So, Fae, it's not someone's obligation to inform about his past, but
its the obligation of the other to examine?
Ziko

2016-01-22 21:00 GMT+01:00 Fæ <fae...@gmail.com>:
> On 22 January 2016 at 18:46, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> 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
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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