Requests for comment/Vote of no confidence on Arnnon Geshuri/sig: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Older edit Newer edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:31, 22 January 2016

Support

As proposer. Fæ (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Jonathunder (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I’m appalled: Why this kind of person, with this kind of background, at all?, let alone the details concerning his misconduct in a particular scandal. Who next, Mitt Romney? Frankly, if the Board of Trustees is to be filled with celebrity figureheads with no Wikimedia background at all, then bring over some Nobel laureates instead — not suits. Tuvalkin (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd said "Condoleeza Rice," you'd have been onto something. -Pete F (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My 1st idea was Donald Trump, heh… Tuvalkin (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bring American politics into this. --Yair rand (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yair rand, this matter is neck deep in US politics since day one. Tuvalkin (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that at least some board members were not aware of the history, and those who were aware evidently did not tell those who weren't, this decision should be revisited. There are also obvious due diligence lessons here. Andreas JN466 01:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Béria L. de Rodríguez ^msg 02:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To fire a community elected member for 'no' reason and replace him with 2 'former' google employees ..no thanks..--Ste moc 04:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
James Heilman's replacement has not yet been selected. The two new board members are replacing Stu West and Jan-Bart de Vreede, whose terms ended as scheduled. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Kelly Battles has never been a Google employee. --Yair rand (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Member of the board is not just a job but but a trusted position based primarily on virtue, credibility and values. He has in the past proven not to have had these, and I fail to see any proven change in his attitude. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 05:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Though I see the greater guilt in those who have brought him into the Board of Trustees. --Túrelio (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
see Ste, Túrelio. I fear I will not be allowed to volunteer in other wikis any more. --Sargoth (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong support. And I want this vote to be understood not just as having no confidence in Mr. Geshuri, who doesn't have the personal integrity that is needed to be board memeber of an organization like the WMF. I have no more confidence for the whole Board, especially also to name Mr. Wales himself. The Board presents itself in a tragic condition, all faith lost that it could work for the best of the projects. --Julius1990 (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said on enwiki, I have no trust in the current Board, including Mr Geshuri, and I call upon the Board as a whole to resign over the beforementioned events.--Aschmidt (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
see Stemoc and Julius1990 -- Chaddy (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lets 'terminate' the 'Terminator'. I don't want to have such an evil person in the board. Weissbier (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same feeling as Julius1990. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has been already a wrong direction when more TechBubble-people were chosen, now it became a farce. --Jensbest (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anthere (talk). Explanation: [1]
The WMF board is even more secretive than the Soviet politburo. --voyager (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite disquieting prospects if this tendency continues.--Dfeldmann (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere. Like tears in rain (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere also. Mathis B (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Under the circumstances, I can't trust. Thanks to Florence, and also to those who initiated the debate before. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 13:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
please tell him to leave "within one hour" → «« Man77 »» ^[de] 13:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of due diligence is appalling, with predicable results. While the whole board is responsible, Mr. Geshuri especially should have ensured that the board was fully aware of this issue before accepting the position, and ensuring that the board had a statement prepared in advance to help the community understand why Mr. Geshuri's involvement in the Google affair was duly considered and was not reason for concern. I can appreciate two weeks is a short time for a board to completely address an issue like this, especially when it has its plate full dealing with outrage over James dismissal, it is inept to have not provided an initial official response at all after two weeks to at least acknowledge that the community concern is understandable and will be treated as critical business. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
S8w4 (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just like Anthere. --Laurent Jerry (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere also. --Jocian (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere. I can't say that I am happy with the Board fastily voting to remove James with no reason and taking so many time to address (at least informally for now) this case just to tell "we are looking into this" or something.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 15:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Tsungam (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I expected the trust and confidence between the board and the community to improve after the superprotect right was removed. Alas... I have been watching this issue for nearly 3 weeks now. The dismissal of James without any reasonable explanation, and the appointment of Arnnon is a disaster, comparing to what I expect from the board. How could you make such obvious mistakes? I still don't see any message from the board about these. Not only the functioning of board is an issue, but the process for the appointment of new members is broken. Time for a radical change has come. Anthere explained it also very well. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance it is really hard to see why this was a good choice. Even if his experience/qualifcations (in the IT industry) was an important aspect, I find it hard to imagine that there wasn't a less controversial figure with similar qualifications available.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to the broad concept of apointing someone with that talent set but Arnnon Geshuri's background makes him unsuitable for being on the board.Geni (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC) We are not Google 2.0[reply]
