hi Florence,
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.
just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI pledges/disclosures over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member. Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to), and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you with a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize for my clumsy phrasing.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI pledges/disclosures over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member. Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to), and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you with a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize for my clumsy phrasing.
best,
dariusz
Hi Dariusz,
You wrote to this list on 12 January that you were investigating with the Board Governance Committee what happened regarding the appointments process in this case – whether everyone was fully informed, and so on.
Can you let us know what you've learned or when you'll publish your findings? I think the community is keen to know what happened.
Sarah
Hi Sarah,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:59 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
You wrote to this list on 12 January that you were investigating with the Board Governance Committee what happened regarding the appointments process in this case – whether everyone was fully informed, and so on.
Can you let us know what you've learned or when you'll publish your findings? I think the community is keen to know what happened.
we've been working on it, discussing, and introducing improvements. I
guess that replying here quicker, rather than preparing an elaborate document may be more sensible, since you're asking, and we may be perceived as entirely inactive ;)
The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:
1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like common sense (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no legal threats.
How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger background check process.
2. The BGC has failed individually as well, for a rather silly reason. An often returning argument has been that we must have known about the case, since it is high in google.com results. The initial screening was conducted by Alice, Frieda, and me. None of us is a native English speaker and our searches included google.de, google.it and google.pl - none of them included the information about the controversy in the top 10 results at the time (btw, the pando article is clearly trending up and is in the top 10 results in google.pl now, while it was not even a couple of weeks ago).
How are we going to address this in the future? We are going to assume a global audience of our movement and conduct searches specifically taking that in mind.
3. We have not asked the candidates a very simple question: is there anything in your past that may be perceived as controversial, or require additional explanations?
How are we going to address this in the future? We will basically start asking that.
best,
dj
Hi Dariusz,
2016-01-22 19:21 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
we've been working on it, discussing, and introducing improvements. I guess that replying here quicker, rather than preparing an elaborate document may be more sensible, since you're asking, and we may be perceived as entirely inactive ;)
I appreciate the update and the explanation of the changes that are being made to the process.
However I would like to know if you are tackling the main issue at hand, i.e. whether Arnnon Geshuri should remain a trustee or not.
Thank you.
Cristian
On 22 January 2016 at 18:39, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
However I would like to know if you are tackling the main issue at hand, i.e. whether Arnnon Geshuri should remain a trustee or not.
If he's reading or aware of this discussion (I've seen no indication of either, either way), I wonder why he would want to be.
Dariusz, thank you for this explanation. This is the kind of thing it is very helpful to hear about; it's a good example of how to be transparent about ongoing learning processes. I'm sure I'm not the only one who appreciates this bit of insight into how the board is proceeding.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Hi Sarah,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:59 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
You wrote to this list on 12 January that you were investigating with the Board Governance Committee what happened regarding the appointments
process
in this case – whether everyone was fully informed, and so on.
Can you let us know what you've learned or when you'll publish your findings? I think the community is keen to know what happened.
we've been working on it, discussing, and introducing improvements. I
guess that replying here quicker, rather than preparing an elaborate document may be more sensible, since you're asking, and we may be perceived as entirely inactive ;)
The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:
- In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like common sense (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no legal threats.
How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger background check process.
- The BGC has failed individually as well, for a rather silly reason. An
often returning argument has been that we must have known about the case, since it is high in google.com results. The initial screening was conducted by Alice, Frieda, and me. None of us is a native English speaker and our searches included google.de, google.it and google.pl - none of them included the information about the controversy in the top 10 results at the time (btw, the pando article is clearly trending up and is in the top 10 results in google.pl now, while it was not even a couple of weeks ago).
How are we going to address this in the future? We are going to assume a global audience of our movement and conduct searches specifically taking that in mind.
- We have not asked the candidates a very simple question: is there
anything in your past that may be perceived as controversial, or require additional explanations?
How are we going to address this in the future? We will basically start asking that.
best,
dj _______________________________________________ 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 Fae,
To be very clear, is it that you reproach A.G. that he did not disclose relevant questionable behavior, prior to running as a candidate?
