And more to the point; not knowing is a poor defence. Surely any level of
due diligence on new board members would have exposed this troubling
incident?
Tom
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:27 Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 January 2016 at 09:06, Chris Keating
<chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
...
Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the
situation with Arnnon,
which
they were clearly not aware of - that is what
needs to happen and yet
more
emails on this list won't mean that happens
any more quickly.
...
Correction to "they [the board] were clearly not aware":
Yesterday Jimmy Wales confirmed that:[1]
"I cannot speak for the entire board. As for myself, I was aware (from
googling him and reading news reports) that he had a small part in the
overall situation when he was told by Eric Schmidt that Google had a
policy of not recruiting from Apple, and that a recruiter had done it,
and that the recruiter should be fired, and he agreed to do so."
It is not true that the WMF board were unaware before Arnnon was
offered a seat on the board, when there were trustees that knew he
took part in illegal activities at Google. The first page of results
of a google search shows that Arnnon was a named defence party in the
court case.
Links
1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=6…
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>