The board as a whole is problematic, but this member specifically is clearly unfit to serve on the board. --Tobias talk · contrib 16:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Hubertl (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC) In the meantime, I distrust the complete board. It is really unbelievable what happens the last year. A full sequence of incapabilities, concealments and dubious decisions in many different forms. I´m missing any relation to community issues. Only exception: Dariusz Jemielniak. I am deeply disappointed. I urge not only the resignation of one of this Google lobbyist, but also the resignation of the entire board - including the rest of the Google moles.[reply]
_• _• _hugarheimur 16:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere, of course. ResMar 16:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want Google's HR policy in our project --MBq (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere--Fuucx (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--The Photographer (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More democracy now! --Kopiersperre (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. I do not like the way the things are going on. Transparency, please. --La femme de menage (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)+[reply]
--Holder (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Protonk (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Frank C. Müller (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--DCB (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Poco a poco (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--თოგო ^(D) 19:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Mirer (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
provisional vote awaiting a bold statement. Turb (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly feel that, given the clear over-involvement of Google with the Wikimedia Foundation, that a bright line needs to be drawn. Jusdafax (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support this vote of no confidence. This was clearly a bad choice with too much negative history and isn't in the best interests of the foundation. Reguyla (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no confidence in the entire board, Jimbo Wales downwards, but as this is specific to Arnnon, I'll also confirm explicitly that I have no confidence in him, Oppose his appointment and condemn his previous behaviour. Nick (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
like Turb. --Don-kun (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ericoides (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere ...and Nick, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support per Anthere. EllenCT (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tell him to leave "within one hour". Please be respectful to the volunteers and appoint people that are worth it.--Kimdime (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Varina (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From my own perspective, the issue of "trust" had nothing to do with Arnnon's personal integrity. The Community however must ensure that members have its confidence in their roles as Trustees. I do, however, agree that the Foundation and the Board can be better at communicating, and be more open. While we're not there yet, I am optimistic about the direction of the change, and I know that 2016 will bring more open community discussions around both strategy and our annual planning in consultation with the movement._[2] No such user (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, this is not the road that Wikimeida should take. Josve05a (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to support your removal, Arnnon. I simply do not trust you. Wikicology (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no defendant for the Arnnon Geshuri's case... But as far as I can see this is not an acceptable situation to have him as trustee. Kelson (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment in the discussion section below for my reasons.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – nothing personal. The board cannot advance the interests of the project if it does not have the trust of the community building the project. They should work very hard to regain that trust and show that they understand that serving on the board foremost of all means serving the community. --Lambiam 00:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like many above, two things have made me hesitate: (1) I would like to hear both sides before making a decision, and have not yet heard from the Board about their perspective in appointing Mr. Geshuri; and (2) I would be more interested, at this point, in a general referendum on the board as a whole, in light of several events in recent weeks and years. However, I will give my Support based on what I currently know. Most significant to me are the words of two former Chairs of the Board: this from Anthere (who has explicitly supported this proposition), and also this from Mindspillage, who has not taken a formal position. -Pete F (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly the WMF does not have a good record of valuing its volunteers as well as it should, so appointing a trustee with a proven track record of intentionally suppressing the wages of employees is not a step in the right direction. --SB_Johnny ^talk 01:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are Wikim/pedia. We have claims, lofty goals, a conscience. Such a person can not stay in our Board. What should I tell to the people out there, when they ask me? And I have often to explain Wikip/media. Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still I can't hear an explanation of the appointment, who proposed and what for. If Jimbo were aware of, his involvement should have been recognized and discussed at the board meeting before the decision. If the discussion had been and then I would like to ask the reason why the foundation needs him to all board members. --Ryuch (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per proposal. TheOverflow (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Geshuri thought at the time that the original anti-poaching scheme was legal and ethical (this is a big stretch, since it's clearly a form of collusion), it is clearly unethical to apply for a board seat without making the organization aware of a massive court settlement about wrongdoing involving him. His actions hurt staff at his past companies, so appointing him when leadership-staff relations are at a nadir is also very questionable. Furthermore, beyond just enforcing the letter of an illegal policy, he took a particularly callous approach ("terminated within the hour"; remember, we're talking about someone's job, and impacts on their whole career). It reflects worse on the Board than Geshuri, but it reflects badly on him too. Firing Heilman and not firing Geshuri would reflect even worse on the Board. Mattflaschen - Talk 05:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No confidence. --L235 (talk) enwiki 05:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While these appointed trustees should have special skill-sets such as HR or Accounting, there is no reason why volunteers from the Community are not playing a larger role in searching and evaluating candidates prior to the appointments being made. Hlevy2 (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere's statement here. I also hope that Dariusz reports back soon with his findings from the Board Governance Committee as he indicated he would on 12 January. SarahSV ^talk 06:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on his past activities for Google, I'm disappointed that Geshuri was even considered for the Board. He does not represent the values of a volunteer-based non-profit. The comments of previous Trustees such as Anthere only emphasize his unsuitability. And I am disappointed that the current Board is unable to provide a prompt & cogent explanation for his selection. It's hard to trust an organization that talks about ethics & transparency yet fails to act according to what it professes. -- Llywrch (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PerFæ, and as author of the Wikipedia essay linked above. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Speaking in my personal capacity, but in the personal capacity of someone who works for the WMF, I do not think "but it will make working together harder" is a good rationale. It will, yes - but that doesn't mean it's not necessary. I would rather have 3 months of yelling than I would 12 months of someone singularly unsuitable for a fiduciary role specialising in diversity and HR, holding that role. Ironholds (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This person is unsuitable for being a WMF-Bord-Member. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per Anthere, Llywrch, Andreas Werle. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.js^{[democracy needed]} 07:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -not acceptable to have this individual as trustee--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I signed in. Not sure what my entry doesn't look official, but this is really me. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guy Kawasaki (talk)
Perhaps you'd like to state your reasons for supporting Mr. Geshuri for us mere mortals. odder (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1. And rather strange to see a WMF Board member signing with no WMF account, isn't it?--Aschmidt (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Board members usually don't have a WMF-flagged account. Alice Wiegand (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in fact Mr. Kawasaki didn't even know how to make a signature. Interesting for being a member of the board for nearly a year. Apart from that little fun fact a statement would've been an appropiate extension to this vote. +what Wittylama says below. --Jensbest (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1. @Alice: I remember that Erik Möller was the last WMF employee using his community account for official actions. This was changed after the superprotect mess, and I cannot see a reason why the Board shouldn't act the same.--Aschmidt (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "(WMF)" suffix is a small detail. But the edit reflects a lack of perspective that reinforces a pattern. Guy Kawasaki must surely recognize that his status as a Trustee, and as one who voted to appoint Mr. Geshuri, is germane to this issue. With or without a "(WMF)" suffix, this fact should be clearly disclosed with the vote. Wikimedians do not, as a rule, memorize the names of all Trustees -- nor should they have to. This is something that can be addressed any moment, by Guy or by any of his fellow Trustees, or indeed any Wikimedian who still thinks the Board has a reputation worth protecting. It's also an issue that has been discussed perennially, and is most concisely documented here: Wikimedia Foundation transparency gap#Low-hanging fruit. Lyzzy (aka Alice), is your only take-away from those discussions a detail and rule-based approach to suffixes on user names? I hope you, or any of your colleagues, are still able to see the bigger picture, even for a moment. -Pete F (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand it's interesting to note that the external-appointed members of the WMF Board are reading this page. But it strikes me as just plain weird that you would add your name against a petition that is addressed to you. That's like a politician signing against a petition that is being prepared to be sent to their own government. Of course you oppose the idea of removing him, you voted to appoint him in the first place. A petition is an tool for a group to apply pressure on those who have formal power. You are one of only a handful of people in the world who have formal decision-making power in this matter. Does stating that you oppose this idea mean that the board is not interested in considering it at this point, or that it's not a valid question for the community to ask, or that you would quit the board yourself if Geshuri was voted-off by the Board? Simply saying "oppose" without any reasoning doesn't progress this conversation either way. I do understand that the Board is not at liberty to publicly discuss sensitive topics because of the "mutual trust" required for the Board to operate, but that does raise the question of why you wrote your name here at all considering that you recently voted to eject a Board member for apparently breaching that same trust.

