Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with. You are saying that throwing integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK. I am saying it is absolutely not OK. The individuals representing the board should have been honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that, and if asked, yes, been honest that support was not unanimous. Misrepresenting things a) accomplished nothing, as we can see now, and b) opened huge rifts that remain gaping today.
I do hear you, that the decision to retain the ED in November was itself trust-destroying for you, because you view that as such bad judgement. I hear that. To me, making public misrepresentations is another thing altogether. It calls into question whether folks are even telling the truth, and that just destroys the very basis for authentic conversation. It is a deeper wound. This to me, bars the way to move forward. How do we trust what the board says going forward? How can the board be effective, when people cannot trust what its members say about its decisions? On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Pierre-Selim <pierre-se...@huard.info> wrote: > Seriously ? > > If the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and undermine > the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts. > > The mistake was not to say unanimous support but the "keep the ED" straw > poll result. It really surprised me because the more you wait the more it > costs (talents leave, delayed arrival of a new CEO, ...), and honnestly > there is no recovery possible at 90% of disapproval from your staff > (C-levels included). > Le 7 mars 2016 7:16 PM, "jytdog" <jyt...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR > > matters. It is about what board members chose to do and say. > > > > It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the > board > > supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board did > > support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila". They chose to > > state the latter. That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and > everything > > to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board > > actually did. > > > > This is what I meant. Poor processes poorly executed definitely allowed > > this to happen; if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and > > swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be > so > > foolish that no one would do it. But these were still choices that > > individuals made in the context that existed. > > > > These choices and those of other board members - as individuals - have > > created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved. This > is > > what we should focus on. I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a > > distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se. > > > > Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures and > > to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make bad > > choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can go > > forward. > > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin < > cfrank...@halonetwork.net> > > wrote: > > > > > To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is > > going > > > to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern Lila, > > and > > > especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative > > towards a > > > particular identifiable individual. For legal reasons, it might be the > > > case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible > > from > > > the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into the > > > public domain about how they regarded her performance. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Craig > > > > > > On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes <ironho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > +1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether the > > > > "full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence: > > > > IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that > Lila's > > > > continuation was the best thing. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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: Wikimediaemail@example.com > > 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>