(FYI) ... there is a discussion about Arnnon Geshuri at german signpost talkpage as well https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Das_neue_Kuratoriu...

From: steinsplitter-wiki@live.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:37:41 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

If it is true what is wroten thre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri

... then i think that Arnnon Geshuri schould be removed from the board ASAP.

With best regards,

...

From: faewik@gmail.com Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:31:38 +0000 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org; WMFboard@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Dear Patricio Lorente,

You can read a neat summary of Arnnon Geshuri's part in unlawful activities at Google at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri. This included Geshuri encouraging other organizations to take part in the anticompetitive scheme, and firing Google employees who failed to comply with the unlawful policies he implemented. It was determined in court that Geshuri's actions damaged the careers of thousands of people.

There is no doubt that Arnnon Geshuri should resign as a trustee for the Wikimedia Foundation, and your board made a serious mistake in his appointment. It is time for an independent governance review to shine light on these problems.

I look forward to your public statement.

Fae

On 7 January 2016 at 10:38, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

...

Dear Patricio Lorente,

I request that the WMF board take immediate action to publish a comprehensive account of why you appointed Geshuri as a trustee, despite his direct involvement and being named as a defendant in the on-going scandal of anticompetitive agreements at Google, or that Geshuri chooses to step down from his new position of trust.

This is being separated out as an open letter to the board in a new discussion thread, to avoid getting confused with other issues. In the light of recent challenges to the WMF with regard to a dramatic loss of confidence in their senior management and the politicking behind the loss of James Heilman as a trustee openly advocating for transparency to the actions of the WMF board, Geshuri's background with anticompetitive practices can only damage confidence in the WMF board with regard to their duty to hold WMF senior management to account and acting with the highest possible accountability and public transparency.

Links showing Geshuri's public footprint on this issue:

1. http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-...
2. http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Antitrust/Apple-Google-Silicon-Valley-No-Cold-C...
3. http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/23/google-shareholders-miffed-over-wag...
4. https://www.quora.com/How-is-Arnnon-Geshuri-current-VP-HR-at-Tesla-and-forme...

Yours sincerely, Fae

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew Green agreen@wikimedia.org Date: 7 January 2016 at 08:58 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Interesting to note Arnnon's role in the Silicon Valley anti-poaching affair: http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-...

• Andrew

-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

My apologies. I just noticed the resolutions were in fact added on January 6, 2016.[1]

They are dated December 9, 2015. Both appointments were unanimous.

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&diff=10442...

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:

The resolutions and voting records for these recent appointments have not yet been posted to https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions

Could the page please be brought up to date?

Le 08/01/16 17:43, Kevin Gorman a écrit :

I'm going to publicly second (or third, or fifth,) the idea that given Arnnon's role in an incident involving illegal anti-poaching agreements he should either be removed from the board with haste, or the board should publish an incredibly good reason as to why he should remain on it. Keep in mind that Arnnon wasn't a bystander to this scandal, he actively fired a recruiter who failed to follow the terms of an illegal anti-poaching agreement in less than one hour of being informed about it in the first place. I like to think of Wikimedia as a relatively humane movement, and there are very few situations where I'm comfortable with someone who is that comfortable with the idea of firing an employee (who had presumably been there for some time) within sixty minutes of learning the employee didn't follow an illegal agreement having the degree of influence over the movement that members of the Board of Trustees have.

The Wikimedia movement is not a movement whose direction should be set by someone with that degree of callousness - and the fact that he happily participated in the sort of anti-competitive agreement he did, which he must have known was illegal and which exposed his former employers to not insignificant liability, brings forth significant doubt as to whether or not he can reasonably be trusted to carry out his fiduciary duties as a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

Kevin Gorman

We can't be certain that he "happily" participated to that illegal anti-competitive agreement.

But except for the use of that "happily" word, I fully support Kevin statement.

Anthere

PS: another bed book : https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

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).

best,

dariusz

You'll find the allegations to be true, Dariusz. Although the link provided was just to Pando, the internal email from Arnnon was released by court order - and the entire anti-solicitation fiasco has been fairly widely covered in the US tech news. I knew I recognized Arnnon's name from somewhere, I just didn't remember where immediately. It recently resulted in a $435 million settlement for employees of the the companies involved due to lost competitive wages. There's also an ongoing shareholder lawsuit about it still. Besides the news coverage, really, the damning thing is just the direct emails. They were unsealed by the judge and a copy is hosted here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1019489/google-email-chain.pdf - although you can also get a copy from PACER if you want a 100% verified one.

They show in Arnnon's own words that (a) he's willing to participate in an illegal anti-solicitation agreement, and (b) he's willing to instantaneously fire any employee who violates that illegal anti-solicitation agreement. I know WMF has benefited from it's relationship with Google historically... but in terms of board members, I really think we need people who are not just talented but who uphold the values of the movement - and I don't think Arnnon's behavior as covered in the media and in the case filings do that. Also, since we're appointing a fiduciary, it seems like it might not be the best idea to appoint a fiduciary whose actions at another company were part of a chain of actions that resulted in a $435 million settlement. That's a lot of Jimmyeyes from the corner of my screen.

I'm additionally kind of worried because... this really should have come up in background vetting of potential board members. Since there's information explicitly about it within the first couple pages of any search engine, this suggests that the process involved in vetting potential board members didn't involve digging deep in to their backgrounds at all. Hiring for pretty much *any* position should normally involve at least a cursory scan of the internet to see if they are, say, a wanted fugitive, or participated in illegal anti-competitive behavior like this in the past to the point that it resulted in a settlement that large (and that is just for the employees of the companies involved, several shareholder lawsuits are ongoing.)

