I was unaware that the panel had gone back to the drawing board with
looking at new candidates. I gather from the tenor of Sue's original
posting that she was planning to have moved on by now, has she committed to
continuing to work on for the forseeable future while you continue to look
for a replacement? Does the BoT have a contingency plan in case Sue does
decide to leave before a permanent replacement is found?
On 21 January 2014 21:09, Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevreede(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
I will write an update for the meta page in the coming week or so but just
to give you a general sense of where we are at: we are trying to reach
potential candidates in a different way, and so far that looks like a good
strategy. This means more direct contact between the Foundation and
candidates and more pro-actively reaching out to people who initially
showed no interest.
There is no scientific way to make the trade-off between
characteristics/skills of candidates. We might very well choose to ignore
an important characteristic if all the others fall into place. And it is of
course easier to make a trade-off on less significant characteristics and
skills. The decision to look for more candidates rather than make a choice
in December was not an easy one, but we were not willing to go for a
candidate who was missing too many of our desired characteristics/skills.
This is something that the transition team does, and its not something that
translates well to a table on meta.
I am not sure what you are referring to as “avoid another fiasco”, but as
far as I am concerned we are simply in a stage of finding new candidates
and trying to surface the candidate that is up to the challenge and
opportunity that we as a unique movement have to offer. This was always an
option, and we would have liked to have found someone in the first round,
but it wasn’t to be.
Jan-Bart de Vreede
On 18 Jan 2014, at 11:08, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't know what to think about a final
community consultation on a
specific name. Personally I suspect that I wouldn't
be able to say anything
about it, as with <
Speaking of which, I wonder how the problems there were addressed:
apparently they just expanded the search and reduced the number of people
participating, but I see no answers to the question: «Have we been looking
for a unicorn -- somebody who doesn't exist in the real world? [...] too
insular? [...] unfairly comparing [...]?».
If an answer was found, I'd like to
know it. To me that only
looked like a rhetorical question, because of course I
have no idea what
exact criteria/questions/interview practices are being applied or if unfair
comparisons were made. To avoid another fiasco, it would probably be useful
to publish on Meta an anonymised table of candidates, pointing out
strengths and weaknesses in a single line for each. Then one could say «oh,
look, "criterion" 175 made 12 otherwise awesome candidates "fail", do
really need it?».
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l mailing list