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

[Pete Forsyth]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:00 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> fwiw, A few days ago Jimmy disclosed that "James voted in favor of Arnnon".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=700325768
>

It's known that the decision was unanimous among the 10 (then-)Trustees:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Appointing_Arnnon_Geshuri_as_Board_Member

-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, 

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

[Alex Monk]

On 22 January 2016 at 22:00, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> fwiw, A few days ago Jimmy disclosed that "James voted in favor of Arnnon".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=700325768

I'm not sure I'd call it a disclosure since it had already been made public
11 days earlier:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution:Appointing_Arnnon_Geshuri_as_Board_Member&oldid=104421
___
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] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
>..
> The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:
>
> 1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
> have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like
> common sense  (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do
> that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR
> confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no
> legal threats.
>
> How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a
> modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger
> background check process.
>
> 2. The BGC has failed individually as well, for a rather silly reason. An
> often returning argument has been that we must have known about the case,
> since it is high in google.com results.
> The initial screening was conducted by Alice, Frieda, and me. None of us is
> a native English speaker and our searches included google.de, google.it and
> google.pl - none of them included the information about the controversy in
> the top 10 results at the time (btw, the pando article is clearly trending
> up and is in the top 10 results in google.pl now, while it was not even a
> couple of weeks ago).

> How are we going to address this in the future? We are going to assume a
> global audience of our movement and conduct searches specifically taking
> that in mind.
>
> 3. We have not asked the candidates a very simple question: is there
> anything in your past that may be perceived as controversial, or require
> additional explanations?

There is also a fourth problem.

Every single board of trustee member is responsible for their vote,
and should have done their own due diligence, checking the dossier
they had been given.  It means that 10 people failed to find and/or
highlight this issue.  There were three native English speakers on the
board who would have been using English searches  (James, Jimmy &
Stu).

Jimmy has disclosed on January 8 that he did 'Google' Arnnon prior to
the appointment.

"
I cannot speak for the entire board. As for myself, I was aware (from
googling him and reading news reports) that he had a small part in the
overall situation when he was told by Eric Schmidt that Google had a
policy of not recruiting from Apple, and that a recruiter had done it,
and that the recruiter should be fired, and he agreed to do so. As for
your other allegations, that he "helped manage that collusion", the
part about some "ugly and humiliating" termination, and chastisement
by a Federal Judge, I don't (yet) know anything about
that.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo
Wales#top|talk]]) 09:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=698802294

I would expect that a board member seeing that would raise it for all
other board members to consider if it wasnt part of the dossier
provided by HR and/or board committees.

fwiw, A few days ago Jimmy disclosed that "James voted in favor of Arnnon".
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=700325768

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
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] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> I think this is almost exactly wrong. The lesson here should not be that
>> the Board failed to take public relations into consideration when co-opting
>> a new member. The message is that the examination of candidates failed to
>> turn up really quite substantial allegations of a lack of integrity and
>> ethical leadership. If your background check process looks for expertise or
>> criminal history but doesn't examine work experience for serious failures,
>> then the background check process is broken. Adding a "what will people
>> think?" 'subroutine' is not a solution.
>>
>
it may be a language issue. We want to widen the background check process
so that it includes issues beyond just criminal activity, basically. I
called it a "PR check", but it is not just focusing on "what will people
think" for its sake, but rather paying particular attention to a wide array
of issues that could raise concerns, basically to be able to sensibly
discuss which of them are legitimate, and which are not.

dj
___
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] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Nathan]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:
>
> The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:
>
> 1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
> have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like
> common sense  (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do
> that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR
> confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no
> legal threats.
>
> How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a
> modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger
> background check process.
>
> 2. The BGC has failed individually as well, for a rather silly reason. An
> often returning argument has been that we must have known about the case,
> since it is high in google.com results.
> The initial screening was conducted by Alice, Frieda, and me. None of us is
> a native English speaker and our searches included google.de, google.it
> and
> google.pl - none of them included the information about the controversy in
> the top 10 results at the time (btw, the pando article is clearly trending
> up and is in the top 10 results in google.pl now, while it was not even a
> couple of weeks ago).
>


I think this is almost exactly wrong. The lesson here should not be that
the Board failed to take public relations into consideration when co-opting
a new member. The message is that the examination of candidates failed to
turn up really quite substantial allegations of a lack of integrity and
ethical leadership. If your background check process looks for expertise or
criminal history but doesn't examine work experience for serious failures,
then the background check process is broken. Adding a "what will people
think?" 'subroutine' is not a solution.

The question of in what language did BGC members search Google is bizarre
but really a distraction - the Board should ensure that a superior
background check process is in place, and neither the Board members nor the
community should have to rely on Board members Googling in their spare time
to turn up major defects in finalist candidates.
___
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] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Tim Landscheidt]

Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> […]

> The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:

> 1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
> have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like
> common sense  (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do
> that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR
> confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no
> legal threats.

> How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a
> modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger
> background check process.

> […]

This makes it sound like a communications mishap, i. e. in
the hypothetical case that the board would not have had to
publish Arnnon's appointment, everything would be okay.

The question that has been raised here in the last few weeks
is different: Is someone who apparently in the past had a
major and costly difficulty to choose between right and
wrong suitable for serving on the Board of the Wikimedia
Foundation?  It was not addressed to HR or Legal, but to the
Board itself.

Tim


___
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] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Andy Mabbett]

On 22 January 2016 at 18:39, Cristian Consonni  wrote:

> However I would like to know if you are tackling the main issue at
> hand, i.e. whether Arnnon Geshuri should remain a trustee or not.