Here's a recent lawsuit from shareholders related to it. Keep in mind that these are just allegations by the shareholders, but they're pretty well supported by the court-ordered released emails - http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Googpoach.pdf - and a class action by employees of the companies involved recently settled for $435 million in lost competitive wages due to the illegal anti-solicitation agreement.

"Defendant Arnnon Geshuri (“Geshuri”) has served as Google’s Director of Recruiting at all times relevant to this lawsuit. Defendant Geshuri was involved in developing and perpetuating the illegal collusive scheme alleged herein. Defendant Geshuri knowingly, recklessly, or with gross negligence: (i) oversaw the creation of the protocols governing anticompetitive hiring agreements between Google and other companies; (ii) caused or allowed Google to enter into such illegal anticompetitive agreements; (iii) allowed Defendants Page, Brin, and Schmidt to dominate and control the Google Board of Directors with little or no effective oversight; and (iv) failed to implement adequate internal controls to ensure that Google complied with federal laws and regulations"

Even though those are allegations from an unsettled shareholder lawsuit, since the employee class action was settled for $435m and there are extensive details of what went on in the settement documents, I'd give that paragraph a bit more credence than I would a paragraph from an average unsettled lawsuit. I'm sure that Arnnon is personally skilled, I just really don't feel that his behavior as described in the settled class action/documents related to it/the general news media is in line with the values of the Wikimedia movement.

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

...

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).

best,

dariusz

--

---

prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i grupy badawczej NeRDS Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://n http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl/wrds.kozminski.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Maybe here the best is to wait a bit for the WMF to come with a response, before piling on - unless you actually have information to contribute. Pile-on threads seem to lead these days to the original questions being ignored/forgotten about.

Lodewijk

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:

Now this is something that's worthy of being dismissed (involuntarily, if necessary) from the WMF board. This individual clearly does not meet our community values of transparency and honesty, or at least such is in serious question.

Is the Board considering doing so, or reading this at all? It's really time to open up, not close the ranks.

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:

...

You'll find the allegations to be true, Dariusz. Although the link provided was just to Pando, the internal email from Arnnon was released

by

...

court order - and the entire anti-solicitation fiasco has been fairly widely covered in the US tech news. I knew I recognized Arnnon's name

from

...

somewhere, I just didn't remember where immediately. It recently resulted in a $435 million settlement for employees of the the companies involved due to lost competitive wages. There's also an ongoing shareholder

lawsuit

...

about it still. Besides the news coverage, really, the damning thing is just the direct emails. They were unsealed by the judge and a copy is hosted here:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1019489/google-email-chain.pdf

...

although you can also get a copy from PACER if you want a 100% verified one.

They show in Arnnon's own words that (a) he's willing to participate in

an

...

illegal anti-solicitation agreement, and (b) he's willing to instantaneously fire any employee who violates that illegal anti-solicitation agreement. I know WMF has benefited from it's relationship with Google historically... but in terms of board members, I really think we need people who are not just talented but who uphold the values of the movement - and I don't think Arnnon's behavior as covered

in

...

the media and in the case filings do that. Also, since we're appointing

a

...

fiduciary, it seems like it might not be the best idea to appoint a fiduciary whose actions at another company were part of a chain of

actions

...

that resulted in a $435 million settlement. That's a lot of Jimmyeyes

from

...

the corner of my screen.

I'm additionally kind of worried because... this really should have come

up

...

in background vetting of potential board members. Since there's information explicitly about it within the first couple pages of any

search

...

engine, this suggests that the process involved in vetting potential

board

...

members didn't involve digging deep in to their backgrounds at all.

Hiring

...

for pretty much *any* position should normally involve at least a cursory scan of the internet to see if they are, say, a wanted fugitive, or participated in illegal anti-competitive behavior like this in the past

to

...

the point that it resulted in a settlement that large (and that is just

for

...

the employees of the companies involved, several shareholder lawsuits are ongoing.)

Here's a recent lawsuit from shareholders related to it. Keep in mind

that

...

these are just allegations by the shareholders, but they're pretty well supported by the court-ordered released emails - http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Googpoach.pdf -

and

...

a class action by employees of the companies involved recently settled for $435 million in lost competitive wages due to the illegal

anti-solicitation

...

agreement.

"Defendant Arnnon Geshuri (“Geshuri”) has served as Google’s Director of Recruiting at all times relevant to this lawsuit. Defendant Geshuri was involved in developing and perpetuating the illegal collusive scheme alleged herein. Defendant Geshuri knowingly, recklessly, or with gross negligence: (i) oversaw the creation of the protocols governing anticompetitive hiring agreements between Google and other companies;

(ii)

...

caused or allowed Google to enter into such illegal anticompetitive agreements; (iii) allowed Defendants Page, Brin, and Schmidt to dominate and control the Google Board of Directors with little or no effective oversight; and (iv) failed to implement adequate internal controls to ensure that Google complied with federal laws and regulations"

Even though those are allegations from an unsettled shareholder lawsuit, since the employee class action was settled for $435m and there are extensive details of what went on in the settement documents, I'd give

that

...

paragraph a bit more credence than I would a paragraph from an average unsettled lawsuit. I'm sure that Arnnon is personally skilled, I just really don't feel that his behavior as described in the settled class action/documents related to it/the general news media is in line with the values of the Wikimedia movement.

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:

...

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

...

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).

...

...

best,

dariusz

--

---

prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i grupy badawczej NeRDS Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://n http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl/wrds.kozminski.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard:

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/

...

...

Motherboard:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia

...

