And more to the point; not knowing is a poor defence. Surely any level of due diligence on new board members would have exposed this troubling incident?
Tom
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:27 Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 January 2016 at 09:06, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote: ...
Dariusz has said the Board is looking into the situation with Arnnon,
which
they were clearly not aware of - that is what needs to happen and yet
more
emails on this list won't mean that happens any more quickly.
...
Correction to "they [the board] were clearly not aware":
Yesterday Jimmy Wales confirmed that:[1] "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."
It is not true that the WMF board were unaware before Arnnon was offered a seat on the board, when there were trustees that knew he took part in illegal activities at Google. The first page of results of a google search shows that Arnnon was a named defence party in the court case.
Links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=69...
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