Kind regards Ziko
On 22 January 2016 at 18:46, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Fae,
To be very clear, is it that you reproach A.G. that he did not disclose relevant questionable behavior, prior to running as a candidate?
Kind regards Ziko
TL;DR No, I don't reproach Geshuri personally, everyone makes mistakes, I certainly have. For all I know he has no past trustee experience and the level of scrutiny he would be exposed to once appointed may never have been made clear to him. I do not expect Geshuri to be a fall guy, I expect the board of trustees to come forward and handle their governance failure fully and honestly, even if that means that more than one trustee will need to find the right words to exit gracefully.
BACKGROUND Let's emphasise this point, the WMF is a very unusual organization, the board is scrutinized by the eyes of many passionate and committed volunteers - some to the level of a compulsive disorder - and the n * $100,000,000 the trustees are trusted to oversee during their terms to the benefit of open knowledge is considered a huge responsibility by us, the community.
When this first was raised by my open letter two weeks ago, were I in Patricio's shoes I would have had a 30 minute phone call with Geshuri that day, and talked through allegations about his background. As the allegations in this case are entirely factual, there's a legal case to refer to, I would have advised him that if he thought he might resign to avoid a potential fuss in public, that it is better to do it within a couple of days rather than letting it run and get entrenched. If there had been a good chance that it would blow over as there was no meaningful conflict of interest/loyalties, nor any significant reputational damage that could damage the WMF, then I would suggest we talk to all trustees by phone that week, to answer their questions and go over the facts, as I would hope that the full board would continue to support him as a trustee despite the likelihood for criticism of the board's decision to appoint him.
Unfortunately in this case I could see no chance that his part in the Google scandal would just blow over ($400m+ in damages is a *big* mistake). I expect Patricio would have made the same deduction. By not giving Geshuri frank advice on day one, we now have a Wikipedia article about him, a public vote of no confidence and a rising profile about his past on Google searches that he no doubt wants to leave forgotten.
Lastly, adding "is there anything in your past" to a standard set of questions is not good governance. Trustees with this high a public profile *must* understand what it means to be a trustee on the WMF board. The Trustee who nominated Geshuri created this problem but not having a frank chat before his name was ever put forward, and the rest of the board of Trustees compounded it by never personally checking whether Geshuri understood the unusual commitment he would be making - as well as blatantly failing their duty of oversight to ensure the most basic background checks; such as Geshuri being named in past legal cases which should be a standard report to the board from WMF legal for candidates. More detailed checks than this are made for teachers with access to children, or shop staff with access to a cash till, but nothing is done for prospective trustees with decisions to make for our future, as well as approving how that huge pile of money gets spent and to whom... In this particular case, we have no reasons given as to why when Jimmy Wales knew about the Google antitrust scandal in advance of Geshuri's appointment, he failed to ask the obvious question of Geshuri's role, he failed to either talk to his fellow trustees about it or quietly ask the governance committee to look into it before a board vote. Instead we see the repeated excuse that this was not on the first page of Google searches in various languages. Bizarre.
So, Geshuri probably deserves an apology from the board because they failed him. The board urgently requires an independent governance review, and if one does not happen because a few plasters have been stuck on the current process and exactly the same people who made this mistake think they are experts in good governance, that will be extreme hubris which inevitably leads to falling down another deep hole in no time at all. If anyone doubts this, they need to go back to the WMF blog post only a fortnight ago with glowing quotes from Lila and Dariusz which are now embarrassing to read. Hopefully they will never put themselves in this position again.https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/05/new-wikimedia-foundation-trustees
Fae
Hi,
Thanks Fae, I agree 100% with that. The biggest mistake is not from A.G., but from the board as you mention. So A. G. resigning won't solve the issue. We need a complete review of the board governance and appointment process.
