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.


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

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

Reply via email to