On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Milos, is your email a wind-up?
> I find this idea that everything will be okay if we shut up and let
> Jimmy select his mates as our future trustees not just a scenario that
> should stay in Bizarro World, but the opposite of good governance.
You know I didn't say that. However, this process has never changed
and Jimmy's network *is* realistically the best method for reaching
strong candidates inside of the current state of the movement.
There are two better methods for that:
1) Wider community participation in making a wishlist. That has to be
followed by WMF's ability to reach those people from the wishlist. I
am not sure if WMF has that capacity.
2) Good HR agency. Sue found that one and they did good job by finding Bishakha.
> If this is how the WMF actually works, then yes, the WMF really,
> *really*, needs a governance review and changes to ensure trustees are
> appointed who do not have a history of being found in court to be
> acting illegally and get in just because they are exceedingly wealthy,
> a good chap according Jimmy, or have just been hanging out at the
> right parties for rich Californians.
Not checking Arnnon's background is serious flaw by all Board members
at the time of his selection. Otherwise, as I said, he'd be a strong
reinforcement to the Board, on the lines I said above.
Hm. I think we already scared the Board enough. Please, don't mention
governance review, as some of them are close to their 50s and it could
negatively influence their health.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
If you are referring to Boryana Dineva's email, that's nothing new.
The "Jimmy's list" wasn't the only list seven years ago. We called for
nominations, if I remember well. I spent the most of my time in
talking with people about their ideas. In relation to the nominations,
the biggest issue was that almost nobody cared about them. I am almost
sure this was the case this time, as well.
However, that list was filled with the best and realistic names --
meaning that anyone from the list could have been reached. Meaning
that from one side some of us wanted high profile names, but they
weren't reachable by the means of Wikimedia Foundation; while from the
other one you can't compete with Jimmy's network if you are not Bono.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org