Regards,
Yann
2016-01-22 21:00 GMT+01:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
On 22 January 2016 at 18:46, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Fae,
To be very clear, is it that you reproach A.G. that he did not disclose relevant questionable behavior, prior to running as a candidate?
Kind regards Ziko
TL;DR No, I don't reproach Geshuri personally, everyone makes mistakes, I certainly have. For all I know he has no past trustee experience and the level of scrutiny he would be exposed to once appointed may never have been made clear to him. I do not expect Geshuri to be a fall guy, I expect the board of trustees to come forward and handle their governance failure fully and honestly, even if that means that more than one trustee will need to find the right words to exit gracefully.
BACKGROUND Let's emphasise this point, the WMF is a very unusual organization, the board is scrutinized by the eyes of many passionate and committed volunteers - some to the level of a compulsive disorder - and the n * $100,000,000 the trustees are trusted to oversee during their terms to the benefit of open knowledge is considered a huge responsibility by us, the community.
When this first was raised by my open letter two weeks ago, were I in Patricio's shoes I would have had a 30 minute phone call with Geshuri that day, and talked through allegations about his background. As the allegations in this case are entirely factual, there's a legal case to refer to, I would have advised him that if he thought he might resign to avoid a potential fuss in public, that it is better to do it within a couple of days rather than letting it run and get entrenched. If there had been a good chance that it would blow over as there was no meaningful conflict of interest/loyalties, nor any significant reputational damage that could damage the WMF, then I would suggest we talk to all trustees by phone that week, to answer their questions and go over the facts, as I would hope that the full board would continue to support him as a trustee despite the likelihood for criticism of the board's decision to appoint him.
Unfortunately in this case I could see no chance that his part in the Google scandal would just blow over ($400m+ in damages is a *big* mistake). I expect Patricio would have made the same deduction. By not giving Geshuri frank advice on day one, we now have a Wikipedia article about him, a public vote of no confidence and a rising profile about his past on Google searches that he no doubt wants to leave forgotten.
Lastly, adding "is there anything in your past" to a standard set of questions is not good governance. Trustees with this high a public profile *must* understand what it means to be a trustee on the WMF board. The Trustee who nominated Geshuri created this problem but not having a frank chat before his name was ever put forward, and the rest of the board of Trustees compounded it by never personally checking whether Geshuri understood the unusual commitment he would be making - as well as blatantly failing their duty of oversight to ensure the most basic background checks; such as Geshuri being named in past legal cases which should be a standard report to the board from WMF legal for candidates. More detailed checks than this are made for teachers with access to children, or shop staff with access to a cash till, but nothing is done for prospective trustees with decisions to make for our future, as well as approving how that huge pile of money gets spent and to whom... In this particular case, we have no reasons given as to why when Jimmy Wales knew about the Google antitrust scandal in advance of Geshuri's appointment, he failed to ask the obvious question of Geshuri's role, he failed to either talk to his fellow trustees about it or quietly ask the governance committee to look into it before a board vote. Instead we see the repeated excuse that this was not on the first page of Google searches in various languages. Bizarre.
So, Geshuri probably deserves an apology from the board because they failed him. The board urgently requires an independent governance review, and if one does not happen because a few plasters have been stuck on the current process and exactly the same people who made this mistake think they are experts in good governance, that will be extreme hubris which inevitably leads to falling down another deep hole in no time at all. If anyone doubts this, they need to go back to the WMF blog post only a fortnight ago with glowing quotes from Lila and Dariusz which are now embarrassing to read. Hopefully they will never put themselves in this position again.https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/05/new-wikimedia-foundation-trustees
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
So, Fae, it's not someone's obligation to inform about his past, but its the obligation of the other to examine? Ziko
2016-01-22 21:00 GMT+01:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
On 22 January 2016 at 18:46, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Fae,
To be very clear, is it that you reproach A.G. that he did not disclose relevant questionable behavior, prior to running as a candidate?