The Wikipedian:

http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge

...

...

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into the matter, and prepare an answer relevant parties can agree on.

Lodewijk

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 9:18 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:

On 8 January 2016 at 22:41, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:

...

Maybe here the best is to wait a bit for the WMF to come with a response, before piling on - unless you actually have information to contribute. Pile-on threads seem to lead these days to the original questions being ignored/forgotten about.

They've had over 24 hours. How long do you think they need?

-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Chris,

Thanks for saying that. I'd also add that while the situation with Arrnon looks damning on the face of it, I'm a little disappointed that people are breaking out the pitchforks based purely on media reports, before he has a chance to present his own side of the story and before Dariusz and the others can properly look into the matter. I also think that some of the more 'excitable' commentary on this list in the past couple of weeks is more likely to push the trustees away than get us the explanations we want. Yes, what is happening is deeply concerning, but lets not all lose our heads.

Cheers, Craig

On 9 January 2016 at 19:06, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into

the

...

matter, and prepare an answer

Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.

In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now. It is in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key parts of the solution have to happen in private.

I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and energy in these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an organisation that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate the pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a deep breath and think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board members are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying to coordinate between three different continents.

In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone speculates and demands answers to their particular questions (and some people downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who spends 5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading all the emails....

Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon, which they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet more emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.

Regards,

Chris Keating _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I don't disagree that we need an explanation not only of his actions, but also on how he was selected without this being disclosed to existing trustees, but even at a show trial it's usually considered necessary to allow the accused to say a few words in their own defense. I'll be reserving my judgement until I hear his side of the story (or he declines to provide one).

Cheers, Craig

On 10 January 2016 at 03:51, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

... and the court papers, and the smoking gun documents, and ...

This is the sort of thing that needs some serious explaining. Assume good faith, but we're starting from some pretty *startling* circumstances and evidence here.

• d.

On 9 January 2016 at 09:19, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:

...

Chris,

Thanks for saying that. I'd also add that while the situation with

Arrnon

...

looks damning on the face of it, I'm a little disappointed that people

are

...

breaking out the pitchforks based purely on media reports, before he has

a

...

chance to present his own side of the story and before Dariusz and the others can properly look into the matter. I also think that some of the more 'excitable' commentary on this list in the past couple of weeks is more likely to push the trustees away than get us the explanations we want. Yes, what is happening is deeply concerning, but lets not all lose our heads.

Cheers, Craig

On 9 January 2016 at 19:06, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

...

I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into

the

...

matter, and prepare an answer

Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.

In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now.

It is

...

...

in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key

parts

...

...

of the solution have to happen in private.

I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and energy

in

...

...

these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an

organisation

...

...

that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate the pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a deep breath and think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board

members

...

...

are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying to coordinate between three different continents.

In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone

speculates

...

...

and demands answers to their particular questions (and some people downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who

spends

...

...

5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading all

the

...

...

emails....

Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon,

which

...

...

they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet

more

...

...

emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.

Regards,

Chris Keating _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

...

New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

@NYB: at least one major pension fund has ongoing litigation related to the nonsolicit, so I agree with you Arnnon is unlikely to be able to comment publicly.

Best, KG

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:

It would be great if we could have Arrnon's input and perspective on the events that have caused the concern raised in this thread. However, it's been stated that major shareholder litigation involving the issue is still pending. If that is so, it is very unlikely that he's going to be able to make any public statement about the subject.

Newyorkbrad/IBM

On 1/10/16, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:

...

I don't disagree that we need an explanation not only of his actions, but also on how he was selected without this being disclosed to existing trustees, but even at a show trial it's usually considered necessary to allow the accused to say a few words in their own defense. I'll be reserving my judgement until I hear his side of the story (or he declines to provide one).

Cheers, Craig

On 10 January 2016 at 03:51, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

...

... and the court papers, and the smoking gun documents, and ...

This is the sort of thing that needs some serious explaining. Assume good faith, but we're starting from some pretty *startling* circumstances and evidence here.

• d.

On 9 January 2016 at 09:19, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:

...

Chris,

Thanks for saying that. I'd also add that while the situation with

Arrnon

...

looks damning on the face of it, I'm a little disappointed that people

are

...

breaking out the pitchforks based purely on media reports, before he

has

...

...

a

...

chance to present his own side of the story and before Dariusz and the others can properly look into the matter. I also think that some of

the

...

...

...

more 'excitable' commentary on this list in the past couple of weeks

is

...

...

...

more likely to push the trustees away than get us the explanations we want. Yes, what is happening is deeply concerning, but lets not all lose our heads.

Cheers, Craig

On 9 January 2016 at 19:06, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com

...

...

wrote:

...

...

I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into

the

...

matter, and prepare an answer

Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.

In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now.

It is

...

...

in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key

parts

...

...

of the solution have to happen in private.

I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and

energy

...

...

in

...

...

these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an

organisation

...

...

that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate

the

...

...

...

...

pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a

deep

...

...

...

...

breath and think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board

members

...

...

are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying

to

...

...

...

...

coordinate between three different continents.

In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone

speculates

...

...

and demands answers to their particular questions (and some people downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who

spends

...

...

5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading

all

...

...

the

...

...

emails....

Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon,

which

...

...

they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet

more

...

...

emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.

Regards,

Chris Keating _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

...

...

...

...

mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

...

New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

,

...

...

mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

And more to the point; not knowing is a poor defence. Surely any level of due diligence on new board members would have exposed this troubling incident?

Tom

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:27 Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

On 9 January 2016 at 09:06, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote: ...

...

Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon,

which

...

they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet

more

...

emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.

