Requests for comment/Vote of no confidence on Arnnon Geshuri

The following request for comments is closed. Arnnon Geshuri stepped down on 27 January 2016

This vote establishes the community consensus for whether Arnnon Geshuri is thought fit to remain a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation and is in a position credibly to meet the pledge of personal commitment required for trustees.^[1] A vote of the community has no legal weight, but should be taken into consideration by the board of trustees to fulfil the Wikimedia Foundation statement of values.^[2]

The day after the announcement on 6th January 2016 that Geshuri had been unanimously appointed a month earlier by the board of trustees^[3], an open letter was sent to the Chairman of the board asking why Geshuri had been appointed, despite being widely known for having played a significant role in the anticompetitive agreements scandal at Google.^[4] This vote is being raised after two weeks with no formal acknowledgement, or commitment to action, back to the community that the board intends properly to reconsider Geshuri's appointment.

Further background on Geshuri can be found on his Wikipedia biography and a Wikipedia essay focusing on his role in the Google scandal and providing a range of reliable sources. The Signpost, the English Wikipedia's news journal, also covered this issue with a number of quotes from well known Wikimedians: "Community objections to new Board trustee"

Arnnon stepped down

As Patricio Lorente just made public in this post to the wikimedia-I mailing list, Arnnon Geshuri has stepped down from his post on the board. — The preceding comment was added by Sänger (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Please sign as a support or oppose for the following proposition and restrict comments and discussion to #Comments and discussion.

Proposition

In the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, Arnnon Geshuri must be removed from his appointment as a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board.

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 keep my vote following coordinated mail from Geshuri and Wiegand, as they use crisis communication techniques to say they will change nothing to this appointment. Turb (talk) 00:42, 27 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]
Support - Given his role in the en:High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, it is improper for Mr. Geshuri to occupy a seat on the Board. It doesn't matter how significant his role was, the fact that he blatantly supported what is obviously an illegal anti-competition agreement amongst several of the largest tech companies in the world is incompatible with the interests of WMF and the entire Wikimedia community. Jkudlick (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Bernhard Wallisch 10:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People make mistakes, I can imagine possibility of error from HR of Google but when he doesn't bother to explain the situation to the community it makes me think if he knows what Wikimedia movement is and how holding values like integrity, transparency, and being accountable to community (unlike tech companies like Google) is vital to our movement. Maybe he simply doesn't know how to sign a comment Amir (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. HolidayInGibraltar (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Viciarg ᚨ 11:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What everyone else said. --Brustopher (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The continued silence by the Board seems to push the community to drastic action. So be it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
after reading Arnnon's statement to Wikimedia-L, I am further convinced that he should not hold his seat on the board. Dance like a butterfly, fly like a moth. We don't need obfuscating fluff. Your journey will be short, get it done
His anti-competitive records and lack of even smallest interest or qualification to match our movement values are really troubling for me. How far the Foundation has fallen. Muhraz (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anthere's heartfelt and extremely informed letter should be read by everyone commenting here.[3] The community should have a voice in how the WMF board should be constituted. Since this is not a binding "vote," one hopes that those in charge will listen to the community. First Light (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His record clearly demonstrates that he is not suited for the role. CT Cooper · talk 12:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support His prior actions at Google re the 'No-Poaching Agreement' demonstrate a lack of the moral character required to act as Trustee for this project. The large number of Google affiliated board members is also a problem however it would likely need to be explored formally in Fla. by someone with standing to address the COI. Jbh ^Talk 13:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support See Anthere. There should be no COI whatsoever in the board Klaas `Z4␟` V: 13:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Anthere, and why are we even debating something so obvious? I despair. Begoon (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible past mistakes could be forgiven, but part of that would be offering a candid explanation and asking for it. That certainly has not happened here. Rather, we've gotten stonewalling and silence. Once these concerns were brought up, they should have been immediately addressed, in detail. It is not acceptable for a member of the Board, or the Board as a whole, to remain silent in the face of serious concerns from many members of the community. If they need to work as a group to address them, that should be made an urgent and immediate priority, and a plan and time frame for a response should be communicated at once. I therefore have no confidence in this appointment, or in the Board as a whole to fulfill its most crucial task, support of the Wikimedia movement. Such support includes, at its heart, being answerable, responsive, and fully transparent toward the core members of that movement. Corporate style say-nothing responses and "no comment" are not acceptable. Seraphimblade (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere. Thank you, Florence. --Sir48 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere. I am very concerned at the way the Board has handled all aspects of this issue, and its implications for future interactions with the community. Islahaddow (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Cullen's excellent article. Shoy (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yamaha5 (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the essay by Cullen328 alone is a undeniable foundation of the moral taint that is allowed to exist on the Board. I already had little faith, and now I have none. There will continue to be silence and more bricks in the wall between us the community and them, the ones who hold the key to Wikimedia. Fylbecatulous talk 15:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ilya (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hadrianus (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that circumstances leave me no choice but to support. Austin (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The reason has been stated. I would hope a resignation will follow to end this fiasco. Carrite (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We need more diversity in the board, people form education, engineering and science form all over the world. We don't need more business managers and lawyers from Silicon Valley. — Boshomi ☕⌨☺ 18:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Support 110% for all of the reasons stated above. Further, the community is owed a full, transparent account of how this guy even got appointed to the board. Tdslk (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As Dariusz noted today 1, the vetting process had a hole that should have, but did not, consider the recruitment scandal (beyond legal liability). It's clear now that there's not going to be some explanation would make up for what we already know about his role in the scandal.--Ragesoss (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BethNaught (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bad choice, no due diligence, no thought to reputational risk. pablo 19:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His illegal activities while at Google makes this a no-brainer. Bgwhite (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Anthere and Boshomi. Juraastro (Talk) 23:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Support: Nobody with such a problematical background in employer-employee relations should ever have been considered as a Wikimedia Board member. The appointment represents further serious damage to the reputation of the Wikimedia movement - the single most valuable asset that is entrusted to the WMF Board. --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --HanFSolo (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but the problem is clearly more with the Board as a whole. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - They should never have been appointed in the first place!, Perhaps it'd be a wise decision to reappoint the other trustee who you got rid of ...... –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This person brings the role into disrepute. — Scott • talk 02:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MER-C (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating my support for this motion after Geshuri's (non-)response. MER-C (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Anthere, and per Arnnon's own statement. "I was only enforcing policy" doesn't cut it when that policy is illegal. --Carnildo (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jbmurray (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outriggr (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Holmium (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere. Nemo 09:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grueslayer (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom and Black Kite (after about a day trying to figure out how to edit here, eventually seeing the "m" in the URL) Yngvadottir (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and others Peter Damian (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— regards, Revi 12:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't trust this person. Xavier Combelle (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Wetterwolke (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Anthère. MrButler (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support in full agreement with Anthère's statement. --84.227.252.201 14:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere. Gentil Hibou (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Anthere. Guise (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ali1610 (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Natuur12 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ra'ike (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Smartbyte (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- every Saul can turn into a Paul. But are we going to take bets on it? -<(kmk)>- (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The WMF is not a commercial body, and someone with a publicly demonstrated lack of managerial ethics and a long history as a high-ranking official of a notoriously morally deficient company should have no part in its governance. Iridescent (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An untenable appointment even in a PLC, not to mind a charity. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per the above. APerson (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The firing incident at Google seems well documented, I do not believe it is disputed that Geshuri authored the email presented as evidence. I have to say I do not appreciate the way this person treats his fellow human beings, and I must support the vote of no confidence on this simple basis. On a more general note, I am worried by the orientation of the board and I feel that we must make our voice heard and defend the ideals upon which our community was founded. The way things go, I'm afraid in a few years the board might start pushing to monetize Wikipedia. Cenarium (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The WMF press release regarding Geshuri's appointment touts the fact that "he built the company’s [Google's] talent acquisition and diversity strategy". It is impossible to imagine how those who made this appointment could have evaluated this properly and made the appointment. His own statements make his awareness of the illegal course of conduct unmistakable. No board of education I was ever involved with would not have found this background disqualifying for a significant position. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Kudpung (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cirdan (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Geshuri's appointment and Board members' response to this RfC are even more evidence that the Board is completely out of touch with the community. Serious and significant reform of the Foundation's governance is needed, with an eye towards an end goal of direct accountability to the community. --James Allison (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere.
I try not to judge a person solely based on particular prior bad acts. I agree with Alanscottwalker that a person is more than that. And similar to others, I'm hesitant to support a vote of no confidence without hearing from Mr. Geshuri. However, it's Mr. Geshuri's silence here that is, to me, so damning. It's been suggested that Mr. Geshuri is unable to publicly comment due to ongoing litigation. Okay, but if Mr. Geshuri is still so enmeshed in this scandal that he's unable to publicly explain his actions and views, it's completely unacceptable to appoint him to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees at this time. It's clear his focus should be elsewhere. Alternately, if Mr. Geshuri is able to publicly comment and has simply chosen not to do so, that's even worse. After waiting a reasonable amount of time for an explanation, I feel compelled to support this vote.
There's a lot of dark humor in the repeated suggestions that the Wikimedia Foundation needed additional human resources experience on its board and chose a person who the United States Department of Justice has recently investigated due his significant and direct role in illegal "no poach" agreements. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have taken my time and read through much material. Although there is much praiseworthy in Mr. Geshuri's career, his actions in the anti-competitive and illegal arrangement between Google and Apple make it impossible for me to support him.Stanistani (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the information provided in the Signpost article, and noting the fact that Mr. Geshuri does not appear to have commented on this matter when it was made public several days ago, I believe that it is not in the interest of Wikimedia and Wikipedia to inlcude a person who has engaged in illegal and arguably unethical business practices in a position of leadership. Sandstein (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Enrevseluj (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support What Rick and Florence said, sadly. --Pgallert (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is the editors, not the WMF, that write the encyclopedia which is Wikipedia's product. No one with the appearance of impropriety should have any authority over those of us trying to construct a pure product. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Anthere --Mohammed Bachounda (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aspiriniks (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. —Ruud 13:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A fish rots from the head down, thus it is hardly a surprise that the WMF has hired yet another ethically challenged individual. If this person possessed any sense at all, he would resign immediately. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no confidence that he will contribute in a positive way "to Wikimedia Foundation’s goal to establish and maintain the highest level of public confidence in its accountability." His appointment raises serious questions about the WMF Board's commitment to openness and transparency as the Board has chosen someone who was in a central position during the scandal. --mikeu ^talk 16:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am putting myself here because I am very disappointed in how the WMF has handled the entire trustee election and subsequent appointments. The volunteers who helped build the project and maintain it on a daily basis are the real heart of this project and we're being left behind and forgotten. Mkdw (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Aschmidt. --Cvf-ps (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Anthere. - Trace (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The board needs to understand that they answer to the community and wouldn't exist without the community. It would add insult to injury if they think they can dismiss James Hellman over vague "trust" concerns and then keep someone else on the board against the wishes of the community.--Danaman5 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Anthere. - Ulflarsen (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Anthere Dschslava (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MZMcBride. Rich Farmbrough 21:38 24 January 2016 (GMT).