Kind regards Ziko
TL;DR No, I don't reproach Geshuri personally, everyone makes mistakes, I certainly have. For all I know he has no past trustee experience and the level of scrutiny he would be exposed to once appointed may never have been made clear to him. I do not expect Geshuri to be a fall guy, I expect the board of trustees to come forward and handle their governance failure fully and honestly, even if that means that more than one trustee will need to find the right words to exit gracefully.
BACKGROUND Let's emphasise this point, the WMF is a very unusual organization, the board is scrutinized by the eyes of many passionate and committed volunteers - some to the level of a compulsive disorder - and the n * $100,000,000 the trustees are trusted to oversee during their terms to the benefit of open knowledge is considered a huge responsibility by us, the community.
When this first was raised by my open letter two weeks ago, were I in Patricio's shoes I would have had a 30 minute phone call with Geshuri that day, and talked through allegations about his background. As the allegations in this case are entirely factual, there's a legal case to refer to, I would have advised him that if he thought he might resign to avoid a potential fuss in public, that it is better to do it within a couple of days rather than letting it run and get entrenched. If there had been a good chance that it would blow over as there was no meaningful conflict of interest/loyalties, nor any significant reputational damage that could damage the WMF, then I would suggest we talk to all trustees by phone that week, to answer their questions and go over the facts, as I would hope that the full board would continue to support him as a trustee despite the likelihood for criticism of the board's decision to appoint him.
Unfortunately in this case I could see no chance that his part in the Google scandal would just blow over ($400m+ in damages is a *big* mistake). I expect Patricio would have made the same deduction. By not giving Geshuri frank advice on day one, we now have a Wikipedia article about him, a public vote of no confidence and a rising profile about his past on Google searches that he no doubt wants to leave forgotten.
Lastly, adding "is there anything in your past" to a standard set of questions is not good governance. Trustees with this high a public profile *must* understand what it means to be a trustee on the WMF board. The Trustee who nominated Geshuri created this problem but not having a frank chat before his name was ever put forward, and the rest of the board of Trustees compounded it by never personally checking whether Geshuri understood the unusual commitment he would be making - as well as blatantly failing their duty of oversight to ensure the most basic background checks; such as Geshuri being named in past legal cases which should be a standard report to the board from WMF legal for candidates. More detailed checks than this are made for teachers with access to children, or shop staff with access to a cash till, but nothing is done for prospective trustees with decisions to make for our future, as well as approving how that huge pile of money gets spent and to whom... In this particular case, we have no reasons given as to why when Jimmy Wales knew about the Google antitrust scandal in advance of Geshuri's appointment, he failed to ask the obvious question of Geshuri's role, he failed to either talk to his fellow trustees about it or quietly ask the governance committee to look into it before a board vote. Instead we see the repeated excuse that this was not on the first page of Google searches in various languages. Bizarre.
So, Geshuri probably deserves an apology from the board because they failed him. The board urgently requires an independent governance review, and if one does not happen because a few plasters have been stuck on the current process and exactly the same people who made this mistake think they are experts in good governance, that will be extreme hubris which inevitably leads to falling down another deep hole in no time at all. If anyone doubts this, they need to go back to the WMF blog post only a fortnight ago with glowing quotes from Lila and Dariusz which are now embarrassing to read. Hopefully they will never put themselves in this position again.https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/05/new-wikimedia-foundation-trustees
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
Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
[…]
The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:
- In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like common sense (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no legal threats.
How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger background check process.
[…]
This makes it sound like a communications mishap, i. e. in the hypothetical case that the board would not have had to publish Arnnon's appointment, everything would be okay.
The question that has been raised here in the last few weeks is different: Is someone who apparently in the past had a major and costly difficulty to choose between right and wrong suitable for serving on the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation? It was not addressed to HR or Legal, but to the Board itself.
Tim
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:
- In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like common sense (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no legal threats.
How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger background check process.
- The BGC has failed individually as well, for a rather silly reason. An
often returning argument has been that we must have known about the case, since it is high in google.com results. The initial screening was conducted by Alice, Frieda, and me. None of us is a native English speaker and our searches included google.de, google.it and google.pl - none of them included the information about the controversy in the top 10 results at the time (btw, the pando article is clearly trending up and is in the top 10 results in google.pl now, while it was not even a couple of weeks ago).
