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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to