Dear board, your silence left me no other choice. Max Semenik (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tune up your hearing aids, foundation people, because your (in)action(s) are stirring a very large pot of discontentment, and sooner or later its gonna spill over if you don't at least make an effort to listen and act in our best interest. TomStar81 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the trend of Googlification of Wikimedia I support this petition. Balko (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but with the disclaimer that I was a member of the class of high tech workers recently compensated for the anticompetitive conspiracy to suppress hiring wages in which he participated, which Google, et. al. have recently paid a tidy sum. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After reading Cullen 328's essay I'm in no doubt that this is the only possible course of action. The Foundation must, as a matter of urgency, repair its damaged relationship with editors. This is where it should begin. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shocked and appalled. New England Cop (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support : At best his background is in doing his masters' bidding in market-fixing. Corporate bureaucrats bring no skills worth having. Ever. Seek people who think differently not grey drones. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Having now read Arnnon Geshuri's Jan 26's message, while its tone is at least preferable to the Billy Bigboots of the Eric Schmidt email, it exhibits a sequence of tropes (vibrant culture, diversity, story, conversation, reaching out, journey) that are commonplace in the corporate intranet piece about the new boss touring the borders of their dominion: all lacking in tangible touchpoints. AllyD (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support WMF board cannot continue to use double standard, a light one for them, a hard one for the rest of the movement--Chandres 09:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please fire him more quickly. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- the wub "?!" 11:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is my conviction Wikipedia does not need people who did support any illegal operation
Support --Mautpreller (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Anthere. -Ash Crow (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Orci (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
support we are meticulous, wikipedia. --Ταπυροι (گپ) 13:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --wtrsv (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given the information presented above and elsewhere. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per reasons above. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Each day less confident in the Foundation (since 2 or 3 years ago I think). But these days, the firing of Doc James and now the appointement of AG... Bah... The WMF board won't care. Alvaro (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The appointee's past actions were at best, bad form and at worst, illicit; as a result, he does not have the level of community trust required for him to function as a member of this type of Board. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Goombiis (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maragm (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Julyo (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support VIGNERON * ^discut. 20:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kosboot (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC) - I'm also one of those that believe most of the board should step down for appointing this guy. They are clearly out of step with the Wikimedian community.[reply]
Support For the ample reasons already given above. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Philippe23 (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely easier for everybody that Arnnon resigns, than to have drama for the next two years or more. --Millosh (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support nc, everything has been said. --92.208.155.116 21:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Boshomi. Litlok (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Gue rillero 22:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support SpecMode (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Anthere. --Olei (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --gobonobo ⁺ ^c 23:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Anthere. Ibanix (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support WMF board members' ethics must be irreproachable. --Farialima (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SoperJames 23:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ehrichweiss 19:06, 25 January 2016 (EDT)
Support although I believe the "WMF listens and cares about community" is just rethoric. es:Magister Mathematicae 00:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm 100% aligned with the comment by Seraphimblade (presently #98). MaxEnt (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Anthere. Ejg930 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support PauAmma (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support johnbryanpeters (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Independence, good attitude and higher moral standards are necessary. Fphilibert (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SEWilco (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Removing him is necessary to creating the kind of leadership an open and honest organization needs.—Chbarts (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to add: The fact he never admitted wrongdoing or guilt over his illegal actions, and as far as I know never paid any actual penalty, simply proves he is not honest enough to lead the WMF. He may be technically beyond successful prosecution for certain charges, but he is the very image of impropriety, and we cannot tolerate that in this project.—Chbarts (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wrestled a fair bit as to whether I was going to sign this or not; generally I feel that demands for resignations, petitions, and aggressive rhetoric are not conducive to arriving at a satisfactory conclusion, and indeed only usually serve to enrage people and entrench them even further into their positions. Regardless of what Mr. Geshuri might have done at Google, he is still a human being and some of the mean-spirited comments above reflect very poorly on both the community and the people making them. With that said though, after calling a couple of weeks ago for Arnnon and the Board to be allowed time to explain themselves, I’ve been disappointed by the lack of any action or commitment to action on this matter. I therefore must reluctantly add my voice to those that do not have confidence in Arnnon Geshuri as a WMF trustee. Prior to being appointed, Mr Geshuri should have made sure that the Board was aware of his “colourful” past, and if the Board had made a decision to appoint him anyway they should have had a communications plan in place to explain why they did this to the community. To add to that, trustees are required to act in the best interests of the Foundation. I do not see how Mr Geshuri is acting in the best interests on the Foundation at this point by holding on and ensuring that his presence will be a continual distraction from its work. I also endorse the comments made by John Vandenberg, Anthere, and Seraphimblade above. Craig Franklin (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Support Echoing Anthere's perplexity regarding this appointment Sarex (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —zziccardi (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The silence is sad. I agree with what Anthere has said. Legoktm (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not want, sorry. Nothing personal against Mr. Geshuri. I'm sure he's highly skilled and very ethical within his framework which, let's be honest, the .1% live in a different