I think this is almost exactly wrong. The lesson here should not be that the Board failed to take public relations into consideration when co-opting a new member. The message is that the examination of candidates failed to turn up really quite substantial allegations of a lack of integrity and ethical leadership. If your background check process looks for expertise or criminal history but doesn't examine work experience for serious failures, then the background check process is broken. Adding a "what will people think?" 'subroutine' is not a solution.
The question of in what language did BGC members search Google is bizarre but really a distraction - the Board should ensure that a superior background check process is in place, and neither the Board members nor the community should have to rely on Board members Googling in their spare time to turn up major defects in finalist candidates.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is almost exactly wrong. The lesson here should not be that
the Board failed to take public relations into consideration when co-opting a new member. The message is that the examination of candidates failed to turn up really quite substantial allegations of a lack of integrity and ethical leadership. If your background check process looks for expertise or criminal history but doesn't examine work experience for serious failures, then the background check process is broken. Adding a "what will people think?" 'subroutine' is not a solution.
it may be a language issue. We want to widen the background check process so that it includes issues beyond just criminal activity, basically. I called it a "PR check", but it is not just focusing on "what will people think" for its sake, but rather paying particular attention to a wide array of issues that could raise concerns, basically to be able to sensibly discuss which of them are legitimate, and which are not.
dj
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
.. The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:
- In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like common sense (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no legal threats.
How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger background check process.
- The BGC has failed individually as well, for a rather silly reason. An
often returning argument has been that we must have known about the case, since it is high in google.com results. The initial screening was conducted by Alice, Frieda, and me. None of us is a native English speaker and our searches included google.de, google.it and google.pl - none of them included the information about the controversy in the top 10 results at the time (btw, the pando article is clearly trending up and is in the top 10 results in google.pl now, while it was not even a couple of weeks ago).
How are we going to address this in the future? We are going to assume a global audience of our movement and conduct searches specifically taking that in mind.
- We have not asked the candidates a very simple question: is there
anything in your past that may be perceived as controversial, or require additional explanations?
There is also a fourth problem.
Every single board of trustee member is responsible for their vote, and should have done their own due diligence, checking the dossier they had been given. It means that 10 people failed to find and/or highlight this issue. There were three native English speakers on the board who would have been using English searches (James, Jimmy & Stu).
Jimmy has disclosed on January 8 that he did 'Google' Arnnon prior to the appointment.
" 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.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 09:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC) " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=698802294
I would expect that a board member seeing that would raise it for all other board members to consider if it wasnt part of the dossier provided by HR and/or board committees.
fwiw, A few days ago Jimmy disclosed that "James voted in favor of Arnnon". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=700325768
On 22 January 2016 at 22:00, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
fwiw, A few days ago Jimmy disclosed that "James voted in favor of Arnnon". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=700325768
I'm not sure I'd call it a disclosure since it had already been made public 11 days earlier: https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution:Appointing_Arnn...
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:00 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
fwiw, A few days ago Jimmy disclosed that "James voted in favor of Arnnon". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=700325768
It's known that the decision was unanimous among the 10 (then-)Trustees: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Appointing_Arnnon_Geshuri_as...
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Le 21/01/16 20:05, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :
hi Florence,
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.
just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI pledges/disclosures over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member. Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to), and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you with a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize for my clumsy phrasing.
best,
dariusz
Thank you for that clarification Dariusz. I am happy to read that !
Misinterpretation on my part for what you wrote here : https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html After reading it again, it actually referred to public statements rather than private ones. And since you did not comment on the list when I raised the issue, my misinterpretation was not corrected. My apologies.