...

Correction to "they [the board] were clearly not aware":

Yesterday Jimmy Wales confirmed that:[1] "I cannot speak for the entire board. As for myself, I was aware (from googling him and reading news reports) that he had a small part in the overall situation when he was told by Eric Schmidt that Google had a policy of not recruiting from Apple, and that a recruiter had done it, and that the recruiter should be fired, and he agreed to do so."

It is not true that the WMF board were unaware before Arnnon was offered a seat on the board, when there were trustees that knew he took part in illegal activities at Google. The first page of results of a google search shows that Arnnon was a named defence party in the court case.

Links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=69...

Fae

faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

The removal of a community elected member whiteout a community consultation is a scandal. I can see nothing which justifies a immediately removal (such as unlawful behavior). A scandal.

That James was replaced with Geshuri, who was involved in a scandal is yet a other scandal.

IMHO Geshuri schould be removed from the Board ASAP (if it is true what was wrote about him on media - even in non english media) to restore the trust of the community.

If the Board is ignoring Community voice, then we have to start a formal procedure (RFC, Open letter) to remove Mr. Geshuri. Or to start a re-election.

I am highly disappointed . Trust is broken. :-(

With best regards, Steinsplitter

To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org From: mail@anderswennersten.se Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 12:12:34 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Very good point Chris.

I also think it would be good to remember that WMF transformation from the "Superprotect disaster" to a very much appreciated 2015 Community Wishlist Survey. To go from an "inside-out" to an "outside-in" model in deciding what functionality to develop is a revolution. And even if we as users all applaud this change, we should also respect it can be felt tough to adjust to if you are "inside"

I give Lila 100% credit for this change and thank the Board for supporting this change (and also to have recruited Lila with this as main purpose)

Anders

Den 2016-01-09 kl. 10:06, skrev Chris Keating:

...

...

I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into the matter, and prepare an answer

Quite, and thanks for saying that Lodewijk.

In my view, the WMF board's top priority has to be the issues about strategy, leadership and staff morale that are being made public now. It is in everyone's interests that these issues get sorted out and some key parts of the solution have to happen in private.

I am sure that the Board have invested a huge amount of time and energy in these issues already. Unless you have been on the board of an organisation that's gone through a serious problem it's difficult to appreciate the pressure this creates. I have, and I would urge everyone to take a deep breath and think before emailing. It's worth repeating that Board members are all volunteers with jobs and families and what's more are trying to coordinate between three different continents.

In particular hundred-email threads on this list where everyone speculates and demands answers to their particular questions (and some people downright stir the shit) are less than helpful - a board member who spends 5 hours a week on WMF business could easily spend that just reading all the emails....

Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon, which they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet more emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.

Regards,

Chris Keating _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Yes but this overlapping generates this kind of misunderstanding.

For people being outside wikimedia community there are several changes too much complicated. Il 09/Gen/2016 13:08, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" putevod@mccme.ru ha scritto:

On 2016-01-09 12:54, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:

...

That James was replaced with Geshuri, who was involved in a scandal is yet a other scandal.

James Heilman was never replaced by Arnnon Geshuri. Arnnon replaced Stu West, and James will be replaced by a to-be-elected community member later this year.

Cheers Yaroslav

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Yes but this list is public.

Being in the shoes of an external I would have so much material to do a science fictional romance. Il 09/Gen/2016 13:21, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" putevod@mccme.ru ha scritto:

On 2016-01-09 13:14, Ilario Valdelli wrote:

...

Yes but this overlapping generates this kind of misunderstanding.

For people being outside wikimedia community there are several changes too much complicated. Il 09/Gen/2016 13:08, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" putevod@mccme.ru ha scritto:

To be honest, I think people outside the Wikimedia community do not care.

The problem at this point is the lack of mutual trust between WMF and the community, which started to get repaired in the second half of 2015, and which was not helped by the recent events.

Cheers Yaroslav

On 2016-01-09 13:30, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:

Wikimedians can have misunderstandings as well, can't they?

(sorry for the offtopic)

Sure, but they should have developed a habit of double-checking statements and recognizing which sources are reliable.

(getting closer to my January limit on the number of messages).

Cheers Yaroslav

Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:

IMO, you should give credit to the Community Tech team. They're the ones who came up with the wishlist idea and did it, unless I'm totally mistaken.

You could also give some credit to the staffers who originally proposed creating the Community Tech team. It wasn't a top-down proposal.

I think I've said this elsewhere, but the idea of having a "Community Tech" team continues to strike me as very strange as it immediately raises the question of what everyone else is working on. "What do you mean there's a Community Tech team? Are there technology teams at the Wikimedia Foundation working on technology not for the Wikimedia community?" Or put another way: every team at the Wikimedia Foundation should be carefully considering the needs of the Wikimedia community and working with it.

It's also really not impressive to create a survey and solicit ideas. In my brief skimming, a lot of the proposals listed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey aren't even new ideas. I'm happy to give credit when some of these proposals are properly implemented, by whoever takes the time to create a plan of action, write the necessary code, and get it deployed. But for now, it seems pretty silly to try to give credit for essentially having a group of people vote on Phabricator Maniphest tasks.

MZMcBride

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

Hello everyone, I would like to put out a friendly reminder that good practice is to keep threads on topic within reason, and to create new discussion threads for distinct tangents or complete spin off discussions.

"Community Tech Team" and "Lila's performance" are interesting, and to be fair they deserve their own threads. If your email to this thread does not mention the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri as a new WMF trustee (see thread title), it is worth considering which thread it ought to be posted under, or whether it is time to create a new subject line.