However, by all means please join other public, non-Board-sensitive, Wikimedia discussions because I have not seen your perspective/opinion publicly expressed about anything Wikimedia-related. Frankly, I'd love to know more about what one of the most powerful people in our movement actually thinks! You've been on the board for almost a year now and your publicly-visible contributions are: writing your name here (today is the first time you've logged in to Meta); three edits to Wikipedia (two to your own biography and one to a company (on the day that you were their conference keynote speaker); and, as far as I'm aware, one email to a mailing list (offering tips for the optimal use of twitter). it would be GREAT to have you and the other newly-appointed Board members get more involved in the Wikiverse on a practical level - even if for no other reason than to help bridge the recently much-talked-about 'transparency gap'. Wittylama (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that only a member of the community should have a say in Board affairs. Someone with an account like Guy Kawasaki's cannot really judge what Wikipedia is all about. He cannot represent the editors, and therefore should not be elected to the Board. --Aschmidt (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify Aschmidt, Guy Kawasaki was not elected to the board he was appointed by the board. There are four appointed seats that exist to bring "specific expertise"- he and Arnnon Geshuri occupy two of those seats. Now, I am perfectly happy with the existence of "appointed seats" as it helps to diversify the experience of the board and avoid groupthink (at least, that's the theory). And I also do not subscribe to the notion that the only way to be considered a "member of the community" is to be an active Wikipedia editor. The fact that he didn't know that ~~~~ makes a signature is merely another excellent demonstration that we need to bring talkpages into the 21st Century. However, as I mentioned in my original comment I really would like to know in what way Guy is participating in the Wikimedia movement? Furthermore, as mentioned above, I find it extraordinarily weird that he would chose to break his silence by adding his name to this page. I assume that he didn't get approval in advance from the rest of the Board to add his name here - because this makes life harder for the rest of the board to have a united voice (see the "mutual trust" point in my original comment). Moreover, does that mean that the WMF staff who have personal accounts should be allowed to add their names on this petition too? Wittylama (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wittylama: I guess it depends how you see this vote. If you see it as merely a petition, it would indeed be odd to sign against it - even if not entirely unthinkable. However, if you see it as a vote that the board would have to follow (not a mere polite request, but one they cannot ignore reasonably) I don't see why they couldn't vote here too. Like politicians also vote in their own election, like members of government (if no seperation of membership between parliament and government) can vote at the motion of no confidence addressing them or their colleagues. Maybe Guy just sees this as a case of the second: a vote the board (or Arnnon Geshuri) couldn't reasonably ignore/overrule. Effeietsanders (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's very strange to see you here, voting "oppose", Guy. Elsewhere, you (the board) have been asked to justify the appointment, given our quite reasonable concerns. Until now you've ignored that request. But you turn up here to stake a firm position on something that you, as an individual board member, have no right to stake. This vote is aimed at the whole board. Are you trying, in a Machiavellian move, to force the hand of your colleagues on the board? If so, bold. If not, then just clumsy. Either way, it makes me very concerned about the calibre of person being appointed to this board. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm strongly disagree with the dismiss of James Heilman/Doc James, I strongly disagree with it vote of no-confidence (and I was disagree with the petition about the superprotection). I don't see all of that will improve the relations with the WMF and the communities. I don't think this will "be taken into consideration by the board of trustees to fulfil the Wikimedia Foundation statement of values" and I only see people who want to prove their animosities. And I'm quite bored to see sterile discussions between the community and WMF or between the different communities. I don't think petition is a good way to be understand. I don't specifically trust the current board (or the past/future board). --Nouill (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Similar rational to Nouill. While I have my own opinions on what has happened, I believe we need to realise we can't have a say in everything that happens to administrate the site. Yes, he was involved with issues at Google, but that was 4-odd years ago, he's had other appointments since, and I'm not seeing a history here of bad actions that would make me go against the judgement of the WMF, who IMO know more about who's appropriate for the job then some random users who don't have the experience others making the decisions do. Mdann52 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mdann52, are you saying that Geshuri was unemployed for more than four years, before his appointment to the WMF board? 109.145.37.90 20:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yger (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, an unwise sort of petition as well. Collect (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Unwise?" Jusdafax (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot support this petition until it rightfully also includes the name of the most problematic trustee. Out of kindness, I won't name names, but you might check a rhyming dictionary for "Limbo Bails". - Thekohser (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Jimbo should not be allowed to be on the board in a make believe seat. Reguyla (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of wrong doing or any evidence at all. Seems pointy. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain things the community is not the best group for deciding directly, which is why the board was established in the first place, and delegated by the community (or on behalf of the community, at least) the authority it has, including the direct control over the four appointed seats. This was a simple, direct task, which was fulfilled and approved by all of the board members, including those elected by the community. For us to now say, no, the task we delegated to our board because we thought they could do a better job of choosing than us, actually resulted in the wrong choice, and we must now make them change their decision to a right one... That doesn't make any sense. We could have elected board members who promised to ask the community on every issue including board composition. We didn't, and I don't think anyone regrets that. Arnnon Geshuri was appointed by the board as a whole, and his appointment was supported by all of our directly and indirectly elected board members. If he is to be removed, it should be by the board, not the community directly. This is not a vote we should be having. I trust the board to make the right decision on this.
That said, I really do wish the board would be more transparent on this issue, even if that transparency comes at a substantial cost. We need an explanation. We also need the board to be here, and regularly communicating in some fashion. --Yair rand (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because he appears to have exactly the experience that the Board needs. The Board seriously needs someone with the qualifications and knowledge to be able assess and advise on WMF's serious current HR, personnel retention and organisational line-management culture issues, and identify what can be done to really sharpen up WMF's practise in these areas. I also see the past connections with Google as a positive bonus, and Google paranoia being expressed is simply silly. Our mission is to make knowledge more available to everybody. If that means it is more available to Google, and more available via Google or via Bing or via DBpedia, (ie more part of what is available and accessible and structured generally as part of the knowledge ecosystem online), then so much the better. I also note that Doc James supported and had full confidence in this appointment. As for Geshuri's involvement with the hiring collusion practices, I would note that he did not create the policy (which seems to have come straight from the top), and would not have had the authority to change it. Should he have known that it was against state law, and advised his bosses of that? Possibly. On the other hand that is what an organisation like Google has a general counsel and a legal department for; at that stage in his career it is more likely that his knowledge and focus and development were more on execution rather than legals. In any case, it's not an issue that's likely to come up for WMF, and not a mistake that he is likely to make again. Jheald (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and discussion