Flo
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
Misinterpretation on my part for what you wrote here : https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html
After reading it again, it actually referred to public statements rather than private ones. And since you did not comment on the list when I raised the issue, my misinterpretation was not corrected. My apologies.
no worries :) I'm glad it is clear now.
cheers,
dj
Le 21/01/16 20:05, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :
hi Florence,
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.
just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI pledges/disclosures over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member. Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to), and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you with a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize for my clumsy phrasing.
best,
dariusz
My apologies Dariusz; This point was a misunderstanding on my part after reading this msg from you : https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html
I am really happy to read your clarification and see that this point is in fact not an issue. Good :)
I actually stayed in confusion because I commented it, but you never gave any further feedback. But some people warned me my emails got stuck in spambox... I changed my email address for the lists this morning... sent a message... and it got stuck in moderation ! Hopefully this one will work out...
Florence
Sorry you've had to change email Florence.
(Tangent) Could those who use *Yahoo email addresses* ask their friends to check if their emails regularly end up in spam boxes? I have found several Yahoo users who write to this list getting marked as potential trojans by Google and I only find their emails a month later, by accident, if ever.
P.S. this is not a Google conspiracy theory.
Thanks, Fae
On 22 January 2016 at 14:41, Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
Le 21/01/16 20:05, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :
hi Florence,
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.
just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI pledges/disclosures over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member. Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to), and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you with a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize for my clumsy phrasing.
best,
dariusz
My apologies Dariusz; This point was a misunderstanding on my part after reading this msg from you : https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html
I am really happy to read your clarification and see that this point is in fact not an issue. Good :)
I actually stayed in confusion because I commented it, but you never gave any further feedback. But some people warned me my emails got stuck in spambox... I changed my email address for the lists this morning... sent a message... and it got stuck in moderation ! Hopefully this one will work out...
Florence
And just so everyone's clear, Florence's new subscription has already been whitelisted.
Austin
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry you've had to change email Florence.
(Tangent) Could those who use *Yahoo email addresses* ask their friends to check if their emails regularly end up in spam boxes? I have found several Yahoo users who write to this list getting marked as potential trojans by Google and I only find their emails a month later, by accident, if ever.
P.S. this is not a Google conspiracy theory.
Thanks, Fae
On 22 January 2016 at 14:41, Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
Le 21/01/16 20:05, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :
hi Florence,
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.
just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI pledges/disclosures over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member. Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to), and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you with a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize
for
my clumsy phrasing.
best,
dariusz
My apologies Dariusz; This point was a misunderstanding on my part after reading this msg from you :
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html
I am really happy to read your clarification and see that this point is
in
fact not an issue. Good :)
I actually stayed in confusion because I commented it, but you never gave any further feedback. But some people warned me my emails got stuck in spambox... I changed my email address for the lists this morning... sent a
message...
and it got stuck in moderation ! Hopefully this one will work out...
Florence
-- 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
I did not know this list had an approval step when subscribing :) Sorry about that.
Le 22/01/16 19:03, Austin Hair a écrit :
And just so everyone's clear, Florence's new subscription has already been whitelisted.
Austin
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry you've had to change email Florence.
(Tangent) Could those who use *Yahoo email addresses* ask their friends to check if their emails regularly end up in spam boxes? I have found several Yahoo users who write to this list getting marked as potential trojans by Google and I only find their emails a month later, by accident, if ever.
P.S. this is not a Google conspiracy theory.
Just for the fun of it... for wikimedia lists, I unsubscribed a yahoo email address and subscribed a gmail address ;)
Ok. I used my email quota for the month. Time to go back to the projects.
Guys. We could need more participation in English on the "15 days to create (at least) 15 biographies of African women"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Tea...
Flo
Thanks, Fae
Hi Fae,
I’m subscribed to this mailing list using a Yahoo! e-mail address, and the problem also happens in reverse: some e-mails end up in my spam folder. The problem is so bad that I’m contemplating switching my subscription to a different e-mail address, but hopefully I won’t need to do that for the foreseeable future.
Is there anyone else here who’s subscribed using a Yahoo! address and has spam problems, either with their or others’ e-mails?
Josh
Wiadomość napisana przez Fæ faewik@gmail.com w dniu 23.01.2016, o godz. 01:38:
Sorry you've had to change email Florence.
