Let me provide a somewhat dissenting opinion.
 
I'm not sure that Arnnon Geshuri's sins were all that bad. Remember that  
where's there's big money, there will be predatory lawyers looking for  
trouble. 
 
Is it bad corporate policy, wrong, or even illegal for a company to make a  
decision not to actively recruit from certain other companies in the same  
industry? Companies legitimately have widespread discretion in what their  
employees are directed to do, particularly when representing the  company. 
These were not even competitors mind you but companies  whose strength and 
existence benefited the others.   There is no  suggestion that any of the 
normal activities such as accepting resumes from  candidates who contact the 
employer or informal employment networking were  prohibited. 
 
I don't see a problem with Google people serving on the WMF board either.  
The importance of the relationship between these two organizations cannot be 
 emphasized enough.  Wikipedia might not have even taken off if it didn't  
start appearing at the top of every Google search.  Same with Google. Their  
audience might have been only a fraction of what it is today but for  
Wikipedia.  Is there a bias built into Google searches that favors  Wikipedia?  
Could a serious falling out between the two result in far fewer  Wikipedia 
links in Google searches?  At various Wikipedia conventions over  the years, 
I've run this by some of those who might know and they seemed  quite closed 
mouthed about the subject.
 
As for the subject of elected v. appointed trustees, the WMF should  
carefully examine the role of university boards.  The events at Dartmouth  
College 
are particularly interesting -- and quite accurately described  in 
Wikipedia BTW.  Starting about a decade ago four "opposition  trustees" were 
elected 
against the will of the larger board.  The  ensuing soap opera was 
interesting to say the least. 
 
Another important point to understand about university boards is that seats 
 ARE for sale. Large donors are frequently appointed to university boards.  
It sounds really corrupt but the fact is that the institutions have been  
well served by the policy.  Wikpedia's circumstances are different and they  
should not get mixed up in this.
 
My last point is that the technical performance of the WMF has been both  
outstanding and cost effective.  As I understand it Google and Microsoft  
regularly spend billions on large server centers.  Wikipedia online queries  
throughout the world are fast and efficient. There are plenty of issues 
relating  to content and poor treatment of controversial editors but on the 
technical side  maybe it's best not to mess with something that works.
 
Joe Bishop
PhanuelB
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 1/8/2016 3:17:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
wiki.p...@gmail.com writes:

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>

Reply via email to