It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from representative members of the community. My first reaction was how amazing the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another fifteen years and beyond. Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy of the community is truly inspirational. Although I would have preferred the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying around convictions, and open disagreement.
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations. As a general matter, I will say that, throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently. I have done so realizing company policies and practices evolve over time as circumstances change.
As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a running theme within the online conversations related to trust. Comments were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member. Wanting to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in the community. I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate those who have been generous with their time. Given the story line that has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their trust in me. I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors, contributors, and users. As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right. I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade. I passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the community and even the most energetic community members come from a place of good intent. And as we all become closer and transition to debating the issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
Regards, Arnnon
Hello Arnnon, and welcome.
It is great that you are working hard to earn our trust. Unfortunately, your statement, which is somewhat self-serving, totally omits the issues that a very wide cross-section of the Wikimedia community has a MAJOR issue with.
So perhaps you can answer some questions:
1) Why did you do it?
2) Would you do it again?
3) What have you learned from you role in the scheme that has cost those companies hundreds of millions of dollars?
And most importantly,
4) Why should we trust you?
If you can't answer these questions, please resign.
Warmest regards,
Ruslan Takayev
Arnnon,
My impression from the available public evidence is that your membership on the Board presents significant and unnecessary risks to WMF (particularly to fundraising, as well as for HR and PR). The evidence available to date suggests to me that you were a willing and key participant in illegal HR practices. Based on the available evidence, it seems to me that the honorable thing for you to do, and the best action for the WMF as well as for our community, would be for you to resign from the WMF board.
At a minimum, the ongoing controversy regarding your membership is a time-consuming distraction from our mission, and the controversy consumes our collective time and resources. That reason alone is sufficient for me to believe that the best course of action that you could take would be to resign so that WMF can move on from this controversy and address our many other challenges.
While I realize that staying on may be your personal preference, I believe that for the good of WMF and for our collective movement, you should resign.
Pine (speaking in my personal capacity only)
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Arnnon Geshuri ageshuri@wikimedia.org wrote:
It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from representative members of the community. My first reaction was how amazing the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another fifteen years and beyond. Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy of the community is truly inspirational. Although I would have preferred the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying around convictions, and open disagreement.
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations. As a general matter, I will say that, throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently. I have done so realizing company policies and practices evolve over time as circumstances change.
As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a running theme within the online conversations related to trust. Comments were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member. Wanting to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in the community. I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate those who have been generous with their time. Given the story line that has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their trust in me. I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors, contributors, and users. As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right. I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade. I passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the community and even the most energetic community members come from a place of good intent. And as we all become closer and transition to debating the issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
Regards, Arnnon _______________________________________________ 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 26/01/2016 20:27, Pine W wrote:
While I realize that staying on may be your personal preference, I believe that for the good of WMF and for our collective movement, you should resign.
A quote from history would have been more succinct: http://quotationsbook.com/quote/29200/
RIP AGF.
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith needs work!)
Mike
On 26 Jan 2016, at 21:11, Lilburne lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net wrote:
On 26/01/2016 20:27, Pine W wrote:
While I realize that staying on may be your personal preference, I believe that for the good of WMF and for our collective movement, you should resign.
A quote from history would have been more succinct: http://quotationsbook.com/quote/29200/
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
Mike, the assumption of good faith goes right out the window as soon as the company you work for has agreed to pay the Department of Justice nine figures due in significant part to your actions, and your private emails showing your intent have been released by a federal judge. AGF is a rebuttable presumption, and it's hard to think of a set of facts that would serve to rebut it more effectively.
---- Kevin Gorman
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
RIP AGF.
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith%3E needs work!)
Mike
On 26 Jan 2016, at 21:11, Lilburne lilburne@tygers-of-wrath.net wrote:
On 26/01/2016 20:27, Pine W wrote:
While I realize that staying on may be your personal preference, I
believe
that for the good of WMF and for our collective movement, you should
resign.
A quote from history would have been more succinct: http://quotationsbook.com/quote/29200/
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
Hello Arnnon,
I'm glad you've decided to join the discussion. (And do appreciate it; I'm sure by now you know exactly what you're walking into.)
I don't, however, see that your statement says much. The heart of the issue is that you assisted in implementing and enforcing a "no poaching" practice, which is an illegal and unethical wage suppression tactic. When someone did not go along with that practice (whether out of refusal or simple error), you enthusiastically fired them.
If you would like to work on gaining trust, regardless of what happens with you and the Board, I believe you ought to directly address that. "I was just following policy" won't wash here, as it was clear from your communication that you were well aware that you were helping to enforce anticompetitive "do not poach" agreements. I think the primary question is, why did you go along with this illegal practice rather than blowing the whistle?
Regards,
Todd (Seraphimblade)
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Arnnon Geshuri ageshuri@wikimedia.org wrote:
It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from representative members of the community. My first reaction was how amazing the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another fifteen years and beyond. Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy of the community is truly inspirational. Although I would have preferred the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying around convictions, and open disagreement.
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations. As a general matter, I will say that, throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently. I have done so realizing company policies and practices evolve over time as circumstances change.
