.
> > >>
> > >> I'm sure that the WMF communications staff and/or board has a nice
> > >> thankyou
> > >> coming up - with a more accurate description of the awesome work they
> > did,
> > >> that I now made up from the top of my head. But in the mean time, I'd
> > like
> > >> to do it myself: Thank you Jan-Bart and Stu for all the time, energy
> and
> > >> effort that you poured into our movement. I know that not all of us
> > >> appreciate this as much as we perhaps should, and sometimes you may
> even
> > >> have perceived us as hostile. I do sincerely hope that you had fun
> with
> > us
> > >> though, and I'm confident that you made a big dent in our impossible
> > >> mission of sharing the sum of all knowledge with everyone.
> > >>
> > >> I hope to meet you again soon, at least in Italy at Wikimania, and I
> > hope
> > >> to see you around in our movement in many different ways.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >>
> > >> Lodewijk
> > >> ___
> > >> 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
> ,
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Knight Foundation grant for search and discovery

[K. Peachey]

On 7 January 2016 at 22:45, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> ...
>
> I am also struck by the fact that the grant is really a very paltry one,
> compared to the resources the Foundation is investing in this. The
> MediaWiki page on Discovery[2] lists sixteen people working on this.
> $250,000 would hardly begin to cover their salaries.
>
> In fact, Risker said as long ago as May last year,[3]
> ...


I'm not sure what the standard is for grant applications is in the US, but
I know locally that is it is extremely rare that allow the funding to be
used to pay for salaries and the likes, Although the grant applications I
used to have common knowledge were designed to have a physical end goal as
per the agreement (example: Replace kitchen cabinets in a Scout den)
compared to what will be software changes.
___
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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Please sign your posts

[billinghurst]

To those who have fallen out of the habit of signing your posts,
please fall back into the habit of good netiquette. For those of us
who read the digest mode it is troublesome to have unsigned posts, and
then need to flick back to the digest ToC to find the poster. Thanks.

Regards, Billinghurst

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Milos Rancic]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Nathan  wrote:
> I hope some day someone will be bold enough to tell the rest of us what
> this is all really about. I'm sure I'm not alone (though perhaps in the
> minority!) in not having inside staff contacts to provide the straight
> dope.

I think it's quite clear what's going on. Signpost [1] and Liam's post
[2] have good descriptions (with some of the positions) of what
happened. Plus, James was on the side of the discontent part of staff
(which seems to be the majority) and didn't articulate his position
well.

And as I suppose this is the ongoing general-type thread, I'd say few
words in relation to that.

Our technology is based on the concept from 1990s, implemented in 2001
and slightly changed up to the moment. The only major technology which
catches 2005 (Visual Editor) is in alpha or beta stage, depending on
how harsh QA process would be implemented.

Something should be done with that. While I would be much more happy
with a social and gaming platform, I think anything towards technology
innovation is good, as during the last 15 years our technology
innovation was around zero. The most important Sue's impact on
Wikimedia is financial stability. I expect that the most important
Lila's impact on Wikimedia will be moving it from technologically
passive organization to an active one.

Restructuring one organization is hard process. I mean, if I found
myself feeling offended because of moving coffee machine away from the
door of my office and putting it on more appropriate place, I
completely understand that any larger change could produce significant
discontent.

On top of that, unlike Sue, Lila is a geek. And geeks have troubles in
understanding the social impact of their actions, especially inside of
the extraordinary complex environment of Wikimedia movement.

The only solution for such situations is constructive communication.
And constructive communication. And more constructive communication.

[1] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-01-06/News_and_notes
[2] http://wittylama.com/2016/01/08/strategy-and-controversy/

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please sign your posts

[Milos Rancic]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:21 AM, billinghurst  wrote:
> To those who have fallen out of the habit of signing your posts,
> please fall back into the habit of good netiquette. For those of us
> who read the digest mode it is troublesome to have unsigned posts, and
> then need to flick back to the digest ToC to find the poster. Thanks.

Thanks! After more than 20 years on internet, I've learned something
new. Created my signature :)

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please sign your posts

[Milos Rancic]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:21 AM, billinghurst  
> wrote:
>> To those who have fallen out of the habit of signing your posts,
>> please fall back into the habit of good netiquette. For those of us
>> who read the digest mode it is troublesome to have unsigned posts, and
>> then need to flick back to the digest ToC to find the poster. Thanks.
>
> Thanks! After more than 20 years on internet, I've learned something
> new. Created my signature :)

Sorry, I am new on the Internet. Deleting everything below the text
produces deleting the signature, as well.

-- 
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Knight Foundation grant for search and discovery

[Michael Snow]

On 1/8/2016 2:01 PM, K. Peachey wrote:

On 7 January 2016 at 22:45, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:


...

I am also struck by the fact that the grant is really a very paltry one,
compared to the resources the Foundation is investing in this. The
MediaWiki page on Discovery[2] lists sixteen people working on this.
$250,000 would hardly begin to cover their salaries.

In fact, Risker said as long ago as May last year,[3]
...

