On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> 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?

There is also a fourth problem.

Every single board of trustee member is responsible for their vote,
and should have done their own due diligence, checking the dossier
they had been given.  It means that 10 people failed to find and/or
highlight this issue.  There were three native English speakers on the
board who would have been using English searches  (James, Jimmy &

Jimmy has disclosed on January 8 that he did 'Google' Arnnon prior to
the appointment.

I cannot speak for the entire board. As for myself, I was aware (from
googling him and reading news reports) that he had a small part in the
overall situation when he was told by Eric Schmidt that Google had a
policy of not recruiting from Apple, and that a recruiter had done it,
and that the recruiter should be fired, and he agreed to do so. As for
your other allegations, that he "helped manage that collusion", the
part about some "ugly and humiliating" termination, and chastisement
by a Federal Judge, I don't (yet) know anything about
that.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo
Wales#top|talk]]) 09:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I would expect that a board member seeing that would raise it for all
other board members to consider if it wasnt part of the dossier
provided by HR and/or board committees.

fwiw, A few days ago Jimmy disclosed that "James voted in favor of Arnnon".

John Vandenberg

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