Not exactly coming from the source I would expect, but indeed, please keep your comments germane to subject line. (Starting new threads is entirely appropriate, and welcomed.)

Austin

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

...

I give Lila 100% credit for this change and thank the Board for

supporting

...

this change (and also to have recruited Lila with this as main purpose)

I would have to give this final point a big "citation needed" tag.

-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

​Pete, it does seem that since Lila arrived a lot of the tension between

the Foundation and community has gone. I've several times heard her talk of the need to respect the community because Wikipedia is nothing without it. ​

​You wrote above: "​As I understand it, we are still very much in the 'Superprotect disaster' era -- one which began under the same Executive Director we have today."

Superprotect was implemented just after Lila arrived, but it was a decision of Erik's. The tensions behind it were very much a product of the pre-Lila era, and had been growing for years. It appeared that Lila quickly understood that it needed to go.

Sarah

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 negative feedback.across

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 was 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). And there were a lot of squeaks before the org got sorted out, but then the people got very stimulated working in a outside-in organisation.

And from this perspective I actually think the Board made a very good work identifying the competence Geshuri has which I believe is just what the Board and WMF needs just now. 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 just blaming when (and if) they make mistakes

Anders

Den 2016-01-09 kl. 21:46, skrev Pete Forsyth:

Sarah, thanks for the response -- but I find this puzzling. I don't want to get into too many details here, as I think the comment thread on the Signpost op-ed, or the poll on the letter's talk page, are more appropriate venues for that; but briefly:

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:30 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

...

Pete, it does seem that since Lila arrived a lot of the tension between the Foundation and community has gone. I've several times heard her talk of the need to respect the community because Wikipedia is nothing without it.

I am more interested in discussing actions than words.

...

​You wrote above: "​As I understand it, we are still very much in the 'Superprotect disaster' era -- one which began under the same Executive Director we have today."

Superprotect was implemented just after Lila arrived, but it was a decision of Erik's.

I'd say "citation needed," but in this case I am highly confident that no citation exists. We have had no formal statement whatsoever on which to base speculation. Beyond that, Lila was Erik's boss; and people closer to the situation than myself have actually (privately) asserted just the opposite, that Lila was the driving force.

The tensions behind it were very much a product of the pre-Lila

...

era, and had been growing for years.

I very much agree with this, yes.

...

It appeared that Lila quickly understood that it needed to go.

I do not agree with this. She did acknowledge that the software feature had been a problem, when she announced its removal. (Keep in mind, its implementation happened on a Sunday afternoon, and its removal took a year and a half -- so I'm not sure about "quickly.")

But more importantly, neither she nor the board have acknowledged, much less moved to address, non-technical aspects of the letter.

-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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.

Best, Kevin Gorman

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@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 < mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:

...

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

negative

...

feedback.across

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

was

...

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 outside-in organisation.

Glad to hear of this experience.

...

And from this perspective I actually think the Board made a very good

work

...

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 background (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

just

...

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.

-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:02 AM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

Do we know who suggested Arnnon Geshuri for a board seat?

Spoiler: As "trust and honesty" are highly valued, his name likely appeared inside of a list "we compiled in the past".

Apologies for a slightly off-topic reply, but:

On 01/10/2016 01:21 PM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote:

I don't know Mr. Geshuri, have never seen editing him. So i can't trust him, especially after the google scandal.

I don't think board members need to be active editors.

The board is supposed to have expert knowledge. And expertise is not just editing Wikipedia, but also overseeing a large organization such as WMF. It's good to have both board members who are expert on wikis, and to have experts on financial management and administration.

(The Google scandal is an entirely different thing of course, and a much better reason to question the decision to make Arnnon a board member)

Tobias

Yeah, I kinda expected them to at least acknowledge the issue (which Dariusz did by the way, in his capacity as the chair of the committee responsible for this process) and outline a timeline for a response, or say there will be none.

I see Fae wrote a similar email with such surprise. Lets see where that goes.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:37 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:

On 9 January 2016 at 08:22, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:

...

I suspect they need a few days, based on past experiences. To dig into

the

...

matter, and prepare an answer relevant parties can agree on.

Lodewijk

They've had a few days. Any further speculation?

-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Can someone on the Board comment on the Board's general approach to vetting Trustee candidates?

I would hope that someone neutral is explicitly responsible for reviewing candidates and providing at least a cursory report to the Board on their background, qualifications, and any potential liabilities. Such a responsible person might be WMF staff, though an independent HR agency might be even better.

It wouldn't have taken a lot effort to identify and highlight the potential issues with Arrnon. The fact that some people are now expressing a degree of ignorance about these issues suggests that the recent candidates didn't receive much in the way of scrutiny.

Obviously one hopes each member of the board would also take the time to learn about each candidate and make an informed decision before voting on a new appointment. However, Board members are busy people which is one of the reasons why also having a third-party report seems worthwhile.

If the Board knew about Arrnon's past and made an informed decision to appoint him anyway, then that is at least a decision that could be argued and defended. However, if the Board is overlooking such things due primarily to a lack of scrutiny then that suggests the process of vetting Board candidates is in serious need of improvement.

-Robert Rohde

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Matthew Flaschen < matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:

On 01/08/2016 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:

...

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

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.

WMF doesn't have the excuse of ignorance, or that the case is in progress. When you appointed him:

1. The documents were unsealed.
2. The Department of Justice case was fully complete.
3. The civil case by employees was fully complete and payouts had either

started or were fully complete.

Saying you learned about this *after* voting to appoint him is incredibly frustrating and disappointing.

