Having waited two days for any kind of meaningful response from either the Board or from individual trustees, I have to say that Kat's comments (unsurprisingly) nailed it.
I mean, seriously, nobody googled him? Austin On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Kat Walsh <k...@mindspillage.org> wrote: > 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 <wiki.p...@gmail.com> 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>