world and I'm not saying it's worse just that it's different and probably not conducive to the best ethos for dealing with volunteer, and then the event described just make me really pretty sure that this isn't a good idea. I wish Mr. Geshuri all the success in the world and ever-bigger boats (or whatever he likes to ride) and so forth, tho! Let's think about getting people from academia and such, and from business too but a different kind of businessman? Herostratus (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much per Craig Franklin at comment 213 above. Orderinchaos (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 06:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ——Amazingloong (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Anthere: The board selection process isn't working, and integrity on the board matters. QuixoticLife (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either the board didn't know or they knew and didn't care. This is IMHO as much a vote of no confidence on Geshuri as it is on the current board. --Millbart (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC) After reading Arnnon's and the board's statement I am absolutely flabbergasted by the sheer ignorance of and the complete disregard for the issues raised by a lot of members of the community. The total lack of acknowledgement of the concrete points reminds me of typical corporate and political waffling. This is the kind of professionalism I would have hoped the foundation was keen to avoid, but alas, time and again the board with different members display an astonishing willingness to dismiss the concerns of many of the people who make this project great. I am sad to say that the board, and especially its long term members who should have learned a thing by now from past mistakes, is increasingly becoming an institution that deserves all the ridicule that can be thrown at it. --Millbart (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Anthere, and complete lack of trust in board governance and executive leadership. GayleKaren (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikipedia is unique not just because it is an important part of internet and culture but also because it has a community who stands by its principles. The problem in this case has been clearly stated, and I couldn't even find any answer from M. Geshuri himself here https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/thread.html#81289 Lerichard (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --He3nry (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Anthere. Soni (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Google has too much influence over the world already. Arcanicus (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support No confidence. Please remove him from the Board of Trustees. His appointment is a step back to the values upon which Wikipedia was built. Eddievanvedder 14:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support veritas omnia vincit --Happygillmore192 (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support No confidence Scirocco6 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Our community can do better than this. Ronabop (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This appointment does a great deal to damage Wikimedia's credibility as an organization interested in transparency. Resolute (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per already established concerns. I'm going to add that his behavior at the core of this recruiting issue should have disqualified him for the risk of the baggage he would be bringing along related to that issue. Wikipedia already has enough P.R. issues as it is. Even if he's a great person otherwise, why invite negative scrutiny. BcRIPster (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Wikimedia Foundation needs to hold itself to a higher standard. When Mozilla Corporation, also a non-profit-related entity, made Brandon Eich its CEO, there was a large outcry from their base over his donations to causes the base had a moral problem with. I think WF is going to find a similar scenario here; they run a non-profit supported by volunteers on an open-source platform, and they've just hired someone their volunteers think is ideologically unacceptable to help direct their operations. It compromises the spirit behind Wikipedia itself, and for that reason I hope this decision is reversed before WF loses too many editors. Additionally, this appointment brings the Foundation even closer to Google, which is decidedly none of the characteristics which make Wikipedia what it is, a highly worrying development. Safrolic (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Anthere. --Scoopfinder^(d) 20:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a thing that should never have moved past the "musing" stage, let alone the "vetting" stage.--Jorm (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per many other supports above — 0x010C ^~talk~ 20:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a community organization, the organization really ought to listen to the community. Even if I personally opposed it, the huge list of names above me would all but force me to vote here.Nathanielhm 20:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aisteco (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've all documents I could reach and thought about a while. I suggest Arnnon to drop the position in the board. You made a big mistake and it is okay to learn from it. But with this background Arnnon is not the rigt person for a board of trustees. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having read the very troubling message by Anthere, I was awaiting Arnnon's answer, which as come here. I am sorry to say that Arnnon's answer is polite, but hollow corporate-speak: either he has nothing substantial to say in his defence, or he has not taken the measure of the seriousness of the allegations against him (there is serious questionning not as to whether he works "with thoughtfulness, transparency, diversity, and a focus on doing what is right", but with the most basic decency and respect for the law). I think that both terms of the alternative make him an unfortunate choice at the moment; regretfully but with confidence in the company I keep in this, I kindly suggest that he reconsider his appointement, possibly to retry at a more favourable time. Rama (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The response by Arnnon doesn't even directly address the main issue, his work at Google and the dishonest practices. Even a direct answer to that, in the form of, "I know this issue is why you have concerns, and I'd like to have a conversation about them" would have been better than this bland non-answer. Ibanix (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
wctaiwan (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TOW talk 22:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't need this distraction. As someone who was the head of recruiting, I hope Arnnon Geshuri will agree that this controversy derails our conversation from more useful things. As such, it is best if we part ways so we can all do productive work. Arnnon doesn't need this job and we don't need this distraction. I'd like to call on Arnnon Geshuri to voluntarily step down. Thank you for your support to the community and I look forward to your co-operation from outside the board. Kushal one (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely hate the board appointed seats; they serve as a way to further distance the board from the communities and the accountability of elections. That said, this was a terrible appointment that either shows the board didn't do its due diligence well; or did, and decided to proceed anyway. Honestly not sure which scenario would be worse, but putting this man as one of ten people at the head of our entire movement should never have happened. But the sad reality is that we can do nothing -- we can't even vote in three new trustees until roughly 17 months from now -- the only hope of this petition is for the board to realise they screwed up and backtrack. The betting window on that is open, but I'm not playing. Courcelles 23:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chricho (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Einsamer Schütze (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't trust Arnnon Geshuri in his new role as a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation; his public statement has disappointed me as much as the behavior of the rest of the board. This farce needs to end soon. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the best solution would be inviting Arnnon Geshuri to serve Wikimedia movement in another capacity, for instance, as a member of the Advisory Board or as a Board Visitor. Having read emails from Arnnon and Alice I am pretty sure that WMF needs HR experience (nothing new here, this is a known fact) and that Arnnon has the experience to bring to the table, moreover, this situation will likely motivate him to do more for the movement. However, I am not comfortable with him being on the Board and making strategic decisions for our movement. Unfortunately three-week silence from the Board led to this story becoming public in mainstream media including BBC, and this is the point of no return. This means that Arnnon as a trustee may cause distrust not only among community members, but also among partners or donors. I am quite sure that Arnnon should be a good HR advisor, but it would be definitely easier for everybody if Arnnon would share this experience in an advisory capacity instead of being a trustee and making WMF live two years full of drama and distrust — NickK (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per this from Anthere and this from Mindspillage. Google may be Skynet, but the WMF is not and should never be. I have no confidence in the Terminator. Zazpot (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----AniVar (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Order Geshuri to leave "within one hour" Commenter8 (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The heads of some of the most profitable companies in the world colluded to limit their employees' compensation. The collusion was illegal and would have been impossible without enforcement by Mr. Geshuri and others like him. If he knew it was wrong, he was immoral. If he didn't know it was wrong, he was stupid. And I'm afraid that same calculus applies to the rest of the board that thought it would be a good idea to bring him on. Lagrange 613 03:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope for a better world. Lonjers (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jnnnnn (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thunderforge (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appointment of Geshuri is going to bring Wikipedia, no benefit! BotCyborg 05:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The longer he stays the more damage is done.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Emufarmers (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support NaibStilgar (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had been waiting to hear Mr. Geshuri's response to these concerns, and all I can say is that I found it thoroughly disappointing. It's a matter of public record that he played a significant role in an illegal, anti-competitive conspiracy; if he had admitted a mistake and talked sincerely about lessons learned (or even offered a specific, somewhat-convincing defense of his actions), I think I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. But instead, he just wrote about how inspired and thoughtful he is, completely dodging the hard question of integrity. Serving as a trustee requires a strong ethical compass, a willingness to face hard questions, and an ability to recognize one's mistakes. Unfortunately, I have no confidence that Mr. Geshuri has these attributes.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cybbe (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DerekvG (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC) I do not mind having people from a business background on the WMF board, I do object to Mr Geshuri because of his unethical behaviour in the scandal he's involved in, I don't care if he recognises his mistakes, repends for his sins and beg forgiveness. He can get my forgiveness and absolution, but that does not make him a qualified person to sit on the board of WMF, Mr Gehsuri represents the evil side of business, mafia capitalism. His behaviour would make him a suitable candidate for the job of mordern day slave trader that extorts people into prostution and drugs dealers, and creates, sustains and benefits from their forced labor. This person does not have the morals to be part WMF, and ceratinly not sit on its board.[reply]
Support --책읽는달팽 (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Anthere (see above at vote 16) --Wikinade (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Anthere, Seraphimblade. Parody (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Terminate this person within the hour. CasteloBranco^msg 12:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wished the Board to handle this case for itself to proove some lacking integrity. But the last statements make me doubt, that even this obvious mistake can be corrected without pressure from the communities. --Magiers (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Based on what I have learned of the situation, I think this person should not be on the board of the foundation. I think an error was made on his selection process that overlooked a relevant part of his background and the next steps for the board should be to acknowledge it and take the necessary corrective actions by removing him from the board as soon as possible and addressing the problems on the selection process. His willingness to help is appreciated but the current situation indicates his ongoing participation on the board is not in the best interest of the WMF and the movement in general. --Lsanabria (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolute intolerable. --Thomas Glintzer (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all others. -- Shadak (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Brainswiffer (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bunnyfrosch (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contre tout ce qui vient de chez Google ou entreprises du même genre 78.250.113.189 14:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Voting in my personal capacity. I have held off presenting my views here for reasons of good faith. The board almost consists entirely of bright and intelligent people. I had hoped that they would be capable of delivering on the promises that they would do "better" at communicating. It has been frustrating for all involved with the ongoing board practice of issuing statements whether as a whole or individually, that contain little or no substance and often covering old ground. This situation has not changed and the same mistakes are being made.
I do not question that Arnnon brings great knowledge from the realm of HR. However I do not believe the experiences and practices he brings are ones welcome within the Wikimedia movement. It has already been publicly reported that WMF staff confidence in senior leadership is at seriously low levels. This appointment does nothing to improve that and if anything I imagine will make the situation worse. I certainly would not feel comfortable approaching Arnnon about HR issues and that is a fundamental flaw for someone who is meant to be the board specialist for the area.
As conciliatory a tone as Arnnon took in his post to wikimedia-l, it did little to acknowledge the basis for the communities lack of trust. It added nothing to the discussion and fundamentally lacked substance. Due respect should be given that there may be legal constraints on what Arnnon may or may not be able to discuss in public. Unfortunately what the situation needs is honesty and facts and I suspect that cannot be provided. Until that changes he will never be able to shake the cloud that hangs over him in the eyes of the whole Wikimedia movement.