If he's reading or aware of this discussion (I've seen no indication
of either, either way), I wonder why he would want to be.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Pete Forsyth]

Dariusz, thank you for this explanation. This is the kind of thing it is
very helpful to hear about; it's a good example of how to be transparent
about ongoing learning processes. I'm sure I'm not the only one who
appreciates this bit of insight into how the board is proceeding.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Hi Sarah,
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:59 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
>
> >
> > You wrote to this list on 12 January that you were investigating with the
> > Board Governance Committee what happened regarding the appointments
> process
> > in this case – whether everyone was fully informed, and so on.
> >
> > Can you let us know what you've learned or when you'll publish your
> > findings? I think the community is keen to know what happened.
> >
> > we've been working on it, discussing, and introducing improvements. I
> guess that replying here quicker, rather than preparing an elaborate
> document may be more sensible, since you're asking, and we may be perceived
> as entirely inactive ;)
>
> The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:
>
> 1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
> have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like
> common sense  (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do
> that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR
> confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no
> legal threats.
>
> How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a
> modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger
> background check process.
>
> 2. The BGC has failed individually as well, for a rather silly reason. An
> often returning argument has been that we must have known about the case,
> since it is high in google.com results.
> The initial screening was conducted by Alice, Frieda, and me. None of us is
> a native English speaker and our searches included google.de, google.it
> and
> google.pl - none of them included the information about the controversy in
> the top 10 results at the time (btw, the pando article is clearly trending
> up and is in the top 10 results in google.pl now, while it was not even a
> couple of weeks ago).
>
> How are we going to address this in the future? We are going to assume a
> global audience of our movement and conduct searches specifically taking
> that in mind.
>
> 3. We have not asked the candidates a very simple question: is there
> anything in your past that may be perceived as controversial, or require
> additional explanations?
>
> How are we going to address this in the future? We will basically start
> asking that.
>
> best,
>
> dj
> ___
> 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] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Cristian Consonni]

Hi Dariusz,

2016-01-22 19:21 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak :
> we've been working on it, discussing, and introducing improvements. I
> guess that replying here quicker, rather than preparing an elaborate
> document may be more sensible, since you're asking, and we may be perceived
> as entirely inactive ;)

I appreciate the update and the explanation of the changes that are
being made to the process.

However I would like to know if you are tackling the main issue at
hand, i.e. whether Arnnon Geshuri should remain a trustee or not.

Thank you.

Cristian

___
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] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Florence Devouard 
wrote:

>
>>>
> Misinterpretation on my part for what you wrote here :
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html
>
>
> After reading it again, it actually referred to public statements rather
> than private ones. And since you did not comment on the list when I raised
> the issue, my misinterpretation was not corrected. My apologies.
>

no worries :) I'm glad it is clear now.

cheers,

dj
___
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] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

Hi Sarah,

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:59 PM, SarahSV  wrote:

>
> You wrote to this list on 12 January that you were investigating with the
> Board Governance Committee what happened regarding the appointments process
> in this case – whether everyone was fully informed, and so on.
>
> Can you let us know what you've learned or when you'll publish your
> findings? I think the community is keen to know what happened.
>
> we've been working on it, discussing, and introducing improvements. I
guess that replying here quicker, rather than preparing an elaborate
document may be more sensible, since you're asking, and we may be perceived
as entirely inactive ;)

The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:

1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like
common sense  (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do
that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR
confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no
legal threats.

How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a
modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger
background check process.

2. The BGC has failed individually as well, for a rather silly reason. An
often returning argument has been that we must have known about the case,
since it is high in google.com results.
The initial screening was conducted by Alice, Frieda, and me. None of us is
a native English speaker and our searches included google.de, google.it and
google.pl - none of them included the information about the controversy in
the top 10 results at the time (btw, the pando article is clearly trending
up and is in the top 10 results in google.pl now, while it was not even a
couple of weeks ago).

How are we going to address this in the future? We are going to assume a
global audience of our movement and conduct searches specifically taking
that in mind.

3. We have not asked the candidates a very simple question: is there
anything in your past that may be perceived as controversial, or require
additional explanations?

How are we going to address this in the future? We will basically start
asking that.

best,

dj
___
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] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[Florence Devouard]

Le 21/01/16 20:05, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :

hi Florence,


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.




just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI pledges/disclosures
over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member.
Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to
consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to),
and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you with
a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize for
my clumsy phrasing.

best,

dariusz


Thank you for that clarification Dariusz. I am happy to read that !

Misinterpretation on my part for what you wrote here : 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html
After reading it again, it actually referred to public statements rather 
than private ones. And since you did not comment on the list when I 
raised the issue, my misinterpretation was not corrected. My apologies.


Flo




___
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] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

[SarahSV]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

>
> just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI pledges/disclosures
> over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member.
> Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to
> consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to),
> and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you with
> a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize for
> my clumsy phrasing.
>
> best,
>
> dariusz
>
​Hi Dariusz,

You wrote to this list on 12 January that you were investigating with the
Board Governance Committee what happened regarding the appointments process
in this case – whether everyone was fully informed, and so on.

Can you let us know what you've learned or when you'll publish your
findings? I think the community is keen to know 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, 

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

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Florence,


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.
>


just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI pledges/disclosures
over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member.
Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to
consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to),
and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you with
a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize for
my clumsy phrasing.

best,

dariusz
___
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,