I agree with Risker that it would be improper to select candidates on the
basis of their own personal political views. But I do agree with your
point that expertise in the field of party-political camapigning would not
be an appropriate criterion for the post of CCO.
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com