On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 8:53 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)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