As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a running theme within the online conversations related to trust. Comments were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member. Wanting to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in the community. I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate those who have been generous with their time. Given the story line that has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their trust in me. I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors, contributors, and users. As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right. I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade. I passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the community and even the most energetic community members come from a place of good intent. And as we all become closer and transition to debating the issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
Regards, Arnnon _______________________________________________ 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
It's unfair of anyone to expect Arnnon to comment about the legal case or the circumstances surrounding it. I'm sure he has a stack of legal advice and corporate policies that specifically prevent him from answering Todd's questions or others. Even though I don't support the corporate collusion that he apparently participated in, I'm starting to feel sympathetic to Arnnon for what the Board has put him through and for the criticism and scrutiny he will continue to suffer for as long as he remains on the Board.
Arnnon -
This is about the first piece of polished communication put out by the board regarding either recent incident - and given your professional background, it doesn't really surprise me that you are the first person involved to put out a polished communication. I have no doubt that your backgrounds at Tesla and Google helped you develop a skillset that the WMF Board truly needs - and those aren't positions you would have held if you were bad at your job. Unfortunately, your own actions prevent you from successfully fulfilling the honorable duties of a trustee. It would be one thing if the issues at hand were just rumor and innuendo, but there's already been a half a billion dollar settled class action suit involving a series of actions where, although you may not have been the absolute center, you were certainly at least quite visible on center stage, and your name is mentioned quite a bit on PACER. Some lawsuits get settled because it's easier to settle than it is to fight them - that's not the case here. Even for four tech giants, $415,000,000 isn't a nuisance settlement.
Now, lets take a further step back, and remember that the settled suit isn't for shareholder damages due to poor decisions or anything of that nature - it's for employee wages lost due to illegal and unethical anti-solicitation agreements. The companies involved deny breaking the law, but even four tech giants aren't going to give away $415,000,000 out of the goodness of their hearts, and the publicly available documents make it entirely obvious that if it had gone to trial there would have not been a good outcome for the companies involved. Let's reframe 'employee wages lost due to illegal and unethical anti-solicitation agreeements' one more time.
You played a fundamental role in stealing $415,000,000 from your employees and the employees of three other companies. Even though you have a skillset that WMF needs, that is absolutely incompatible with the honorable duties of a trustee, out of line with the fundamental values of the Wikimedia movement, and even more problematic at a time when cultural matchup between the Board and everyone else is in greater doubt than at any other time in the history of Wikimedia.
Resign. Please.
---- Kevin Gorman
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It's unfair of anyone to expect Arnnon to comment about the legal case or the circumstances surrounding it. I'm sure he has a stack of legal advice and corporate policies that specifically prevent him from answering Todd's questions or others. Even though I don't support the corporate collusion that he apparently participated in, I'm starting to feel sympathetic to Arnnon for what the Board has put him through and for the criticism and scrutiny he will continue to suffer for as long as he remains on the Board. _______________________________________________ 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 26 January 2016 at 19:07, Arnnon Geshuri ageshuri@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations.
There are black and white facts which make you unsuitable to be a WMF trustee, and which the board of trustees who appointed you were not all aware of beforehand because you did not think that your key role in the antitrust scandal was an issue of ethics worth explaining. Your email statement does not address these key problems and manages to use a lot of peacock prose which when struck out amounts to "Wikimedians should move along now, nothing to see".
Press coverage like the BBC's this evening which leads with Jimmy Wales' face, have damaged the WMF's reputation and our projects that rely on "Wikimedia" remaining a trusted name.[1][2] As Pine has stated here, "your membership on the Board presents significant and unnecessary risks", though the fact is that your failure to resign gracefully is not a risk, but a major incident and an embarrassment.
Resign your unpaid trusteeship now, as you should have done a fortnight ago, and save your fellow trustees the indignity of trying to justify their bad governance in your appointment, rather than honestly admit failure and reverse their decision.
Links 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35411208 2. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/editors-demand-ouster-of-wikimedi...
P.S. How is that nobody can work out who nominated/invited Geshuri for the trustee position? There can be little doubt that they knew of his chequered past when they did so.
Yours sincerely, Fae
I want + Fae's recent post which is attached below.
From: faewik@gmail.com Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:54:03 +0000 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community
On 26 January 2016 at 19:07, Arnnon Geshuri ageshuri@wikimedia.org wrote: ...
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations.
There are black and white facts which make you unsuitable to be a WMF trustee, and which the board of trustees who appointed you were not all aware of beforehand because you did not think that your key role in the antitrust scandal was an issue of ethics worth explaining. Your email statement does not address these key problems and manages to use a lot of peacock prose which when struck out amounts to "Wikimedians should move along now, nothing to see".
Press coverage like the BBC's this evening which leads with Jimmy Wales' face, have damaged the WMF's reputation and our projects that rely on "Wikimedia" remaining a trusted name.[1][2] As Pine has stated here, "your membership on the Board presents significant and unnecessary risks", though the fact is that your failure to resign gracefully is not a risk, but a major incident and an embarrassment.
Resign your unpaid trusteeship now, as you should have done a fortnight ago, and save your fellow trustees the indignity of trying to justify their bad governance in your appointment, rather than honestly admit failure and reverse their decision.
Links
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35411208
- http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/editors-demand-ouster-of-wikimedi...
