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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to