Perhaps before people make random stabs in the dark about the nomination
process this time around - which wasn't the old NomCom or any other former
process - they might want to check the archives of this mailing list from
late September or early October when candidates and nominations were
solicited, and further follow-up emails about this time's process.


On 10 January 2016 at 21:18, Milos Rancic <> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <>
> wrote:
> > I can, however, generally add that we have not collected any nominations
> > from our donors, if this helps.
> I can confirm this, as I am sure nothing has changed since NomCom
> existence in relation to this issue, except updating the list with the
> new names and maybe removing some of those proved to be controversial
> (optionally, they are removing controversial ones every time the
> process starts).
> NomCom failed mostly because of that list. However, Sue's idea to use
> HR agency turned out to be the best solution, as we got Bishakha.
> (Note for the future: use HR agency; they do the job better than you;
> they are professionals.)
> Although I never had particular information, it's obvious that the
> list is mostly consisted of Jimmy's network. That's not necessary bad
> per se. Jimmy has the best connections inside of the Board and while
> some of the names if selected would trigger demonstration in front of
> the WMF office, it is possible to find good names inside of that list.
> However, again, HR agency would do much better job, as they are not
> dilettantes.
> There is one more thing in favor of Jimmy. Inside of the relations and
> structure as it's now, Wikimedia movement should thank him for keeping
> the integrity of WMF inside of the sea full of barracudas, sharks and
> orcas. There were and are numerous worse scenarios than we have now
> and people don't tend to think about them. That's independent of how
> vocal he is here or anywhere else.
> I want to say it's not about CoI, as mentioned here numerous times.
> Jimmy and the other Board members from the community (not elected by,
> but from the community; Alice is from the community, too) are not
> corrupted for sure and they are majority. It's normal to suggest the
> best possible options for your organization if you are able to do
> that. Arnnon Geshuri would be strong reinforcement to the Board if
> there is no that serious investigation against him.
> Board members are not corrupted, but the system is. We see now how
> serious mistakes could pass because of that.
> That small number of people heavily depend on virtues of every
> particular Board member. One of that is long-term institutional
> memory, which, with the exception of Jimmy, we likely don't have for a
> year or more. I know Stu wanted to leave Board years ago. I also know
> Jan-Bart wanted to leave Board at the end of 2014. It's questionable
> to me how strong they were involved into the selection process (also,
> Stu's Yahoo background could be inhibiting to him to say anything
> against candidates of Google background). This situation could have
> been avoided if we had pedantic Wikipedian with OCD inside of the
> Board, but it turns out that we don't have one.
> I could imagine the process of selecting the candidates:
> Committee:
> - Ideal Board member has to be a woman from a developing country.
> - Oh, but see this guy! I never heard about him, but he's working for
> Tesla and he was working for Google! Wow!
> - OK, the second one then has to be for sure a woman and from a
> developing country.
> - We have a woman!
> - From developing country?
> - No.
> - OK, it's fair enough. We did the job. Jan-Bart and Stu are pretty
> angry as they had to be inside of the Board for one more year.
> - True. We don't have time anymore. Done.
> Board:
> - Dariusz: We have two candidates!
> - Stu: Wow, such great candidates! -- while thinking "OMG, Arnnon! He
> approached our HR to make some business with us, but our HR was too
> drunk to talk with him. Whatever, they promised me I am leaving at the
> end of December, so it's not my job anymore."
> - Jan-Bart: Great, may I leave now? Patricio is chair, you don't need
> me anymore! Hohoho! Oh, I have to vote? OK, I am voting!
> - Jimmy: Perfect! -- while thinking "Oh, Arnnon! He is such a nice
> guy! I talked to him on Eric Schmidt's yacht. He knows a lot about
> wines! ... Hmm... I remember Paul Allen told me something about him...
> Never mind, he was just jealous because I am more often on Eric's
> yacht. Besides that, I completely forgot what's that about. Nothing
> serious, I am sure."
> - Patricio: OK. Who will write the statement? My English is not perfect.
> - Alice: Guy, he is Japanese!
> I don't think this will be an issue for a long time. I think it's
> clear to Arnnon himself that he is definitely controversial to us.
> However, the pressure, lack of long-term institutional memory and
> small number of persons in the Board tend to create an open field for
> dilettantism.
> On the other hand, I am sure that we could find relevant place for
> every non-controversial Jimmy's friend willing to contribute to our
> movement. I would like to see, for example, Richard Branson inside of
> Wikimedia movement, helping us to create Enterprise. And I am serious.
> We have to be bold and we have to be friends with other bold people.
> OK, maybe not Enterprise, but Stanford Torus inside of the Earth's
> orbit would do the job, as well :)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to