P.S. How is that nobody can work out who nominated/invited Geshuri for the trustee position? There can be little doubt that they knew of his chequered past when they did so.
Yours sincerely, 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
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. How is that nobody can work out who nominated/invited Geshuri for the trustee position? There can be little doubt that they knew of his chequered past when they did so.
According to the minutes for the November board meeting,[1] Boryana Dineva and Dariusz Jemielniak led the presentation on board recruitment on that occasion.
Dariusz would seem to have known little about Arnnon, judging by his comments about googling him, so I don't think it was his idea. But Boryana must have been very familiar with Arnnon, given that she worked at Tesla HR before joining the Foundation last year (Arnnon is VP of Human Resources at Tesla).
Of course that does not mean that putting Arnnon on the WMF board was Boryana's idea, but she clearly played a significant role in the relevant discussions.
Andreas
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2015-11-07#Board_Recruiting
On 26.01.2016 21:54, Fæ wrote:
Press coverage like the BBC's this evening which leads with Jimmy Wales' face, have damaged the WMF's reputation and our projects that rely on "Wikimedia" remaining a trusted name.[1][2]
Published today on numerama.com, top digital news web site (2 millions visitors/month and primary information source for people interested in digital liberties, net neutrality, etc.) in France: http://www.numerama.com/business/141371-wikipedia-secoue-par-une-nomination-...
If I remember how WMUK was "treated" by a few WMF representatives during the Bamkin's controversy I can only state that their is a two-tiers evaluation system of this kind or crisis.
Emmanuel
It is not just in BBC and numerama, it is all over the web: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_no_confidence_o...
Bad PR for WMF and WP :-/
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org From: kelson@kiwix.org Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 20:25:05 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community
On 26.01.2016 21:54, Fæ wrote:
Press coverage like the BBC's this evening which leads with Jimmy Wales' face, have damaged the WMF's reputation and our projects that rely on "Wikimedia" remaining a trusted name.[1][2]
Published today on numerama.com, top digital news web site (2 millions visitors/month and primary information source for people interested in digital liberties, net neutrality, etc.) in France: http://www.numerama.com/business/141371-wikipedia-secoue-par-une-nomination-...
If I remember how WMUK was "treated" by a few WMF representatives during the Bamkin's controversy I can only state that their is a two-tiers evaluation system of this kind or crisis.
Emmanuel
Hello Arnnon,
What you describe as an *inspirational* experience, I see as an extremely painful event to watch as it damages the Wikimedia Foundation and the wikimedia movement.
Please keep in mind that you and the Board are not the only people who are living through this situation.
I doubt that I'm alone in thinking that no matter the positive skills and traits you bring to the Board, the questions your appointment raise are a massive distraction to some important current matters such as the WMF annual plan and strategy.
Forgive me if I don't share your enthusiasm for working through the issues your appointment is causing the wikimedia movement.
Sydney Poore User:FloNight On Jan 26, 2016 3:08 PM, "Arnnon Geshuri" ageshuri@wikimedia.org wrote:
It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from representative members of the community. My first reaction was how amazing the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another fifteen years and beyond. Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy of the community is truly inspirational. Although I would have preferred the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying around convictions, and open disagreement.
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations. As a general matter, I will say that, throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently. I have done so realizing company policies and practices evolve over time as circumstances change.
As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a running theme within the online conversations related to trust. Comments were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member. Wanting to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in the community. I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate those who have been generous with their time. Given the story line that has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their trust in me. I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors, contributors, and users. As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right. I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade. I passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the community and even the most energetic community members come from a place of good intent. And as we all become closer and transition to debating the issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
Regards, Arnnon _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Arnnon,
Did you provide information regarding your involvement in the antitrust litigation to someone during the WMF selection process?
If not, why not?
-- John Vandenberg
Arnnon Geshuri <ageshuri@...> writes:
Hi Arnnon - nicely worded message! I can't imagine that you're feeling too great right now, but I want to give you a little hope. Wikipedia can be a forgiving place - many have been blocked and banned only to return later for second or third chances. We take who we can get, because we can't afford to be too picky.
If you're really looking to prove yourself, we are in a weird way fortunate. Some of the appointed (and even nonappointed) board members don't seem highly engaged with the English Wikipedia, and you're actually facing the consequence of board neglect of the community right now. My concern with someone like yourself, given that you don't seem to have prior interest in Wikipedia, is that you're actually looking for little extra conversation filler when you're rubbing elbows with powerful folks at cocktail parties. I hope you prove me wrong. Jimbo Wales gets a lot of flak, but I appreciate the fact that he's there on Wikipedia. I prefer him over someone who is basically "phoning it in" once or twice a year.
So, the "SF Bay" group of Wikimedians could use some extra love. I gather you're not too far from San Francisco? I've been in San Francisco for a year and I think I missed one or two meetups, but that's not very many and I hear DC is much more active. When I went to the 15th anniversary meetup, there were a fair number who had never edited and most of the veterans had never been to an editathon (and neither have I). I collected as many emails as I could, but I imagine you'd have more connections of potential new volunteers - let's connect and try to get a regular (even as rare as quarterly or twice a year) meetup/editathon happening in San Francisco. I've done a fair bit of editing on corporate governance and nonprofits, and I'd be happy to show you around.
