On 01/08/2016 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

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,

I have read about these allegations today, and I am going to follow up on

WMF doesn't have the excuse of ignorance, or that the case is in progress. When you appointed him:

1. The documents were unsealed.
2. The Department of Justice case was fully complete.
3. The civil case by employees was fully complete and payouts had either started or were fully complete.

Saying you learned about this *after* voting to appoint him is incredibly frustrating and disappointing.

Being ignorant of the allegations is even worse than coming up with some dubious reason why we should forgive him, and he's still high-integrity enough to represent a non-profit backing movement with strong values.

The board had an obligation to fully research both candidates, and insist on more time as needed to do so.

There is nothing to wait for (the shareholder lawsuit will probably also be settled, but there is no need to wait for it given the released documents and fully complete cases above).

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation for details (though I'm sure someone has linked this from the list).

Matt Flaschen

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to