Though I'm trying to cut back on the number of posts I make to this list, I
want to respond to a couple points made in this thread.
First I totally understand - and agree - that we can't expect immediate
board comment on Arnnon's appointment. Although I think the degree of the
issue should've been discovered in pre-appointment due diligence, it seems
like the issue and it's degree has caught many of the trustees by surprise
- even if figuring out how to respond to issues like this was their full
time (and since even the trustees are volunteers, it's certainly not,) it
would take some time to come up with a reasonable response, and they should
certainly be given the time they need to form an appropriate response.
However, I also want to respond to the suggestion that people are bringing
out their pitchforks based solely on media coverage of Arnnon's actions.
Although there are still shareholder lawsuits underway and there has
certainly been gossipy media coverage, the employee settlement has already
been agreed to upon by the companies (and class representatives) involved,
many of the documents involved have been released by order of the federal
judge involved, etc. Arnnon's emails that I sent a copy of out earlier on
this thread don't come from someone leaking to Gawker - they were given by
Google to a federal judge, and then unsealed by her order. We're not in a
situation where there's just media gossip that Arnnon was involved in some
way in setting up an illegal and unethical anti-solicitation agreement
between tech companies - rather, he was found to play a fairly integral
role in it's creation by a federal judge. Some lawsuits are settled to
make them go away, but nearly half a billion dollars is not "This is a
groundless lawsuit, but it'll cost less to settle it than to make it go
away" territory - even for the companies involved, as large as they are.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Anders, thank you for your thoughtful message; I
understand your position
much better now, and see much to agree with:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Anders Wennersten <
I used the word Superprotect but could just as
well said the disastrous
implementation of Visual Editor, which definitely was not the doing of
Lila. And the very positive response to Community Wishlist i have read on
this list (and on the talkpages), I have not co,me across any real
Yes, I agree -- the organization's software development processes are
improved under Lila's leadership. Significant positive steps have been
taken, no question -- and she certainly deserves some credit for that.
I am happy to read that there were several in the tech org who initiated
this, and that there is a positive feeling of it.
I was 25 years ago for
seven years was a manager of a org developing sw tools for 3000 sw
developer (very similar the WMF setup) and I went through the process of
going from inside-out. And I learned that the setup of "wishlists" etc
the easy part. I learned that when this was in
place the internal org and
roles had to be redefined (it was not upwards you had to look what to
implement but to the community).
I don't know for sure, but my impression is that in this case, much of this
has been done simultaneously; internal structures have been changing
alongside the processes for community engagement. I expect there is much
credit for that to be shared among various parties, including Lila.
And there were a lot of squeaks before the org got sorted out, but then the
people got very stimulated working in a
Glad to hear of this experience.
And from this perspective I actually think the
Board made a very good
identifying the competence Geshuri has which I
believe is just what the
Board and WMF needs just now.
That very well may be the case. I do not have a strong opinion on Mr.
Geshuri's competencies, and am happy to defer to your more-informed
perspective. I am heartened to hear that the Board may have done good work
in identifying and addressing certain missing competencies (even if there
may be separate issues with the specific choice).
I do think there are two significant issues with Mr. Geshuri's appointment,
though -- the second of which has not been brought up yet:
(1) The Board did not apparently do basic due diligence in looking into his
(2) Mr. Geshuri himself did not highlight the Google firing issue to the
board prior to his appointment, which makes me wonder about his judgment.
The problems associated with him is already identified and I am not denying
these, but please give the Board also credit for
their good work, not
blaming when (and if) they make mistakes
I am happy to do so, but I must say -- so much of the board's work is
invisible to me, that I rarely have enough information to do so.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org