On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: > I think this is almost exactly wrong. The lesson here should not be that >> the Board failed to take public relations into consideration when co-opting >> a new member. The message is that the examination of candidates failed to >> turn up really quite substantial allegations of a lack of integrity and >> ethical leadership. If your background check process looks for expertise or >> criminal history but doesn't examine work experience for serious failures, >> then the background check process is broken. Adding a "what will people >> think?" 'subroutine' is not a solution. >> > it may be a language issue. We want to widen the background check process so that it includes issues beyond just criminal activity, basically. I called it a "PR check", but it is not just focusing on "what will people think" for its sake, but rather paying particular attention to a wide array of issues that could raise concerns, basically to be able to sensibly discuss which of them are legitimate, and which are not.
dj _______________________________________________ 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>
