On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:42 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Matthew Flaschen
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
 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.
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 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?