To me, these proposals always sound a bit like:
"We want this person to be resilient and good-humoured. So we're going to
punch all our possible candidates in the face a few times and see where
they want to go from there."
I know that's not the intention, but it's certainly the plausible effect...
Andrew.
On Monday, 3 February 2014, Martijn Hoekstra
<martijnhoekstra@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','martijnhoekstra@gmail.com');>>
wrote:
I understand your reasoning, but we already have an
extremely difficult
time finding a suitable candidate. While such community vetting would
definitely weed out the people we don't want, it will also slim down the
pool we do want, which currently sits around a cool 0. I don't think we
can afford that either.
On Feb 1, 2014 4:47 PM, "Todd Allen" <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sure dismissively calling people's
legitimate concerns "playing with
(a) toy" will help greatly in that regard.
If someone's going to apply for a job where they'll be scrutinized by a
large volunteer community, it is not unreasonable to determine if they
can
withstand that type of scrutiny by a real world
test, nor to find whether
they'll be responsive and direct to concerns brought up when that
happens.
The community has had enough of
"diplomatic" null statements with lots of
words, and should be. Someone needs to give an answer, not just blather
on
and wind up saying nothing concrete at all.
It is right for the community to be fed up with that and demand that a
candidate go through that process. Yes, it would be hard. Yes, it would
discourage some applicants. Those are the applicants we want to
discourage.
We want someone who fits well with our particular
project, and who will
be
responsive and direct with our volunteer
community. They are the
underpinnings of every project WMF undertakes.
Todd Allen
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Tony Souter <tony1(a)iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Folks: are we still playing with this toy?
>
> I've sat here and watched this discourse - variously frivolous,
slightly
> insulting, and embarrassing - and said
nothing in the hope it would
just
> fizzle away.
>
> But amazingly, it's still here.
>
> We have to accept that while crowdsourcing is the genius of Wikipedia
and
> a few of its sister projects, it's
totally inappropriate for choosing
the
executive
director of a big, prominent Foundation that lives in a
competitive, complex, and often negative jungle. There's a bunch of
reasons
> for doing this largely away from the gaze of the rest of the world. Do
I
> really need to spell them out?
>
> It would be good to move on to more useful and practical topics.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 02/02/2014, at 1:32 AM, Benjamin Lees <emufarmers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:29 AM, ENWP Pine <deyntestiss(a)hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Chad, I wonder if Rory has been considered. (:
> >>
> >>
> > Given his history of biting newbies, I'm not sure he'd be in a good
> > position to help solve the editor retention problem.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l(a)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
> > Wikimedia-l(a)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
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wik<https://lists.wikimedia…