Being ignorant of the allegations is even worse than coming up with some dubious reason why we should forgive him, and he's still high-integrity enough to represent a non-profit backing movement with strong values.

The board had an obligation to fully research both candidates, and insist on more time as needed to do so.

There is nothing to wait for (the shareholder lawsuit will probably also be settled, but there is no need to wait for it given the released documents and fully complete cases above).

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation for details (though I'm sure someone has linked this from the list).

Matt Flaschen

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:

It was tenth several days ago, in Google.com. unfortunate and silly as it may sound, it was not in top ten on Google.pl or .de / .it for that matter. I'm not making excuses, just stating the fact.

I'm investigating with the BGC what went wrong with the whole process (that some Board members did not have full information) and we're hoping to come back with learning from this failure, as it was just one point of several that were suboptimal.

​Okay, thank you, ​

Dariusz ​, I appreciate that you're responding and trying to find out what happened.

Sarah​

I find it amazing – alarming – unbelievable – that some board members knew, and did not tell the others.

Andreas

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:27 AM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:

...

It was tenth several days ago, in Google.com. unfortunate and silly as it may sound, it was not in top ten on Google.pl or .de / .it for that

matter.

...

I'm not making excuses, just stating the fact.

I'm investigating with the BGC what went wrong with the whole process

(that

...

some Board members did not have full information) and we're hoping to

come

...

back with learning from this failure, as it was just one point of several that were suboptimal.

​Okay, thank you, ​

Dariusz ​, I appreciate that you're responding and trying to find out what happened.

Sarah​ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I wish the best for the new board, and for the movement. But I am troubled to learn of this.

I have always welcomed the appointed seats on the board--in my experience they brought useful perspectives and experience with their view from the outside, and I don't expect them all to begin their tenure as perfect representatives of the priorities and ideals of the Wikimedia movement as the community-selected members are.

But as they are full voting members, participating in all decisions, we have always expected them to share key values, and probably the most important of those is integrity. It's always hard to judge beforehand; what you really really want to know is how someone would act in a situation they haven't yet been faced with. But if the news reports are true (or even just mostly true) about Arnnon Geshuri's role in the staffing scandal, then this is a disappointing choice by the WMF board. (Of course, someone who refused to go along with it probably would not have been visible to the selection committee--uncompromising ethical standards make it much harder to get and keep a position of responsibility and expertise in most organizations; the exceptions exist but less commonly than I'd wish, and I hope we're among them. But this is probably a systematic failure in recruiting for us.)

The reason this bothers me so much--enough to break my list silence--is that I think integrity is the most important and most difficult thing for a board member of this organization. One of the key things that distinguishes Wikimedia from other entities is that it does not take the easy path: it does not sell the privacy of users, it does not make restricted content deals, it does not believe influence over content or governance should be able to be bought. If these decisions were easy and came without tradeoffs or pressures everyone would make them, but they don't; we see all over that Wikimedia is an outlier, not the norm, while others make decisions that look good in the short term but are damaging in the long term. Organizations with tremendous reach and influence--such as Google and Wikipedia--have a great responsibility not to take actions that systematically harm the people that rely on them. To know that someone at such an organization participated in something unethical in this way does not give me great confidence in them for leadership in Wikimedia.

I don't envy the current board the problems they are faced with, and recognize the difficulty in recruiting for it given the level of commitment involved--and I don't doubt that the new appointee has much to recommend him. But despite the wealth of experience he would bring, if the situation is as it seems to be, I cannot be supportive of this choice.

-Kat

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

Upon hearing of Arnnon's history at Google, I confess to being surprised to the point of a long silence.

If these news reports are true, this is disturbing to say the least. Whether he was happy about it or not, it appears that he chose to participate in illegal activity in a prominent role as a "Senior Staffing Strategist", and described a Google employee's noncompliance with the illegal scheme as "an error in judgment". I cannot think of an excuse from an HR professional that I would accept for this.

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,

Lila, you said that "Kelly and Arnnon bring a special combination of expertise, integrity, and love for our mission." I am interested in hearing how you reconcile this assessment with the reports about Arnnon's role in this illegal scheme at Google.

Looking at the WMF situation more broadly in light of the Board's removal of James and its surrounding circumstances, I am very disappointed with what we are learning and I am losing confidence in the governance of WMF. I am considering strategic options for the community.

Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Austin Hair wrote:

Having waited two days for any kind of meaningful response from either the Board or from individual trustees, I have to say that Kat's comments (unsurprisingly) nailed it.

I mean, seriously, nobody googled him?

Since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned in this thread already, one of the trustees, Jimmy Wales, has provided some responses on his English Wikipedia talk page. He directly mentions googling and Google.

--- I cannot speak for the entire board. As for myself, I was aware (from googling him and reading news reports) that he had a small part in the overall situation when he was told by Eric Schmidt that Google had a policy of not recruiting from Apple, and that a recruiter had done it, and that the recruiter should be fired, and he agreed to do so. As for your other allegations, that he "helped manage that collusion", the part about some "ugly and humiliating" termination, and chastisement by a Federal Judge, I don't (yet) know anything about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC) ---

In response to a request to further expand on Mr. Geshuri's suitability to be a trustee:

--- Sure, I'll offer my views when the time is right. At the moment, I'm waiting for a staff report and some board discussion to take place. It would be inappropriate for me to offer a public opinion at this early stage.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC) ---

There's also:

--- I don't think this board has any unhealthy relationship with Google.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC) ---

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/699004139.

