> Your point #1, with respect to improving internal communication, is
> primarily handled by other departments within the WMF (Learning, Human
> Resources), with Communications as a resource rather than the primary
> messager.

If WMF wants to have a different department lead efforts on internal
communication (my impression is that currently no one is actually leading
efforts in a holistic way) that would be OK with me. My impression is that
as WMF is already strong on external communication, and I think that WMF
should hire for what it needs rather than what it already has. If WMF would
like to have someone outside of the Communications Department take the lead
role -- and actually does assign somebody with relevant experience to work
on this as one of their primary responsibilities -- then perhaps hiring an
external communications expert into the chief communications officer role
would still be OK.

> Your point #2 is pretty much irrelevant; some of the best
> communications leaders work for political campaigns, and they're usually
> "hired guns" rather than true believers.
There are a few exceptions, but
> again, it's irrelevant, and not ethical to screen directly for political
> affiliation - and possibly illegal to do so.

Hmm. I don't know what percentage of political campaign communications
leaders are "hired guns", but I'm not sure that this is a risk that I would
want to take. That said, I hadn't considered your point that screening out
candidates with work histories in politics might be considered an illegal
practice; thanks for bringing that up. I'll defer to WMF HR and WMF Legal
on that. I wonder whether screening out all paid jobs for political parties
or campaigns (regardless of which affiliation or campaign was involved)
would trigger the same kind of legal scrutiny as screening out one party or
another (which I'm fairly certain would be a violation of U.S. employment
laws). Perhaps this could get into such complicated legal territory and
provide enough opportunities for lawsuits that it would be best to do as
you suggest rather than risk lengthy and expensive litigation. I disagree
that this issue is "irrelevant", but thanks for pointing out that this kind
of screening may have its own kind of risks which I hadn't considered.

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

Reply via email to