On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 8:53 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
The is between arbitrary border security theater and allowing the Foundation to recruit and hire the best candidates. If the Foundation was silent on the matter, there would be less of a chance of retaining the right.
Not really. IMHO, the choice is between 1) acknowledging that we have a diverse community where everyone may choose to support an organization (other than the WMF) that matches their political position, or 2) imposing a very specific political position upon the community.
I consider the "best candidate" point a fallacy, since it works with the premise that human talent is so scarce that for every position in an organization there is a single or very few people in the world fit for it. I have seen the exact same point used so often to justify positions against diversity, equality or economic independence policies that I don't buy it anymore. There are many organizational policies that are more effective to increase the pool of candidates, such as being globally distributed rather than forcing relocation to the US, and they do not involve this kind of lobbying.
PS.- In order to avoid thread hijacking, I will not answer here your points about the other thread.
Best,
MarioGom