(Tangent) Could those who use *Yahoo email addresses* ask their friends to check if their emails regularly end up in spam boxes? I have found several Yahoo users who write to this list getting marked as potential trojans by Google and I only find their emails a month later, by accident, if ever.
P.S. this is not a Google conspiracy theory.
Thanks, Fae
On 22 January 2016 at 14:41, Florence Devouard <fdevouard@gmail.com mailto:fdevouard@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 21/01/16 20:05, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :
hi Florence,
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.
just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI pledges/disclosures over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member. Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to), and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you with a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize for my clumsy phrasing.
best,
dariusz
My apologies Dariusz; This point was a misunderstanding on my part after reading this msg from you : https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html
I am really happy to read your clarification and see that this point is in fact not an issue. Good :)
I actually stayed in confusion because I commented it, but you never gave any further feedback. But some people warned me my emails got stuck in spambox... I changed my email address for the lists this morning... sent a message... and it got stuck in moderation ! Hopefully this one will work out...
Florence
-- faewik@gmail.com mailto:faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Bachelor of Arts in Political Science Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com mailto:jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com | +63 (915) 321-7582 Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://about.me/josh.lim http://about.me/josh.lim
"This message was not sent to Spam because of a filter you created."
In the absence of filters, Gmail tends to put mailing list messages from Yahoo addresses in the spam folder. As far as I know, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2141120/yahoo-email-antispoofing-policy-break... is still basically valid.
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Josh Lim jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Fae,
I’m subscribed to this mailing list using a Yahoo! e-mail address, and the problem also happens in reverse: some e-mails end up in my spam folder. The problem is so bad that I’m contemplating switching my subscription to a different e-mail address, but hopefully I won’t need to do that for the foreseeable future.
Is there anyone else here who’s subscribed using a Yahoo! address and has spam problems, either with their or others’ e-mails?
Josh
Wiadomość napisana przez Fæ faewik@gmail.com w dniu 23.01.2016, o godz. 01:38:
Sorry you've had to change email Florence.
(Tangent) Could those who use *Yahoo email addresses* ask their friends to check if their emails regularly end up in spam boxes? I have found several Yahoo users who write to this list getting marked as potential trojans by Google and I only find their emails a month later, by accident, if ever.
P.S. this is not a Google conspiracy theory.
Thanks, Fae
On 22 January 2016 at 14:41, Florence Devouard <fdevouard@gmail.com mailto:fdevouard@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 21/01/16 20:05, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :
hi Florence,
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.
just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI pledges/disclosures over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member. Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to), and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you with a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize for my clumsy phrasing.
best,
dariusz
My apologies Dariusz; This point was a misunderstanding on my part after reading this msg from you : https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html
I am really happy to read your clarification and see that this point is in fact not an issue. Good :)
I actually stayed in confusion because I commented it, but you never gave any further feedback. But some people warned me my emails got stuck in spambox... I changed my email address for the lists this morning... sent a message... and it got stuck in moderation ! Hopefully this one will work out...
Florence
-- faewik@gmail.com mailto:faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Bachelor of Arts in Political Science Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com mailto:jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com | +63 (915) 321-7582 Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://about.me/josh.lim http://about.me/josh.lim _______________________________________________ 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 2016-01-23 1:24 AM, Josh Lim wrote:
Is there anyone else here who’s subscribed using a Yahoo! address and has spam problems, either with their or others’ e-mails?
Yahoo is known to be problematic for sending and getting mail from labs as well.
-- Marc
I've had issues receiving MW EmailUser mail from users with Yahoo addresses too. On 23 Jan 2016 17:41, "Marc A. Pelletier" marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 2016-01-23 1:24 AM, Josh Lim wrote:
Is there anyone else here who’s subscribed using a Yahoo! address and has spam problems, either with their or others’ e-mails?
Yahoo is known to be problematic for sending and getting mail from labs as well.
-- Marc
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@lists.wikimedia.org