I understand that the antitrust settlement is, in the scheme of corporate scandals, somewhat mild. It's not Arthur Andersen and Enron or subprime mortgages. Although people do go to prison for antitrust violations (which is in some cases a felony, per the Sherman Act), this case didn't involve criminal charges. Despite what the textbooks say, I believe it's difficult to succeed as an executive without being unethical. In picking my battles I've been a part of things I'm not proud of even in my limited career.
Power does funny things to people. It's been shown that powerful people are 3 times as likely to help a stranger in distress.[1] Powerful people focus on the rewards and take risks but they lack broader perspective and can easily objectify people or ignore social norms or laws, as we see over and over with executives.
We need a powerful person on Wikipedia's board to help steer them towards sensible decisions. The board's judgment seems to be lacking, especially when they made the remarkably poor decision (for their reputation) to spark this controversy by removing James even though he was upholding their odd omerta by not leaking to the community the 90% disapproval of the executive director among staff and the new (yet to be fully revealed) partnership with the Knight Foundation. In the end, it's actually worked out for the best since it sparked a conversation that needed to happen.
I'm not sure you're the powerful person who can pull WMF out of this ditch, but if you are, I'd say a worthwhile step would be to take a shot at getting your hands dirty in the trenches of Wikipedia as an editor and join me in trying to recruit volunteers in the Bay. Plus James should be appointed back to his rightful place on the board.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20080908051020/http://www.kellogg.northwestern.e... news/whatsnew/mbaupdate08.htm
Hi Ben, Arnnon -
There will be at least two bay area editathons in March, which I'll announce when I finalize the details of. At least one of them is going to be at least partially closed due to the nature of the host, but one should be fully open... and Arnnon, you are invited to both of them. I realize full-well the board needs your skillset - really pretty badly - but don't see a way right now you can possibly serve as a trustee. I hold no grudge against you and would be happy to see you at March's editathons and help introduce you more directly to the community and editing Wikipedia about subjects you're interested in... it's just really hard to see you successful in a fiduciary role, and my doubts here are magnified by other ongoing situations.
---- Kevin Gorman
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Ben Creasy ben@bencreasy.com wrote:
Arnnon Geshuri <ageshuri@...> writes:
Hi Arnnon - nicely worded message! I can't imagine that you're feeling too great right now, but I want to give you a little hope. Wikipedia can be a forgiving place - many have been blocked and banned only to return later for second or third chances. We take who we can get, because we can't afford to be too picky.
If you're really looking to prove yourself, we are in a weird way fortunate. Some of the appointed (and even nonappointed) board members don't seem highly engaged with the English Wikipedia, and you're actually facing the consequence of board neglect of the community right now. My concern with someone like yourself, given that you don't seem to have prior interest in Wikipedia, is that you're actually looking for little extra conversation filler when you're rubbing elbows with powerful folks at cocktail parties. I hope you prove me wrong. Jimbo Wales gets a lot of flak, but I appreciate the fact that he's there on Wikipedia. I prefer him over someone who is basically "phoning it in" once or twice a year.
So, the "SF Bay" group of Wikimedians could use some extra love. I gather you're not too far from San Francisco? I've been in San Francisco for a year and I think I missed one or two meetups, but that's not very many and I hear DC is much more active. When I went to the 15th anniversary meetup, there were a fair number who had never edited and most of the veterans had never been to an editathon (and neither have I). I collected as many emails as I could, but I imagine you'd have more connections of potential new volunteers - let's connect and try to get a regular (even as rare as quarterly or twice a year) meetup/editathon happening in San Francisco. I've done a fair bit of editing on corporate governance and nonprofits, and I'd be happy to show you around.
I understand that the antitrust settlement is, in the scheme of corporate scandals, somewhat mild. It's not Arthur Andersen and Enron or subprime mortgages. Although people do go to prison for antitrust violations (which is in some cases a felony, per the Sherman Act), this case didn't involve criminal charges. Despite what the textbooks say, I believe it's difficult to succeed as an executive without being unethical. In picking my battles I've been a part of things I'm not proud of even in my limited career.
Power does funny things to people. It's been shown that powerful people are 3 times as likely to help a stranger in distress.[1] Powerful people focus on the rewards and take risks but they lack broader perspective and can easily objectify people or ignore social norms or laws, as we see over and over with executives.
We need a powerful person on Wikipedia's board to help steer them towards sensible decisions. The board's judgment seems to be lacking, especially when they made the remarkably poor decision (for their reputation) to spark this controversy by removing James even though he was upholding their odd omerta by not leaking to the community the 90% disapproval of the executive director among staff and the new (yet to be fully revealed) partnership with the Knight Foundation. In the end, it's actually worked out for the best since it sparked a conversation that needed to happen.
I'm not sure you're the powerful person who can pull WMF out of this ditch, but if you are, I'd say a worthwhile step would be to take a shot at getting your hands dirty in the trenches of Wikipedia as an editor and join me in trying to recruit volunteers in the Bay. Plus James should be appointed back to his rightful place on the board.
[1]
https://web.archive.org/web/20080908051020/http://www.kellogg.northwestern.e... news/whatsnew/mbaupdate08.htm
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
Although it can be argued whether Arnnon's reassurance will be enough to let him stay safely on Board for two whole years, there's little doubt that public debate will finally benefit from knowing his viewpoint.
