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.comjavascript:_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@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@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@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:29 AM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@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. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l