[Foundation-l] Foundation Discretion Regarding Personnel Matters

Robert Rohde rarohde at gmail.com
Fri Dec 14 16:12:54 UTC 2007

On Dec 14, 2007 7:55 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:

> On Dec 14, 2007 10:30 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This person was in a sensitive position.  Can the Foundation offer
> > assurances that her actions in this position did not cause any material
> > harm?
> >
> Surely part of the current ongoing audit is to determine the answer to
> that question.  Without the audit being completed, I don't see how the
> Foundation possibly *could* offer such assurances.

They could speak to what they currently know.  Even a statement that they
don't currently know of any problems but are in the process of conducting an
internal review would be reassuring.

> > The possibility of a link between this person's involvment as COO and
> the
> > subsequent delay in the audit is a troubling one and should be
> disspelled if
> > possible.
> >
> The possibility that there isn't a link between this person's
> involvement as COO and the subsequent delay in the audit is even more
> troubling.
> There have been a variety of public reasons noted for the audit's delay
including such things as moving to SF.  To my recollection, I haven't seen
COO issues in the list.  There is a huge practical difference between: "The
audit was delayed due to the complexity of Wikimedia's finances and the
distractions of the current relocation" and "The audit was delayed because
our former COO stole money from us and now we are reviewing every
transaction she ever touched with a fine toothed comb."

If we accept Mike's statement that the WMF has no documentary evidence of a
criminal record (and assume he is not simply being disingenuous by
distinguishing between documentation and knowledge), then the logical
extension is that the audit delays (whatever their cause) were not triggered
by knowledge of Ms. Doran's prior bad acts.

-Robert Rohde

More information about the foundation-l mailing list