Il 26/01/2016 20:07, Arnnon Geshuri ha scritto:
It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from representative members of the community. My first reaction was how amazing the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another fifteen years and beyond. Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy of the community is truly inspirational. Although I would have preferred the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying around convictions, and open disagreement.
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations. As a general matter, I will say that, throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently. I have done so realizing company policies and practices evolve over time as circumstances change.
As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a running theme within the online conversations related to trust. Comments were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member. Wanting to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in the community. I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate those who have been generous with their time. Given the story line that has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their trust in me. I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors, contributors, and users. As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right. I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade. I passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the community and even the most energetic community members come from a place of good intent. And as we all become closer and transition to debating the issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
Regards, Arnnon _______________________________________________ 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
If this was an article on Wikipedia it would already have been tagged for a speedy delete. Too little, too late, and looks like 100% spin. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Arnnon Geshuri Sent: Tuesday, 26 January 2016 9:08 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community
It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from representative members of the community. My first reaction was how amazing the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another fifteen years and beyond. Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy of the community is truly inspirational. Although I would have preferred the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying around convictions, and open disagreement.
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations. As a general matter, I will say that, throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently. I have done so realizing company policies and practices evolve over time as circumstances change.
As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a running theme within the online conversations related to trust. Comments were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member. Wanting to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in the community. I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate those who have been generous with their time. Given the story line that has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their trust in me. I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors, contributors, and users. As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right. I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade. I passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the community and even the most energetic community members come from a place of good intent. And as we all become closer and transition to debating the issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
Regards, Arnnon _______________________________________________ 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
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7357 / Virus Database: 4522/11490 - Release Date: 01/26/16
Hello Arnnon,
It is good to hear something directly from you. I am sure your intentions in the position you were appointed to are positive and supportive. Yet while you may be entirely sincere in your desire to help, I find it extremely difficult to see a path forward in which your contribution will bring the benefits that may have been contemplated.
Your statement here carries very much the right tone, but is unfortunately rather lacking in substance. About the events in your career that have been the focus of so much concern, you suggest that there have been misconceptions and mitigating considerations, but say nothing about what those misconceptions or mitigating considerations might be. I fully understand that for both legal and ethical reasons, you may not feel free to elaborate, and I do not ask that you violate any such obligations. However, the inability to provide more information is itself a major handicap for the role you are in. In fact, a requirement of silence becomes doubly destructive because it both provides more fuel for conspiracy theories and denies the Wikimedia Foundation the tools to respond effectively.
I suspect that many of the possible mitigating factors have already been touched on by others - from the limited picture we have of the recruiting practices in question, it is not completely clear what level of responsibility should be assigned to you, whether you could reasonably have done otherwise in your position, or to what extent you should have understood their legal implications. Nor do I believe that one mistake (you do not say it was a mistake, and presumably again you are not in a position to admit that, whether or not you might wish to) should necessarily disqualify anybody from the Board. However, as Asaf so eloquently explained on this list a couple weeks ago - which I hope you saw, if you've been following the conversation as you say - it's nearly impossible to get people to leave things fully in the past without an acknowledgment of the mistake. I understand you want to earn the trust of the community. But if you cannot do what is needed for this trust to develop, then you simply will never be able to earn it from many people. This is another way in which silence becomes disabling. You might manage for people to move on enough that you can function in your role, but the issue will continue to hang over everything you do.
The Board has indicated that you were appointed for your expertise in human resources. I agree that your career includes some impressive experience and you would be a highly qualified candidate in that sense. I can also appreciate why the Board might have felt a need for your kind of expertise. While the Foundation was at a somewhat different point during my tenure, it has faced a variety of challenges in this area, and these types of issues were prominent in my thinking about the organization, both as Chair and afterward. But under the circumstances, I struggle to see how your appointment would lead to a net benefit for the Foundation. Your skills and contacts might bring something that is lacking, but the problematic pieces of your background also reflect directly on the same area. Considerations such as staff morale have fluctuated over time, but I cannot imagine how having someone associated with these practices on the Board would be anything but a negative influence on it. Whether they would acknowledge it to you, the rest of the Board, their managers, or anyone at all really, I think this is an extremely serious problem. It seems like it would take an incredible amount of good work from you to overcome the damage your mere presence on the Board is likely to cause.
I do hope you can translate your passion for this movement into some sort of positive contribution. Assuming you cannot speak directly to your personal history in a way that will satisfy people, I hope you will at least try to explain more clearly what you anticipate bringing to the table. In the context of this particular appointment, however, it is a heavy weight you would need to counterbalance, and there may be other and better ways of approaching this.
--Michael Snow
On 1/26/2016 11:07 AM, Arnnon Geshuri wrote:
It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from representative members of the community. My first reaction was how amazing the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another fifteen years and beyond. Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy of the community is truly inspirational. Although I would have preferred the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying around convictions, and open disagreement.
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations. As a general matter, I will say that, throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently. I have done so realizing company policies and practices evolve over time as circumstances change.
