Hi, Thanks Fae, I agree 100% with that. The biggest mistake is not from A.G., but from the board as you mention. So A. G. resigning won't solve the issue. We need a complete review of the board governance and appointment process.
Regards, Yann 2016-01-22 21:00 GMT+01:00 Fæ <[email protected]>: > On 22 January 2016 at 18:46, Ziko van Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello Fae, >> >> To be very clear, is it that you reproach A.G. that he did not disclose >> relevant questionable behavior, prior to running as a candidate? >> >> Kind regards >> Ziko > > TL;DR > No, I don't reproach Geshuri personally, everyone makes mistakes, I > certainly have. For all I know he has no past trustee experience and > the level of scrutiny he would be exposed to once appointed may never > have been made clear to him. I do not expect Geshuri to be a fall guy, > I expect the board of trustees to come forward and handle their > governance failure fully and honestly, even if that means that more > than one trustee will need to find the right words to exit gracefully. > > BACKGROUND > Let's emphasise this point, the WMF is a very unusual organization, > the board is scrutinized by the eyes of many passionate and committed > volunteers - some to the level of a compulsive disorder - and the n * > $100,000,000 the trustees are trusted to oversee during their terms to > the benefit of open knowledge is considered a huge responsibility by > us, the community. > > When this first was raised by my open letter two weeks ago, were I in > Patricio's shoes I would have had a 30 minute phone call with Geshuri > that day, and talked through allegations about his background. As the > allegations in this case are entirely factual, there's a legal case to > refer to, I would have advised him that if he thought he might resign > to avoid a potential fuss in public, that it is better to do it within > a couple of days rather than letting it run and get entrenched. If > there had been a good chance that it would blow over as there was no > meaningful conflict of interest/loyalties, nor any significant > reputational damage that could damage the WMF, then I would suggest we > talk to all trustees by phone that week, to answer their questions and > go over the facts, as I would hope that the full board would continue > to support him as a trustee despite the likelihood for criticism of > the board's decision to appoint him. > > Unfortunately in this case I could see no chance that his part in the > Google scandal would just blow over ($400m+ in damages is a *big* > mistake). I expect Patricio would have made the same deduction. By not > giving Geshuri frank advice on day one, we now have a Wikipedia > article about him, a public vote of no confidence and a rising profile > about his past on Google searches that he no doubt wants to leave > forgotten. > > Lastly, adding "is there anything in your past" to a standard set of > questions is not good governance. Trustees with this high a public > profile *must* understand what it means to be a trustee on the WMF > board. The Trustee who nominated Geshuri created this problem but not > having a frank chat before his name was ever put forward, and the rest > of the board of Trustees compounded it by never personally checking > whether Geshuri understood the unusual commitment he would be making - > as well as blatantly failing their duty of oversight to ensure the > most basic background checks; such as Geshuri being named in past > legal cases which should be a standard report to the board from WMF > legal for candidates. More detailed checks than this are made for > teachers with access to children, or shop staff with access to a cash > till, but nothing is done for prospective trustees with decisions to > make for our future, as well as approving how that huge pile of money > gets spent and to whom... In this particular case, we have no reasons > given as to why when Jimmy Wales knew about the Google antitrust > scandal in advance of Geshuri's appointment, he failed to ask the > obvious question of Geshuri's role, he failed to either talk to his > fellow trustees about it or quietly ask the governance committee to > look into it before a board vote. Instead we see the repeated excuse > that this was not on the first page of Google searches in various > languages. Bizarre. > > So, Geshuri probably deserves an apology from the board because they > failed him. The board urgently requires an independent governance > review, and if one does not happen because a few plasters have been > stuck on the current process and exactly the same people who made this > mistake think they are experts in good governance, that will be > extreme hubris which inevitably leads to falling down another deep > hole in no time at all. If anyone doubts this, they need to go back to > the WMF blog post only a fortnight ago with glowing quotes from Lila > and Dariusz which are now embarrassing to read. Hopefully they will > never put themselves in this position > again.<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/05/new-wikimedia-foundation-trustees> > > Fae > -- > [email protected] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
