[Foundation-l] Foundation Discretion Regarding Personnel Matters

[Nathan Awrich]

Durova wrote:

>I write these words in the good faith hope
>that this publication is so seriously mistaken that no other press will pick
>up the story.

Evidence turned up by Wikinews folks shows that this is,
unfortunately, not the case.




On Dec 14, 2007 11:12 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>