Trust is the most important currency in this movement and is hard earned. Currently the board is already running a large enough deficit with the community and Arnnon does nothing but come with his own mountain of trust debt. Unless he is willing to do something seriously radical to respond to the questions that surround him, his place on the board makes an already difficult situation worse. Unfortunately, his post to wikimedia-l simply sounds like the same spiel that has stirred so much frustration. We need to hear something different and from the evidence thus far, Arnnon is not capable of that. Seddon (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition I would note that problems with the board seem wider then just the Geshuri issue.--Staberinde (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The emails in regard to the anti=poaching agreement and "within the hour" termination of a recruiter who was, wait for it... RECRUITING are devastating. Far too mean-spirited and too arrogant to be on the Board of this organization. The failure to screen the person being considered reflects badly on the Board, as does the foot-dragging and delay in communicating with the community. Would that wholesale changes in management could be achieved. Edison (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support FlashSheridan (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Родион Николаевич Юрьев (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't understand his role or responsibilities in the future. Wikimedia was funded by donations, we have ongoing begging for donations on nearly each page of Wikipedia: thes result is a bureaucratic hydrocephalus with a taste of self-service. 300+ staff members, more and more intransparent, criticized big earners with a hire and fire mentality as candidates (for what?) The community is dead, welcome Google 2.0? RIMOLA (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Discasto (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Writing in my individual, personal, volunteer non-staff, non-wikipedia-library capacity) Per comments made by Kat Walsh, Anthere, Florence, Michael Snow, GayleKaren, Frank Schulenberg, and further supports by MattFlaschen, SarahSV, Ragesoss, Jbmurray, Sandstein, Kosboot, LegoKTM, Jorm, TheWub (do we really need any more evidence???). And adding personally... If such a troubling background were to come up at Requests for Adminship, or Request for Bureaucrat, or an ArbCom or Steward election, there would be no confidence in that candidate. At the least, a full explanation, period of probation, mentorship, and rehabilitation would be required, which is clearly inappropriate or impossible here. There are standards in this community that go far beyond competency: we are a tribe of vigorously independent and critical thinkers. Just following orders, implementing policy from above, or participating in "evolving" (illegal) practices doesn't fly. We expect better of ourselves and demand it of each other. We operate most essentially on trust, transparency, and respect. I do not believe those fundamental elements are in place or achievable in this situation. The presence of Arnnon on the Board further creates an atmosphere of mistrust and fear. I do not think people in the movement want to be working under the threat of being "fired within the hour" for an earnest attempt to improve something or speak out somewhere in a way that inadvertently crosses the lines of some arbitrary or nebulous or unethical or nefarious policy/order. I would request Arnnon quietly step down and take his considerable talents to a community with less of an intense passion for the spirit of the law and the principles of this incredible Movement. Jake Ocaasi (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The project needs idealists with a sense of mission and strong ethics, not entrepreneurs with an expertise in manipulating people. Geshuri may not be a Bad Guy(tm), but his priorities and motivations, as expressed in his personal history and available communication, are not what I want to see at the head of the WMF. Anyone who can be expected to look at WP and think "business empire" has no place there.-- Elmidae (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Someone with his values is a very poor fit working for the common good of all mankind. He should be terminated "within the hour". Brolin (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hyashiona (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Jensibua (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've waited with this vote in the hope that Arnnon Geshuri would resign in time or the board would react fast enough to avoid any further damage to the new board member and the WMF. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Arnnon Geshuri has published a nicely worded message with no real substance as elaborated by Michael Snow. This does not address the issues, inspires no trust, and the damage is done as this is now widely reported by the international press. Arnnon Geshuri, you've surely the expertise and skills the board needs in regard to human resources. But the best skills and intentions do not help if there is no trust. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. Thanks, this was the right decision and honors you! --AFBorchert (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Kein Einstein (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Dyolf77 (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I signed in. Not sure what my entry doesn't look official, but this is really me. -Guy Kawasaki
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]

Note: For the benefit of those not deeply familiar with the Board of Trustees, Guy Kawasaki and Alice Wiegand (username: Lyzzy) are both members of the 10-person Board of Trustees, and were both part of the unanimous decision to appoint Mr. Geshuri. (And, in case relevant, Alice is a member of the WMF Board Governance Committee and the Audit Committee.) -Pete F (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems rather odd. Is there a reason why they don't? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 25 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]
I find it very problematic that someone who is a member of the Board and is making decisions for the community is apparently so unfamiliar with the site that they do not even know how to sign. I hope that this is not the case for the rest of the board but it does help to explain why the board has made so many decisions over the last couple years that were directly against the community they represent, including removing a community elected member and then replacing them with what appears to be a criminal! Reguyla (talk) 00:20, 23 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]

User:Wittylama, the "~~~~" you hate so much is no excuse: He could have clicked the oh-so-very-21st-century toolbar button that shows an iconic signature and has even a tool tip, to the same effect. The problem is that he had no idea that a signature was possible or necessary in a voting discussion such as this: One year at the top of the WMF pyramid and goes around like a 3-day noob. Not so funny when you think that he has power of decision over thousands of volonteers, those who make sure the donations he gets to administrate (administer?) keep flowing in. That’s the problem here, and it reeks indeed with the stench of a century past — the 19th! Tuvalkin (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hesn't not a mediawiki expert, however, He "is a former advisor to the Motorola business unit of Google, chief evangelist of Apple, and the author of twelve books. Kawasaki will provide his unique insights on creating new products for world-class companies and leveraging social media as a platform for promotion.^[5] --The Photographer (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If Mr. Kawasaki feels so strongly about this issue, he is of course entitled to express his opinion here, but this participation should prompt him to recuse on this matter as a board member. Cenarium (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may state the obvious, lacking an explicit statement to the contrary we can presume all of the Trustees are opposed to this RfC. However, unless any Trustee is willing to explain why they are opposed to removing Arnnon Geshuri then it does not help matters for a Trustee to state he/she is opposed without an explanation why. -- 192.55.55.37 18:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Still no reply from Guy Kawasaki. If no board trustee member is willing to talk to the community of people they are supposed to represent, I think we have a problem. Lerichard (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Kawasaki:, you already voted in this case. Now you vote again depending is it OK, what you have voted before. Do you really think, this is democratic? Do you really don't see a problem? Can you not images why such behaviour is one cause of losing the trust in the "Trustees"? Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:58, 26 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]
