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
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;
(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:
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.wikimedi
My apologies. I just noticed the resolutions were in fact added on January
6, 2016.[1]
They are dated December 9, 2015. Both appointments were unanimous.
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&diff=104423&oldid=104354
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrot
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 no
> 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
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
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
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
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 "
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
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
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 exp
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 b
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'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,
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
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 w
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
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
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, guid
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:
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 re
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 cl
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
_
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 dig
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
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 o
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
30 matches
Mail list logo