On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:42 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Matthew Flaschen < matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:
The board had an obligation to fully research both candidates, and insist on more time as needed to do so.
Boryana Dineva, the Foundation's Vice-President of Human Resources
, wrote [1] to this mailing list in October 2015:
"Having narrowed down the number in several rounds of review ... we are meeting with finalists to collect more information and get acquainted over this week and next. After that, all finalists will interview with Lila, and finally with our panel comprised by the BGC [Board Governance Committee] (and likely also the Board Chair). The BGC will decide and present recommendations of chosen candidates to the whole Board. ... I am copying Dariusz, our BGC chair, in case he would like to add anything also."
But a few days ago Dariusz said on this list that he wasn't aware of the background of Geshuri's that is causing concern, even though it was fourth in a Google search for Geshuri's name.
Sarah
It sounds like Boryana and Lila manage the search until after the finalists are vetted by staff, and then the last slate of candidates is provided for the BGC to review. I wonder how many candidates the BGC reviewed directly - hopefully the number was greater than two. This model suggests that the failure of vetting rests with the staff and the reliance of the Board on the staff.
The fact that Dariusz was unaware of the Google issue suggests that the vetting failure wasn't in not realizing the magnitude of the problem - it seems the staff missed it entirely. If they were doing even a cursory review and reference check of the candidates through the very last stage, it's hard to imagine how that could happen. Perhaps more likely is that the staff happened upon the issue but didn't forward it to the Board?
~Nathan