And I'm concerned that this page have so much publicity. I received a mail about this discussion through a general mailing list, the discussion is report on the main page of the community on wp:en and wp:fr. The discussion had a long text on the village pump of wp:fr ... --Nouill (talk) 08:10, 26 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)~~after unsatifactory comment on Wikipeda-iYger (talk) 12:38, 27 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]
Yes, there is no evidence that he did something wrong. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:17, 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]
He does indeed have some of the experience the board needs, but it isn't about board level or technology company experience (for me, at least). I'm concerned about Arnnon's ethics, ethics which saw him heavily involved in behaviour destructive to many people's careers and ultimately their lives. I expect people on the board to be of the highest moral standing, not just people with generally excellent experience they can bring to the party. The issue of excessive Google involvement naturally concerns me, but that's something that can be dealt with during the natural turnover of board members, with WMF and the board making an explicit agreement with the community to bring in experience from all different corners of the 'technosphere' rather than this pocket of Google and former Google staffers. There are undoubtedly lots more people out there with the same levels of skills and experience as Arnnon, but without the deeply concerning ethical baggage. Please, WMF, find someone more ethical to appoint to the board. Nick (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one, of any ethics nor common sense, should have any confidence in this proposal, which is a one sided public pillorying of a living person. Due diligence requires much more than taking everything written one sees as bad about a person, and then piling on, as if that is all this person is. This vote is neither righteous, nor moral. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note MZMcBride's comment upon my comment but it suggests that they and others misperceive part of the reason this proceeding is highly unethical. There is nothing time sensitive about this, and certainly not time sensitive enough to hold a public pillorying and auto de fe like we have here. This vote is worse than darkly satirical, it is inhumane. No matter anyone's disappointment with the board, ethics and an ethical community begin an end with the people here, and this proceeding is without ethics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alanscottwalker. Do you have suggestions or recommendations for how this should have proceeded? I'm very wary of the process used here, but after the Board of Trustees was publicly asked to respond about this appointment, it chose to sit silent. After a couple of weeks without a response, a vote of no confidence was initiated. While I wouldn't say this matter is time-sensitive, per se, it does seem important to make it clear as early as possible that there are serious disagreements with this appointment. The issues raised here are substantive and significant. If the Board of Trustees chooses not to respond to legitimate questions raised about this appointment, what other options are available to the Wikimedia community? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On January 9, a member of this volunteer board (they are all volunteers) said they were gathering staff and committee reports and would discuss this matter. That is exactly what they have been doing. The board is not in continuous meeting. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on Alanscottwalker, if someone carefully examines the presented "evidence", it is unbalanced written, to advance a single narrow view with the scope to remove someone legally appointed, while only focusing on cherry picked words. He might even meant to be sarcastic. This proposal is another example why you need a board. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I trust the WMF's judgement, and will also note that the community does not have the power to remove board members, only the board does. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google and Tesla guy, the best thing which could happen to Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs people like him to bring new fresh ideas to the table, and foremost the experience. His single action is cherry picked by people who have a grudge for something which happened about 7 yrs ago - and which originated from Apple, and his involvement is plain vague. The vote is silly and shows that people do not value today's realities, where his current company Tesla, offers among the highest wages in the industry.Prokaryotes (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
google and tesla? you are confusing wikipedia, a non-profit-organisation with a lousy profit-organisation. we are much more than only a company, and this is what they really really forgot. do you have any visions of what free knowledge for everybody means? the board isn't interested any more, they only care for their jobs, their health care, their money: i think they sold their soul for money. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is Wikipedia not free knowledge? And what does this have to do with Google or Tesla? Google = free and among the best platforms for anybody, really anybody to make money through adsense, or based on the accessible content, or Tesla made all their patents free... Prokaryotes (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
a free patent does not mean the dissemination of knowledge within the meaning of wikipedia. to act like google or tesla is a throwback, not a progress. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again vagueness, and basically off topic. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Woher kenne ich nur diese Nicht-Argumentation? Hey, i know this kind of argumentation, i am long enuff wikipedian, and i say: they are not wikipedians, they even are not wikimedians. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prokaryotes:I'm wondering why a motor brand can affect you. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always when somebody speaks of "today's reality" which aren't properly seen by others, but by him and his posse, I become veeery critical. Arguing this way makes the Google way the God way which has not to be questioned. Success as a search engine doesn't mean that the way of thinking presented by the Silicon Valley group is automatically the best way for Wikimedia/Wikipedia. An encylopedia stand for the idea of knowledge, and knowledge is much more than a database full of information. Bringing free knowledge to the people isn't primarily a technical challenge, but a sociocultural challenge. And I'm quite sure for that Wikimedia needs more than some data believers from Silicon Valley. --Jensbest (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This incident underscores that the Board of Trustee is undermined by a lack of competence and a lack of diversity. (1) The Board is incompetent in matter of recruitment and public relations. As Arnnon Geshuri appears to be the only one having expertise in the domain, the solution cannot be to fire him. (2) The Board is incompetent in matter of relationship with the so-called community of volunteers. As this alleged competence was the reason for taking aBoard James Heilman, Dariusz Jemielniak and Denny Vrandečić, these three Trustees have to be fired out (one is already ousted, the other two should follow).