As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a running theme within the online conversations related to trust. Comments were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member. Wanting to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in the community. I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate those who have been generous with their time. Given the story line that has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their trust in me. I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors, contributors, and users. As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right. I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade. I passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the community and even the most energetic community members come from a place of good intent. And as we all become closer and transition to debating the issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
Regards, Arnnon _______________________________________________ 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 was considering whether to comment again on this thread, but with this message I do not have to; I think it lays everything out sensitively and thoughtfully, and I agree with everything in it.
-Kat
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
Hello Arnnon,
It is good to hear something directly from you. I am sure your intentions in the position you were appointed to are positive and supportive. Yet while you may be entirely sincere in your desire to help, I find it extremely difficult to see a path forward in which your contribution will bring the benefits that may have been contemplated.
Your statement here carries very much the right tone, but is unfortunately rather lacking in substance. About the events in your career that have been the focus of so much concern, you suggest that there have been misconceptions and mitigating considerations, but say nothing about what those misconceptions or mitigating considerations might be. I fully understand that for both legal and ethical reasons, you may not feel free to elaborate, and I do not ask that you violate any such obligations. However, the inability to provide more information is itself a major handicap for the role you are in. In fact, a requirement of silence becomes doubly destructive because it both provides more fuel for conspiracy theories and denies the Wikimedia Foundation the tools to respond effectively.
I suspect that many of the possible mitigating factors have already been touched on by others - from the limited picture we have of the recruiting practices in question, it is not completely clear what level of responsibility should be assigned to you, whether you could reasonably have done otherwise in your position, or to what extent you should have understood their legal implications. Nor do I believe that one mistake (you do not say it was a mistake, and presumably again you are not in a position to admit that, whether or not you might wish to) should necessarily disqualify anybody from the Board. However, as Asaf so eloquently explained on this list a couple weeks ago - which I hope you saw, if you've been following the conversation as you say - it's nearly impossible to get people to leave things fully in the past without an acknowledgment of the mistake. I understand you want to earn the trust of the community. But if you cannot do what is needed for this trust to develop, then you simply will never be able to earn it from many people. This is another way in which silence becomes disabling. You might manage for people to move on enough that you can function in your role, but the issue will continue to hang over everything you do.
The Board has indicated that you were appointed for your expertise in human resources. I agree that your career includes some impressive experience and you would be a highly qualified candidate in that sense. I can also appreciate why the Board might have felt a need for your kind of expertise. While the Foundation was at a somewhat different point during my tenure, it has faced a variety of challenges in this area, and these types of issues were prominent in my thinking about the organization, both as Chair and afterward. But under the circumstances, I struggle to see how your appointment would lead to a net benefit for the Foundation. Your skills and contacts might bring something that is lacking, but the problematic pieces of your background also reflect directly on the same area. Considerations such as staff morale have fluctuated over time, but I cannot imagine how having someone associated with these practices on the Board would be anything but a negative influence on it. Whether they would acknowledge it to you, the rest of the Board, their managers, or anyone at all really, I think this is an extremely serious problem. It seems like it would take an incredible amount of good work from you to overcome the damage your mere presence on the Board is likely to cause.
I do hope you can translate your passion for this movement into some sort of positive contribution. Assuming you cannot speak directly to your personal history in a way that will satisfy people, I hope you will at least try to explain more clearly what you anticipate bringing to the table. In the context of this particular appointment, however, it is a heavy weight you would need to counterbalance, and there may be other and better ways of approaching this.
--Michael Snow
On 1/26/2016 11:07 AM, Arnnon Geshuri wrote:
It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from representative members of the community. My first reaction was how amazing the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another fifteen years and beyond. Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy of the community is truly inspirational. Although I would have preferred the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying around convictions, and open disagreement.
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations. As a general matter, I will say that, throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently. I have done so realizing company policies and practices evolve over time as circumstances change.
As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a running theme within the online conversations related to trust. Comments were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member. Wanting to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in the community. I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate those who have been generous with their time. Given the story line that has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their trust in me. I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors, contributors, and users. As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right. I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade. I passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the community and even the most energetic community members come from a place of good intent. And as we all become closer and transition to debating the issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
Regards, Arnnon _______________________________________________ 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 cannot word it better than Michael Snow, so I won't try. Kind regards Ziko
2016-01-27 8:39 GMT+01:00 Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com:
Hello Arnnon,
It is good to hear something directly from you. I am sure your intentions in the position you were appointed to are positive and supportive. Yet while you may be entirely sincere in your desire to help, I find it extremely difficult to see a path forward in which your contribution will bring the benefits that may have been contemplated.
Your statement here carries very much the right tone, but is unfortunately rather lacking in substance. About the events in your career that have been the focus of so much concern, you suggest that there have been misconceptions and mitigating considerations, but say nothing about what those misconceptions or mitigating considerations might be. I fully understand that for both legal and ethical reasons, you may not feel free to elaborate, and I do not ask that you violate any such obligations. However, the inability to provide more information is itself a major handicap for the role you are in. In fact, a requirement of silence becomes doubly destructive because it both provides more fuel for conspiracy theories and denies the Wikimedia Foundation the tools to respond effectively.
