its not difficult to dress mutton up as lamb
consider if you will
This person has considerable experience in HR and collaborative efforts
with most of the largest multinational technology companies. Was
instrumental in the development of a cross industry HR process that ensured
employees looking to change between companies werent pressured into
revealing projects and propriety developments as part of the recruitment
it like having a COI policy based on how much one owns of a company rather
how dependent one is on a company for their income, one person owning 10%
of x may have less than 1% of their overall investments in X, where as
someone with less than 1% may have 75% investments in X so therefore X is
more critical. Another person may have no investment in X but be employed a
supplier to X and derive their whole income from that which person is more
likely to act with a COI.
It's a rhetorical question because each can choose not to, the only measure
that should consider is whether the people will act in the best interest
of WMF/community within the standards we expect from trustees of the
community... most of us can identify a number of trusted(highly trusted)
contributors that divided the community over whats acceptable standards and
expectations and the resulting conflicts that occurred
Regardless of the selection process whether through a professional HR
company or a community consultation it is concerning that someone named as
defendant in a substantive court matter would be recommended for a position
of trust with a charity before the matter was resolved especially
considering that an associated court action found that wrong doing had
What ever process was used its definitely broken,
On 11 January 2016 at 11:32, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > 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
> > 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
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com