On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W
Dariusz, you said in your statement that was
published in the Wikimedia
Blog that WMF "considered dozens of candidates from all over the world,
with not-for-profit and technology experience, and the highest professional
standards.” I would be interested to hear how you reconcile "highest
professional standards" with the prior actions of Arnnon,
I have read about these allegations today, and I am going to follow up on
that. I don't have an opinion formed, as jumping to conclusions is
definitely not just to people. I can assure you that in the whole process
Arnnon's expertise, professionalism, as well as technological connection
were clearly outstanding (but obviously we have not discussed this case).
Sorry for being harsh, but this is very lame.
The process of selecting Board-appointed seats has significant flaw,
which has the basis in very limited number of people involved in that.
This was true during the NomCom existence, as well.
The main problem with involvement of small number of people in the
selection procedure is related to the question how one person would
react if not selected. However, if it's totally open process, with
defined rules, I don't think anyone would feel particularly offended.
I suggest you the next procedure:
1) Define what you want from those four seats. Let's say: Seat one
should deal with HR, seat two should deal with climate change and
animal rights, seat three should deal with... Three of four selected
seats should be women (as we tend to elect men). And so on.
2) Give community a framework to propose, discuss and order the
candidates per seat. Find a curator, who would eliminate inappropriate
candidates (Election Committee?). For example, if you really care
about climate change and animal rights, it would be inappropriate to
select one of the Koch brothers in that place.
3) Invent a fair algorithm how to approach those people, ordered
inside of the list.
And you won't be surprised with issues like this one is.
Optionally, you could have typed his name into Google and browse to
the bottom of the first page. However, that requires super powers and
it's not reasonable to require that from the Board members. Thus,
sticking with the plan described above should work better.