MZMcBride

On 9 January 2016 at 10:09, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

We are well overdue for a major turnover of board members. Fae --

While I have largely kept out of this thread to this time, this statement needs to be rebutted. There are ten seats on the board. Five of them - all three "community-selected" seats and two of the four board-appointed seats - have changed hands in the last six months. An additional board-selected seat changed hands not long before Wikimania last year (Guy Kawasaki). That means six of the 10 board members have less than a year's experience in the role. (One of those has now been removed, but that still means half the board has very limited experience.)

Of the remaining seats, two are "Chapter/Thorg-selected" seats that will be contested in the near future. Historically, only one of the incumbents of those seats have been reseated, and I make no predictions for this year. Jimmy Wales is assumed to still hold the Founder seat, and the fourth board-appointed seat is held by longtime community member Alice Weigand.

We do not know how the board will decide to fill the recently vacated "community-selected" seat - the options appear to be narrowed to appointing the fourth-place candidate from the last election (which would bring an experienced board member back to the table) or an election, which could also bring a completely new trustee.

At minimum, we already have five board members who weren't board members this time last year. By the end of their Wikimania board meeting, we could have as many as eight trustees with less than 18 months of experience under their belt. Of all the problems the board has, insufficient turnover is NOT one of them.

Risker

Hey Fae

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

LOL.

Jeez, this board are complacent beyond the point of incompetence. We are well overdue for a major turnover of board members. For goodness sake, what a bunch of clowns we have put in charge of the cash cow.

I know there is a good bit of frustration and disappointment around, but language like that is not helpful. I say this with appreciation for all the research and relevant comments you've made so far. You are doing yourself and the conversation a disservice by comments like that. A "bunch of clowns we have put in charge of the cash cow" is wrong on so many levels, and I know you realise it too.

Don't reduce the level of conversation here, you have been doing well here. It will only make it easier to marginalise and ignore all your effort.

Kind Regards Theo

Has Arnnon been actually convicted of a felony? Where is presumption of innocence? The firing was part of a larger system he seems unlikely to have set up on his own volition. Look at his face https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arnnon_Geshuri_-_January_2016_by_Myl...

Il 08/01/2016 17:43, Kevin Gorman ha scritto:

I'm going to publicly second (or third, or fifth,) the idea that given Arnnon's role in an incident involving illegal anti-poaching agreements he should either be removed from the board with haste, or the board should publish an incredibly good reason as to why he should remain on it. Keep in mind that Arnnon wasn't a bystander to this scandal, he actively fired a recruiter who failed to follow the terms of an illegal anti-poaching agreement in less than one hour of being informed about it in the first place. I like to think of Wikimedia as a relatively humane movement, and there are very few situations where I'm comfortable with someone who is that comfortable with the idea of firing an employee (who had presumably been there for some time) within sixty minutes of learning the employee didn't follow an illegal agreement having the degree of influence over the movement that members of the Board of Trustees have.

The Wikimedia movement is not a movement whose direction should be set by someone with that degree of callousness - and the fact that he happily participated in the sort of anti-competitive agreement he did, which he must have known was illegal and which exposed his former employers to not insignificant liability, brings forth significant doubt as to whether or not he can reasonably be trusted to carry out his fiduciary duties as a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

Kevin Gorman

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Andreas Kolbejayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

My apologies. I just noticed the resolutions were in fact added on January 6, 2016.[1]

They are dated December 9, 2015. Both appointments were unanimous.

[1]

https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&diff=10442...

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Andreas Kolbejayen466@gmail.com wrote:

...

The resolutions and voting records for these recent appointments have not yet been posted tohttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions

Could the page please be brought up to date?

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

There was a finding of civil, not criminal, liability in the case. Against the companies as a whole not individuals.

Generally such never becomes individual liability or criminality.

George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 20, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Ricordisamoa ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org wrote:

Has Arnnon been actually convicted of a felony? Where is presumption of innocence? The firing was part of a larger system he seems unlikely to have set up on his own volition. Look at his face https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arnnon_Geshuri_-_January_2016_by_Myl...

Il 08/01/2016 17:43, Kevin Gorman ha scritto:

...

I'm going to publicly second (or third, or fifth,) the idea that given Arnnon's role in an incident involving illegal anti-poaching agreements he should either be removed from the board with haste, or the board should publish an incredibly good reason as to why he should remain on it. Keep in mind that Arnnon wasn't a bystander to this scandal, he actively fired a recruiter who failed to follow the terms of an illegal anti-poaching agreement in less than one hour of being informed about it in the first place. I like to think of Wikimedia as a relatively humane movement, and there are very few situations where I'm comfortable with someone who is that comfortable with the idea of firing an employee (who had presumably been there for some time) within sixty minutes of learning the employee didn't follow an illegal agreement having the degree of influence over the movement that members of the Board of Trustees have.

The Wikimedia movement is not a movement whose direction should be set by someone with that degree of callousness - and the fact that he happily participated in the sort of anti-competitive agreement he did, which he must have known was illegal and which exposed his former employers to not insignificant liability, brings forth significant doubt as to whether or not he can reasonably be trusted to carry out his fiduciary duties as a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

Kevin Gorman

...

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Andreas Kolbejayen466@gmail.com wrote:

My apologies. I just noticed the resolutions were in fact added on January 6, 2016.[1]

They are dated December 9, 2015. Both appointments were unanimous.

[1]

https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolutions&diff=10442...

...

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Andreas Kolbejayen466@gmail.com wrote:

The resolutions and voting records for these recent appointments have not yet been posted tohttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions

Could the page please be brought up to date?

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

We are not "seeing movement" by a vague statement of "we're working on it".

In the case of James Heilman, they said essentially the same thing. What resulted was a vague statement that used a lot of words to say nothing at all. There needs to be full disclosure and specifics, not a lot of waffle.