I'm not sure what the standard is for grant applications is in the US, but
I know locally that is it is extremely rare that allow the funding to be
used to pay for salaries and the likes, Although the grant applications I
used to have common knowledge were designed to have a physical end goal as
per the agreement (example: Replace kitchen cabinets in a Scout den)
compared to what will be software changes.
While it depends on the purpose of the grant, for the deliverables 
identified in the original post it seems clear that the most natural 
costs to pay would be salaries in software engineering, broadly 
speaking. As to the comment about how the grant amount aligns with the 
size and salary cost of this particular team - in the grantmaking world, 
it is entirely normal to make awards that pay for only fractions of 
people's salaries. Let's say you pay for 5% of X's salary and 10% of Y's 
salary, and as part of the agreement those people are then expected to 
spend the corresponding percentage of their time dedicated to working on 
the grant project. I'm sure that the Discovery team has more things to 
work on than just this one project, but the reason the Foundation would 
accept this grant is presumably that it overlaps enough with what the 
organization wants to do anyway.


--Michael Snow

___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Andreas Kolbe]

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=104423=104354

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Andreas Kolbe]

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

Could the page please be brought up to date?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

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

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


With best regards,

> From: fae...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:31:38 +
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wmfbo...@wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in 
> anticompetitive agreements in Google
> 
> Dear Patricio Lorente,
> 
> You can read a neat summary of Arnnon Geshuri's part in unlawful
> activities at Google at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri. This
> included Geshuri encouraging other organizations to take part in the
> anticompetitive scheme, and firing Google employees who failed to
> comply with the unlawful policies he implemented. It was determined in
> court that Geshuri's actions damaged the careers of thousands of
> people.
> 
> There is no doubt that Arnnon Geshuri should resign as a trustee for
> the Wikimedia Foundation, and your board made a serious mistake in his
> appointment. It is time for an independent governance review to shine
> light on these problems.
> 
> I look forward to your public statement.
> 
> Fae
> 
> 
> On 7 January 2016 at 10:38, Fæ  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 
> > Date: 7 January 2016 at 08:58
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> >
> >
> > 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
> -- 
> fae...@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, 
> 
  
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Steinsplitter Wiki]

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

> From: steinsplitter-w...@live.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:37:41 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in 
> anticompetitive agreements in Google
> 
> If it is true what is wroten thre: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri 
> 
> ... then i think that Arnnon Geshuri schould be removed from the board ASAP.
> 
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> > From: fae...@gmail.com
> > Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:31:38 +
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wmfbo...@wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in 
> > anticompetitive agreements in Google
> > 
> > Dear Patricio Lorente,
> > 
> > You can read a neat summary of Arnnon Geshuri's part in unlawful
> > activities at Google at
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri. This
> > included Geshuri encouraging other organizations to take part in the
> > anticompetitive scheme, and firing Google employees who failed to
> > comply with the unlawful policies he implemented. It was determined in
> > court that Geshuri's actions damaged the careers of thousands of
> > people.
> > 
> > There is no doubt that Arnnon Geshuri should resign as a trustee for
> > the Wikimedia Foundation, and your board made a serious mistake in his
> > appointment. It is time for an independent governance review to shine
> > light on these problems.
> > 
> > I look forward to your public statement.
> > 
> > Fae
> > 
> > 
> > On 7 January 2016 at 10:38, Fæ  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 
> > > Date: 7 January 2016 at 08:58
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > -- 
> > fae...@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, 
> > 
> 
> ___
> 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, 
> 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 

[Wikimedia-l] Appointment of proven anticompetitive hiring co-conspirator to Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

[James Salsman]

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri
>...
> Arnnon Geshuri schould be removed from the board ASAP

As someone who was personally affected by Google's and Apple's
anticompetitive employment practices, I strongly agree that all those who
were responsible for this appointment should also resign immediately. There
is absolutely no reason that the Foundation should even present the
appearance of endorsing such attacks on technology workers.

Sincerely,
James Salsman
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Denny Vrandecic]

James,

all these things that you answered about - being out of process,
disruption, ignoring advice - all of these were some of the things you
explicitly apologized for just two weeks ago. Those were not my words,
those are yours.

Seeing you defend these, again, does this mean your apology was not sincere?

It was this apology of yours that gave me several sleepless nights -
literally, unfortunately.
It was this apology that let me regain most of the respect, and some of the
trust I had lost.
It was this apology that gave me hope that you might have finally
understood.

And now you are here again, being defensive about these very issues? About
nothing else in what I wrote, but merely about these things?

Please, tell me that you were sincere.

Denny



On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:48 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> With respect to Denny's statement that I acted out of process, yes I spoke
> with staff at staff's request. However, so did the majority of the rest of
> the trustees. And the chair and vice chair were aware of these
> conversations. Additionally the situation in question justified these
> conversations IMO. With respect to "ignoring advice" I did use my own
> judgement. With respect to the "disruption" I do not feel I can take
> responsibility for the engagement survey results. I did bring staff
> concerns forwards to the board but I was simply reporting these concerns.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Kevin Gorman]

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  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=104423=104354
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > The resolutions and voting records for these recent appointments have not
> > yet been posted to https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
> >
> > Could the page please be brought up to date?
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
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,