I suspect that many of the possible mitigating factors have already been touched on by others - from the limited picture we have of the recruiting practices in question, it is not completely clear what level of responsibility should be assigned to you, whether you could reasonably have done otherwise in your position, or to what extent you should have understood their legal implications. Nor do I believe that one mistake (you do not say it was a mistake, and presumably again you are not in a position to admit that, whether or not you might wish to) should necessarily disqualify anybody from the Board. However, as Asaf so eloquently explained on this list a couple weeks ago - which I hope you saw, if you've been following the conversation as you say - it's nearly impossible to get people to leave things fully in the past without an acknowledgment of the mistake. I understand you want to earn the trust of the community. But if you cannot do what is needed for this trust to develop, then you simply will never be able to earn it from many people. This is another way in which silence becomes disabling. You might manage for people to move on enough that you can function in your role, but the issue will continue to hang over everything you do.
The Board has indicated that you were appointed for your expertise in human resources. I agree that your career includes some impressive experience and you would be a highly qualified candidate in that sense. I can also appreciate why the Board might have felt a need for your kind of expertise. While the Foundation was at a somewhat different point during my tenure, it has faced a variety of challenges in this area, and these types of issues were prominent in my thinking about the organization, both as Chair and afterward. But under the circumstances, I struggle to see how your appointment would lead to a net benefit for the Foundation. Your skills and contacts might bring something that is lacking, but the problematic pieces of your background also reflect directly on the same area. Considerations such as staff morale have fluctuated over time, but I cannot imagine how having someone associated with these practices on the Board would be anything but a negative influence on it. Whether they would acknowledge it to you, the rest of the Board, their managers, or anyone at all really, I think this is an extremely serious problem. It seems like it would take an incredible amount of good work from you to overcome the damage your mere presence on the Board is likely to cause.
I do hope you can translate your passion for this movement into some sort of positive contribution. Assuming you cannot speak directly to your personal history in a way that will satisfy people, I hope you will at least try to explain more clearly what you anticipate bringing to the table. In the context of this particular appointment, however, it is a heavy weight you would need to counterbalance, and there may be other and better ways of approaching this.
--Michael Snow
On 1/26/2016 11:07 AM, Arnnon Geshuri wrote:
It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from representative members of the community. My first reaction was how amazing the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another fifteen years and beyond. Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy of the community is truly inspirational. Although I would have preferred the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying around convictions, and open disagreement.
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations. As a general matter, I will say that, throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently. I have done so realizing company policies and practices evolve over time as circumstances change.
As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a running theme within the online conversations related to trust. Comments were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member. Wanting to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in the community. I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate those who have been generous with their time. Given the story line that has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their trust in me. I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors, contributors, and users. As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right. I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade. I passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the community and even the most energetic community members come from a place of good intent. And as we all become closer and transition to debating the issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
Regards, Arnnon _______________________________________________ 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
Even if it is a bit long-winded, I could not agree more. Thank you, Mike.
Austin
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
Hello Arnnon,
It is good to hear something directly from you. I am sure your intentions in the position you were appointed to are positive and supportive. Yet while you may be entirely sincere in your desire to help, I find it extremely difficult to see a path forward in which your contribution will bring the benefits that may have been contemplated.
Your statement here carries very much the right tone, but is unfortunately rather lacking in substance. About the events in your career that have been the focus of so much concern, you suggest that there have been misconceptions and mitigating considerations, but say nothing about what those misconceptions or mitigating considerations might be. I fully understand that for both legal and ethical reasons, you may not feel free to elaborate, and I do not ask that you violate any such obligations. However, the inability to provide more information is itself a major handicap for the role you are in. In fact, a requirement of silence becomes doubly destructive because it both provides more fuel for conspiracy theories and denies the Wikimedia Foundation the tools to respond effectively.
I suspect that many of the possible mitigating factors have already been touched on by others - from the limited picture we have of the recruiting practices in question, it is not completely clear what level of responsibility should be assigned to you, whether you could reasonably have done otherwise in your position, or to what extent you should have understood their legal implications. Nor do I believe that one mistake (you do not say it was a mistake, and presumably again you are not in a position to admit that, whether or not you might wish to) should necessarily disqualify anybody from the Board. However, as Asaf so eloquently explained on this list a couple weeks ago - which I hope you saw, if you've been following the conversation as you say - it's nearly impossible to get people to leave things fully in the past without an acknowledgment of the mistake. I understand you want to earn the trust of the community. But if you cannot do what is needed for this trust to develop, then you simply will never be able to earn it from many people. This is another way in which silence becomes disabling. You might manage for people to move on enough that you can function in your role, but the issue will continue to hang over everything you do.
The Board has indicated that you were appointed for your expertise in human resources. I agree that your career includes some impressive experience and you would be a highly qualified candidate in that sense. I can also appreciate why the Board might have felt a need for your kind of expertise. While the Foundation was at a somewhat different point during my tenure, it has faced a variety of challenges in this area, and these types of issues were prominent in my thinking about the organization, both as Chair and afterward. But under the circumstances, I struggle to see how your appointment would lead to a net benefit for the Foundation. Your skills and contacts might bring something that is lacking, but the problematic pieces of your background also reflect directly on the same area. Considerations such as staff morale have fluctuated over time, but I cannot imagine how having someone associated with these practices on the Board would be anything but a negative influence on it. Whether they would acknowledge it to you, the rest of the Board, their managers, or anyone at all really, I think this is an extremely serious problem. It seems like it would take an incredible amount of good work from you to overcome the damage your mere presence on the Board is likely to cause.
