Sorry, this continues to dig a bizarre hole. It would be rude or even
unethical to nominate someone for a demanding trustee position in a
NFP or charity without first personally approaching them in a friendly
way and asking them if they might be interested and would like to be
nominated. I do not know of any charity where prospective trustees
routinely get nominated in secret without the candidate knowing who
put their name forward, though some people respond to public
recruiting adverts for trustee seats. The WMF is not supposed to be
run as if it were a secretive members only club for plutocrats.

There has been no reason given here so far that can explain this
default arbitrary secrecy. It seems very hard not to consider the
possibility that Arnnon's nomination was done in a way that the
community would find unpalatable and would reflect badly on those

Just make the facts of Arnnon's appointment to the board a matter of
public record, rather than dancing around it.


On 11 January 2016 at 01:44, Dariusz Jemielniak <> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Fæ <> wrote:
>> On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak <> wrote:
>> ..
>> This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely*
>> responsible for the trustee selection process, including ensuring a
>> transparent and well governed process if nominations are taken.
> for clarification: I've meant that the selected new Board members themselves
> do not necessarily know who nominated them. Apologies for the confusion.
> dj


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to