If the transition team declined the entire first panel of candidates
I think we can AGF that they're being careful.
Also, it's wrong to take out current complaints with WMF on
the executive candidates who may want to make positive
change.
Pine
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:31:45 +0000
From: Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] My choice for ED
Message-ID:
<CAE4f==c3qcT78+J8bvNsEU9AFf0M7T3OFTiJL8sEOKf6sVywVg(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
To me, these proposals always sound a bit like:
"We want this person to be resilient and good-humoured. So we're going to
punch all our possible candidates in the face a few times and see where
they want to go from there."
I know that's not the intention, but it's certainly the plausible effect...
Andrew.
On Monday, 3 February 2014, Martijn Hoekstra
<martijnhoekstra@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','martijnhoekstra@gmail.com');>>
wrote:
> I understand your reasoning, but we already have an extremely difficult
> time finding a suitable candidate. While such community vetting would
> definitely weed out the people we don't want, it will also slim down the
> pool we do want, which currently sits around a cool 0. I don't think we
> can afford that either.
> On Feb 1, 2014 4:47 PM, "Todd Allen" <toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm sure dismissively calling people's legitimate concerns
"playing with
> > (a) toy" will help greatly in that regard.
> >
> > If someone's going to apply for a job where they'll be scrutinized by
a
> > large volunteer community, it is not unreasonable to determine if they
> can
> > withstand that type of scrutiny by a real world test, nor to find whether
> > they'll be responsive and direct to concerns brought up when that
> happens.
> > The community has had enough of "diplomatic" null statements with
lots of
> > words, and should be. Someone needs to give an answer, not just blather
> on
> > and wind up saying nothing concrete at all.
> >
> > It is right for the community to be fed up with that and demand that a
> > candidate go through that process. Yes, it would be hard. Yes, it would
> > discourage some applicants. Those are the applicants we want to
> discourage.
> > We want someone who fits well with our particular project, and who will
> be
> > responsive and direct with our volunteer community. They are the
> > underpinnings of every project WMF undertakes.
> >
> > Todd Allen
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Tony Souter <tony1(a)iinet.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Folks: are we still playing with this toy?
> > >
> > > I've sat here and watched this discourse - variously frivolous,
> slightly
> > > insulting, and embarrassing - and said nothing in the hope it would
> just
> > > fizzle away.
> > >
> > > But amazingly, it's still here.
> > >
> > > We have to accept that while crowdsourcing is the genius of Wikipedia
> and
> > > a few of its sister projects, it's totally inappropriate for choosing
> the
> > > executive director of a big, prominent Foundation that lives in a
> > > competitive, complex, and often negative jungle. There's a bunch of
> > reasons
> > > for doing this largely away from the gaze of the rest of the world. Do
> I
> > > really need to spell them out?
> > >
> > > It would be good to move on to more useful and practical topics.
> > >
> > > Tony
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 02/02/2014, at 1:32 AM, Benjamin Lees <emufarmers(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:29 AM, ENWP Pine
<deyntestiss(a)hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Chad, I wonder if Rory has been considered. (:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > Given his history of biting newbies, I'm not sure he'd be in
a good
> > > > position to help solve the editor retention problem.
> > > > _______________________________________________