I do hope you can translate your passion for this movement into some sort of positive contribution. Assuming you cannot speak directly to your personal history in a way that will satisfy people, I hope you will at least try to explain more clearly what you anticipate bringing to the table. In the context of this particular appointment, however, it is a heavy weight you would need to counterbalance, and there may be other and better ways of approaching this.
--Michael Snow
On 1/26/2016 11:07 AM, Arnnon Geshuri wrote:
It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from representative members of the community. My first reaction was how amazing the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another fifteen years and beyond. Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy of the community is truly inspirational. Although I would have preferred the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying around convictions, and open disagreement.
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations. As a general matter, I will say that, throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently. I have done so realizing company policies and practices evolve over time as circumstances change.
As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a running theme within the online conversations related to trust. Comments were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member. Wanting to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in the community. I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate those who have been generous with their time. Given the story line that has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their trust in me. I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors, contributors, and users. As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right. I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade. I passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the community and even the most energetic community members come from a place of good intent. And as we all become closer and transition to debating the issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
Regards, Arnnon _______________________________________________ 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 agree that the Board need to be strengthened in competence related to cultural and personnel issues. I am also of the opinion that much of the discussion related to this issue is made in too harsh tone, and I am not fond of having an Rfc on the issue, intelligent dialogue is preferred to black and white voting.
This said I must admit I am utterly disappointed in this comment. The culture of Wikipedia is to be straightforward and fact oriented, and myself I am allergic to "corporate bullsh-t"/fluff. And then to find a comment full of this is not what I want to see And to get it from one who should be in the Board helping with our internal culture, makes me wonder if it possible to help with our problem in our culture with not at all understanding it?
I agree with other on the list that our movement will be worse off with Arnnon Geshuri in the Board.
Anders
Den 2016-01-26 kl. 20:07, skrev Arnnon Geshuri:
It has been almost three weeks since my appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation Board and I have read the feedback and comments from representative members of the community. My first reaction was how amazing the community is in its vibrant culture – there is direct and honest dialog, celebration of diverse ideas, debate and counterpoints, and an overall genuine passion to ensure that the WMF sustains itself for another fifteen years and beyond. Witnessing firsthand the commitment and energy of the community is truly inspirational. Although I would have preferred the tone surrounding my appointment to be more positive and supportive, I deeply understand and respect the criticality of free expression, rallying around convictions, and open disagreement.
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations. As a general matter, I will say that, throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently. I have done so realizing company policies and practices evolve over time as circumstances change.
As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a running theme within the online conversations related to trust. Comments were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member. Wanting to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in the community. I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate those who have been generous with their time. Given the story line that has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their trust in me. I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors, contributors, and users. As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right. I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade. I passionately believe in the core values of the WMF and trust that the community and even the most energetic community members come from a place of good intent. And as we all become closer and transition to debating the issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from the heart, I am passionately committed to the movement with the best intent, and I am working hard to earn your trust.
Regards, Arnnon _______________________________________________ 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 26 January 2016 at 19:07, Arnnon Geshuri ageshuri@wikimedia.org wrote:
Regarding the concerns that have been raised, I have listened closely. That said, in my opinion, there are some misconceptions and there are mitigating considerations. As a general matter, I will say that, throughout my career, I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently. I have done so realizing company policies and practices evolve over time as circumstances change.
As part of the current narrative, members of the community generated a running theme within the online conversations related to trust. Comments were expressed questioning their trust in the Wikimedia Foundation Board and asking if the community could accept me as a new Board Member. Wanting to understand the challenges ahead, I have spent the last few weeks speaking with current and former Board members and reaching out to folks in the community. I have more conversations in the coming days and appreciate those who have been generous with their time. Given the story line that has been shaped over the last couple weeks and based on the feedback from my conversations, I know I have a longer journey than most new Board members to prove to the community and WMF alumni that they can put their trust in me.
Nice polished PR spiel. A bit too polished in my view since it reduces the chance of people empathizing with you but hey I understand that you have to keep the lawyers happy. Of course that's part of the reason why its unreasonable to expect wikipedians to deal with you let alone trust you.
I joined to make a positive difference and be a part of the important effort to grow the WMF for the next generation of editors, contributors, and users.
Hmm? The WMF appears to have already hit its fundraising limit. At this point further growth isn't really on the list of things we want.
As the community gets to know me, folks will see the way I work is with thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right.
You've already said that the way you work is doing what your bosses tell you and we know that wasn't right:
"I have been charged with enforcing company policies as part of my role as a people manager. I have tried to do so thoughtfully and consistently."
I have key experiences in both my professional and non-profit careers which lend a distinctive perspective to the honorable work of a Trustee – especially the learnings gained over the last decade.
Decade? You weren't caught until 2010. That isn't a decade ago.
And as we all become closer and transition to debating the issues and not the people, the community will see I consistently speak from the heart,
People who speak from the heart doesn't speak in highly polished legally cleared PR statements. They speak like RMS or Jason Scott which is one of the things that make them annoying.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org