Dariusz, thank you for this explanation. This is the kind of thing it is very helpful to hear about; it's a good example of how to be transparent about ongoing learning processes. I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates this bit of insight into how the board is proceeding.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:59 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You wrote to this list on 12 January that you were investigating with the > > Board Governance Committee what happened regarding the appointments > process > > in this case – whether everyone was fully informed, and so on. > > > > Can you let us know what you've learned or when you'll publish your > > findings? I think the community is keen to know what happened. > > > > we've been working on it, discussing, and introducing improvements. I > guess that replying here quicker, rather than preparing an elaborate > document may be more sensible, since you're asking, and we may be perceived > as entirely inactive ;) > > The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process: > > 1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we > have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like > common sense (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do > that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR > confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no > legal threats. > > How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a > modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger > background check process. > > 2. The BGC has failed individually as well, for a rather silly reason. An > often returning argument has been that we must have known about the case, > since it is high in google.com results. > The initial screening was conducted by Alice, Frieda, and me. None of us is > a native English speaker and our searches included google.de, google.it > and > google.pl - none of them included the information about the controversy in > the top 10 results at the time (btw, the pando article is clearly trending > up and is in the top 10 results in google.pl now, while it was not even a > couple of weeks ago). > > How are we going to address this in the future? We are going to assume a > global audience of our movement and conduct searches specifically taking > that in mind. > > 3. We have not asked the candidates a very simple question: is there > anything in your past that may be perceived as controversial, or require > additional explanations? > > How are we going to address this in the future? We will basically start > asking that. > > best, > > dj > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>