On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> 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.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to