"Fulfil" is the British spelling of "fulfill"? Crazy! I totally thought that was a typo. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian spelling as well. Varlaam (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that this type of petition is helpful to the community or the board, or the relations between the two. This approach feels like an attempt to micro-manage the board, nearly half of whom have already been elected and given a mandate by the community to exercise their judgement as they see fit.

There is already some clear resentment and confusion over the removal of James Heilman, and the sense that the community’s concerns are not being taken into account. This petition actually compounds those concerns in that it further undermines the results of the fair and anonymised election of trustees in the 2015 elections. The Board elections have a process that can legitimately claim to establish a community consensus, this petition can’t.

The board are aware of the concerns about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment, I think for now we should let them get on with investigating and preparing their response rather than escalating this conflict. StuartPrior (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Stuart. What would you see as an appropiate time frame to react in any official form when it comes to such an urgent matter? --Jensbest (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board Elections look like a Mickey-Mouse-Event... The Board undermines the trust in the Board. For me as an normal Wikipedian it looks like an Augias stable, and no, I am not Heracles. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, as chair of the Board, Patricio acts promptly on seeing this vote-of-no-confidence page and having just read the calmly worded but blistering message from a former chair of the Board on the Wikimedia mailing list. He is painfully aware of the thunderous political reality, and realises that a professional strategy is now required to minimise internal and external harm to the Board's standing, after the gooey mess through which it has been dragging itself over the past month. As a matter of urgency, he calls Alice, Frieda, Dariusz, Denny, Kelly, and Jimmy (avoiding Guy, who has already made a fool of himself and the Board at the no-confidence page). Patricio gains majority agreement to call Arnnon to urge him to resign; he encounters significant objections from only one trustee.
Patricio is sufficiently prescient to have drafted a brief public statement of resignation for Arnnon's consideration (the usual things: I deeply regret that I was unable to serve blah-de-blah, and wish the Foundation and its community the best for future success jiggedy-blah).
Patricio has learned from the shambolically managed Heilman incident last month by also preparing a Board statement for release immediately upon Arnnon's resignation. He has run both statements past the appropriate staff expert at the WMF, who suggested minor changes; and he reads out both texts during his call with each trustee.
Patricio's deft footwork in collaboration with Dariusz has already set in motion the process of choosing a replacement without delay; the replacement will be tech-savvy without too obvious a connection with Silicon Valley.
Patricio then calls Arnnon, who has been half-expecting this for at least a week. Arnnon is in no position to resist, given the majority opinion of trustees.
Tony (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nouill: so any suggestion what to do? I did not vote yet and wonder if there is an other way, but none comes to mind ...Sicherlich ^Post 16:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that type of action have negative effect on long run, and that for me their negative effect are bigger that the positive effect. If you think opposite, you should just vote. (I don't have magic alternative.) --Nouill (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm okay. ...Sicherlich ^Post 19:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC) IMO accepting that WMF ignores (once more) raised questions by people from the community and just keeping quite. Might be worse in the long run. Sounds like "Don't challenge the leader". Typically in authoritarian systems? Hmm. [reply]

