I am sure it is technically feasible, its just not realistic from a hiring perspective. I
cannot tell a potential candidate that process includes a public vetting process, this is
something that is just not going to happen. We are hiring an ED for the Wikimedia
Foundation, and the Board of Trustees of that Foundation is simply the body that is
responsible for the final decision on this.
I am not going to debate the different kinds of movement representation in the board, but
I would argue that the community directly and indirectly influences 100% of the board, as
appointed members are appointed by (s)elected members and the founder of the Wikimedia
On 21 Jan 2014, at 15:57, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
Thanks for getting back to me.
Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
There is no "community consultation"
period in the selection proces. It's
simply not feasible or desirable to have someone have a public "vetting"
I'm not sure I understand how it would be infeasible. It's 2014, not 1814.
I think we've figured out how to solicit feedback in a timely manner.
It seems less desirable to me to reduce the Wikimedia community to waiting
for the white smoke.
The new Executive Director will be publicly vetted, to be sure, it just
sounds as though it'll happen after or he or she has been firmly appointed
by the Board. It would be dishonest to suggest that there's no merit to
this approach, but I do wonder if it's in line with Wikimedia's values.
The good news is that you elected representatives
on the board who
have a strong voice in the selection process and final approval.
I'm not quite sure who "you" is, but only three of ten Board seats are
directly elected. I suppose that's a strong voice?
Wikimedia-l mailing list