We need a commitment to give a fully detailed statement by a specific time, or else this isn't "movement", just delaying and obfuscating like last time.

Todd

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Matthew Flaschen < matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu> wrote:

On 01/13/2016 12:00 PM, Fæ wrote:

...

Please make your timetable public, so that the community is reassured that formal communications such as this letter to the board are not a waste of time, and that the WMF chair is not only aware of community concerns but is taking these questions seriously.

Thank you.

I don't know if the board is able to make the timetable public, but I also think it's important that we know whether the board is still working on this issue, or whether they consider it done.

To that effect, I appreciated your update yesterday ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_no...), where you relayed that (per Patricio) the board is still discussing the issue.

I am glad to know the Board is working on this. It needs to be handled properly, but we also need to see movement.

Thanks,

Matt Flaschen

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I decided to support that vote.

This has not been an easy decision because I find it *tremendously* painful to vote against a person and it hurts me in my feelings to do so. I hoped very dearly that the board would actually issue a statement that would have helped me understand the decision and convinced me that this appointement was a good decision. I hoped very dearly Arnnon would post on this list to address the issue and to convince me he was a good fit in spite of the whole situation. I waited... waited... waited... but nothing came.

I can't sit and say nothing.

Learning the whole story about Arnnon was a disappointment to me as it means the board selection process is not working as it should be (for a mature organization as WMF ought to be by now). If the screening process had been done properly, I believe the board would have refrained from selecting him, or at least would have taken the time to address the issue before any appointement announcement. This decreased my trust in the board a bit, but I can live with that. Such mistakes do happen ;)

Secundly, Kat completely nailed it with regards to integrity being one of our core values. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080854.html. I do feel unconfortable with Arnnon being on the board.

Then I was astonished when I discovered that Dariusz, who has been a board member for over 6 months, was not aware of the existence of the Conflict of Interest Policy, which include a pledge of commitment and an obligation to disclose potential conflicts of interest. A policy voted by the board several years ago and mandatory for all board members. It is apparently not enforced anymore, even though it is an approved policy and obviously a good governance practice. This makes me think the board is not operating properly anymore on this serious matter.

Last, and not least, over two weeks after the issue was raised on the mailing list, by several trusted members of our community, the current board of trustees has not addressed the issue.

I hesitate between two interpretations. Either the board is completely paralyzed and no more able to make any decision as to what they should do. Or the board has decided not to provide any feedback, which I consider completely disrespectful to the community and unhealthy generally. Either way, I consider this lack of responsiveness from the board an even WORSE consideration than Arnnon being a board member.

I love you guys... Patricio, Alice, Frieda, Dariusz, Denny, and Jimbo (*). I love you very much. I know each of you. I value every one of you. You guys rock in most of what you do and I know it is hard. It is a big commitment, it is a lot of pressure, it is time-consuming. And I thank every one of you for your gardianship as well as boldness in taking some tough decisions.

But here... I do not understand what you are doing. Please take my vote as a respectful record of my perplexity.

Anthere

(*)Citing community-born members only. Appointed members bring great perspective, but I do not expect them to know it all about Wikimedia community.

Le 21/01/16 01:04, Fæ a écrit :

We are now approaching 2 weeks since the open letter to the Chairman of the WMF board. There has been no formal response, nor any commitment to take action. Consequently a simple open and public vote of confidence for Geshuri's appointment has been created.

Link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vote_of_confidence:Arnnon_Geshuri

Please vote or add your comment there.

Thanks, Fae

On 7 January 2016 at 10:38, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

...

Dear Patricio Lorente,

I request that the WMF board take immediate action to publish a comprehensive account of why you appointed Geshuri as a trustee, despite his direct involvement and being named as a defendant in the on-going scandal of anticompetitive agreements at Google, or that Geshuri chooses to step down from his new position of trust.

This is being separated out as an open letter to the board in a new discussion thread, to avoid getting confused with other issues. In the light of recent challenges to the WMF with regard to a dramatic loss of confidence in their senior management and the politicking behind the loss of James Heilman as a trustee openly advocating for transparency to the actions of the WMF board, Geshuri's background with anticompetitive practices can only damage confidence in the WMF board with regard to their duty to hold WMF senior management to account and acting with the highest possible accountability and public transparency.

Links showing Geshuri's public footprint on this issue:

1. http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-...
2. http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Antitrust/Apple-Google-Silicon-Valley-No-Cold-C...
3. http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/23/google-shareholders-miffed-over-wag...
4. https://www.quora.com/How-is-Arnnon-Geshuri-current-VP-HR-at-Tesla-and-forme...

Yours sincerely, Fae

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew Green agreen@wikimedia.org Date: 7 January 2016 at 08:58 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing new Wikimedia Foundation Trustees To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Interesting to note Arnnon's role in the Silicon Valley anti-poaching affair: http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/27/2753701/no-poach-scandal-unredacted-steve-...

• Andrew

-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On 2016-01-21 7:08 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:

Either the board is completely paralyzed and no more able to make any decision as to what they should do. Or the board has decided not to provide any feedback, which I consider completely disrespectful to the community and unhealthy generally.

It would seem to me, Florence, that the board has fallen into a very unhealthy pattern: when it becomes evident they have made a mistake, rather than own up to it and correct it they dig trenches and try to pretend nothing is wrong - letting things degenerate. Ego? Fear of appearing fallible? Regardless of /why/, the effect is that they stick by a decision (I really hope) they know was bad.

And now they're doing it again with Arnnon, it seems.

-- Marc