@Stemoc apologies for being picky, but this was not a replacement for James - the positions appear to have been in the pipeline for some time beforehand. Mdann52 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never implied he was, it seems like James was opposed to this so they go rid of him...the timing is everything and they didn't even bother waiting for a month before they made the hiring..something smelled fishy then, it smells much worse now.--Ste moc 22:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Kawasaki: You voted oppose? Can you explain why? Thanks in advance. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a concern about bringing someone on the board of Trustees who was involved in activities of questionable legality under existing trade laws, but there is also a broader issue that I think warrants this no-confidence measure. As has been mentioned in the Signpost, Geshuri's appointment means half the board of trustees is connected to Google. When one considers Google and connected groups have given substantial amounts of money to the WMF, while as Andreas laid out in his recent article profiting off the site's free content the makeup of the board creates certain legal concerns.

Google actively prioritizes Wikipedia in its search algorithms and has previously used adjustments to its algorithms to squelch for-profit sites serving similar functions that do not offer their content for free and thus do not make them exploitable for easy advertising bait, including sites owned by its competitors. This could create implications for the WMF's non-profit status as a charitable organization cannot be operated for the benefit of an individual or corporation and the more Google's ties to the WMF increase the easier it is to make the case that the WMF is being used to financially benefit Google. Hiring someone who was involved in anti-competitive practices to prompt these concerns is partly fitting and partly worrying in this context.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency statement

I would like to state that as the proposer of this vote, I have not been in any relevant significant private discussions with anyone in our movement before sending the open letter to the board on 7 January or before creating this page though I have taken part in public discussions. The single exception is that as a friendly courtesy I wrote privately to Patricio (Chairman of the WMF board) on 8th January with the email subject "Reaching out" with pragmatic suggestions on how to proceed. To give an idea of tone, that email closed with "Being Chair is not easy, indeed I have resigned twice from such positions after conflict. It comes with the territory. Keep in mind that you represent us, the community of Wikimedians, so do the right thing and do it in a timely way." At the time I copied the email to James Heilman as one of the past serving WMF Trustees I have full trust in and could provide me with an alternative perspective. Patricio has not replied, nor acknowledged my correspondence, nor attempted any private message. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update 5 hours after writing the above, and over two weeks after my 8th January "Reaching out" email, I have received a reply from Patricio. He acknowledges my email, nicely apologises for the delay, and assures me that the board is discussing the issue, but prefers to not share his views "until the board speaks". The was no other information, such as timeline, or whether there is an intent to take action. --Fæ (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does the Board make?

And so, my fellow Wikipedians: ask not what WMF can do for you — ask what you can do for your WMF.? Really, what does the Board make to help Wikipedians around the world? --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Fuck the community, who cares. Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reject any funding by Google

I also think the community should enforce that the WMF rejcts any funding by Google, Inc and its subsidaries. There is too much potential of conflicts of interest when accepting their money. --Matthiasb (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timing

While apparently this vote was needed to get a word out of the board (Fae mentions above that he got an email from Patricio afterwards that they are discussing the issue) I don't think this heavy tool is timely yet. I'm quite disappointed by the lack of communication from the board, the lack of explanation and also to some extent the lack of transparancy. This seems so far to be mostly the result of clumsyness rather than an evil plan (we're talking about a volunteer board here) and lets keep in mind that this is no 'urgent' issue (there may actually be many urgent issues at hand, I don't know) albeit important. So until the board comes with a statement (and while I would have expected that within the week, I'll be waiting until a month has passed for that, to allow a full and thorough investigation. This no-vote-yet is not a sign of desinterest :) Effeietsanders (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Lodewijk as I wanted to write something similar. Generally I find this situation quite disappointing but I would like to get an answer from the Board first or make sure there will be no answer. At the moment the fact that the Board is still discussing the issue makes sense as they might still not have held their January meeting — NickK (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 88: / Line 88: @@
 # Support. Per Anthere, Llywrch, Andreas Werle. --[[User:Matthiasb|Matthiasb]] ([[User talk:Matthiasb|talk]]) 07:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 # [[user:.js|.js]]<sup>[''[[:en:WP:WikiProject Democracy|democracy needed]]'']</sup> 07:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
+# Support -not acceptable to have this individual as trustee--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 10:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 === Oppose ===