On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Your email fits perfectly with my description of the
WMF board: "have
not apologized or even changed a single part of their governance
processes, despite vague unmeasurable offers to look into it."
I'm not sure if it is typical for the bodies such as Board to issue
official apologies - but for my part, I definitely apologize for all
shortcomings of the procedure I've been involved in, mistakes in oversight,
etc.
After
many months there is no *commitment* to a date for any change to
governance,
Again, you seem not to have noticed that we nearly immediately amended the
recruitment procedure in a way that will make repeating a mistake unlikely.
nor is there any specific or measurable commitment to
what
the goal is for an "open conversation" or how that works.
How governance works? In fact, it would be nice to have this conversation
as well, sure. The problem is that there are multiple demands from the
community, and there are also external needs for the Board to address.
We're out of bandwidth. Is the governance talk top priority now? Maybe. But
I'm not convinced that it is more important than the ED search, or the
expert seat fulfilment, or comments on strategy/plan, better enculturation
and on-boarding of external Board members, and so on.
Knowing the
history of the WMF board, there will no doubt be a pre-prepared policy
or process and it will be implemented with barely any regard for
community views which will be "canvassed" after the fact as a sop to
"consensus".
Well, not engaging with a person who clearly assumes extremely bad faith is
a privilege I'm going to exercise. Feel free to keep on writing of course,
just excuse me for not getting involved in replies to you in this thread
for a while.
Am I right that you were the chair of the governance
committee
responsible for recommending Arnnon to the board and that you are
still in that position? Why are you still involved in
the governance
process if you were responsible for this huge mistake and the
resulting PR disaster for the WMF and Arnnon?
You are correct - the BGC recommended Arnnon, and I personally had not
found about the controversy when I was reviewing his files. I stated this
on the list, admitted the mistake, as well as tried to understand and
explain how it happened. I also proposed the changes to the future
recruitment process, which have been introduced.
My understanding is that I'm still in this position, as the Board has
assumed that this mistake was systematic, not personal. However, I am not
tied to my seat, or to my presence on the Board. If the community recalls
me, I will step down from either the BGC or the Board in general.
cheers,
dj