By the way, https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/081323.html recalls us that, when recruiting someone to an exposed position, it is better to ask the following question: is there anything in your past that may be perceived as controversial, or require additional explanations? Perhaps someone among the supporters should ask this question to User:Fae... Pldx1 (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. No. No. Only: i am working too much for Wikipedia, without being paid. Let me throw the first stone. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His comments reminds me of the time when wikileaks dropped a bombshell when they released those private information on the US Government and to save face, the government decided to point the finger at the wikileaks founder (Julian Assange) by trying to discredit him instead of trying to defend their actions ...--Ste moc 02:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me throw the first stone is a great description of what is happening here. Pldx1 (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- --ChristophThomas (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I was not consulted before this lynching began. Even if there are merits to removing this person from the board, the self-interested actions of those doing the opposing are presently far more repulsive to good decision-making and governance. Magic5ball (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I am breaking my eight year silence as a former Wikimedian to oppose this proposal because it is insufficiently broad. It is insufficient to show a lack of confidence in Mr. Geshuri, and removing him will not resolve the fundamental problem. Indeed, the entire Board should be removed for making such an ill-considered appointment, the unsuitability of which would have been discovered by even cursory due diligence. As such, I cannot support this proposal until it is amended to add, at a minimum, every member of the Board, or at least all those whose appointment is other than by open election by the community. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I support this proposal I also suggested that the entire board be fired, including Jimbo and started over. Given their history over the last few years the community needs to show them that the community is a part of the team and they cannot do whatever they want from on the protection of the board room. Reguyla (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I see no problem with this appointment Jon513 (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This seems to be a great appointment: He's competent, experienced, and trustworthy. Agree with others that the appointment improves the Wikipedia board, and that the complaints against him appear vexatious, and motivated by interests other than those of wikipedia. I think it's sad in general if people coming to positions like this have to fear attack like this. Tim bates (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It seems to me like this is unwarranted, given that his position as a board member has no correlation with past spilled milk. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Are we to assume we live in a society where no forgiveness is ever given? Pathetic. NicatronTg (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Public positions like being on a non-profit foundation's board require more than 'he didn't actually go to jail for anything'. He was in the middle of a fairly major tech scandal, which was in fact proven to be illegal. The Wikimedia Foundation should be holding itself to higher standards. Safrolic (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

until proven guilty? gone with the wind. gone with shown he is guilty. how many chances do you wanna give any-, really anybody to show one is guilty? --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although you'll find words like "guilty" in some of the support votes, and you may find that some of those votes are attacks, please note that such things do not appear in the proposal itself. If you take issue with certain individuals' words, that's fine; but please do not make the mistake of generalizing those words, and assuming all supporters ascribe guilt, wish to attack, etc. This is a vote intended to express the level of confidence community members feel in Mr. Geshuri as a Trustee -- nothing more. Please reread the original proposal again carefully if this seems surprising. -Pete F (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. Anyone who has been on this project for more more than a few minutes knew it would turn into the public pillorying it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's a pillory? Wow. Perhaps you will not be persuaded, Alan, but for anyone following along: by far the most heavily-cited Support vote is from past Board Chair Anthere, whose email goes to great lengths to express compassion and understanding for all involved. She also cited more recent Board Chair Mindspillage, who did so as well. Stating that I do not trust a trustee does not amount to participation in a pillory party. You can repeat it all you like, but that will not make it true. -Pete F (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a public pillory? Because you have held someone up in public to pillory him. (As you should well know, it's a common English figurative phrase, and not an actual pillory. So, your link to that article on the thing, instead of say, a modern dictionary, appears to be intentionally misleading). Anthere was clear that she is participating in this, solely because she was disappointed in the slowness of the board, which no matter how sorrowful one is to do it, is still participating in a internet ridicule party of a person because you are disappointed in an organization for not moving as fast as you like. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But in the same time, the proposerof this page said thing like that : [4] ... --Nouill (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted Jimmy Wales. His bullying and offensive language is worse that anything allowed to be posted here and it is a highly relevant quote as it gives an insight into whether the current board of trustees is a body we can look to for leadership. --Fæ (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His deflecting and patronizing, imo,response is not the response of someone pilloried, its the response of someone who is staying, whether wanted or not, and just has a "longer journey" before them. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This petition illustrates one of the key flaws in Wikipedia's Utopian model. Whenever collaboration is needed there is almost always disagreement, conflict and drama. The group that shows up for each specific issue forms a lynch mob around a specified event and searches for scapegoat on which it can inflict its anger. Only when someone is properly crucified does the mob feel satisfied and relax back into random disorganization. It's an ongoing, repetitive pattern and until it stops, the quantity and quality of volunteers at the English Wikipedia will continue to decline and the back log of errors, incomplete and inaccurate content will continue to flourish. The house is burning and we'd rather argue than put out the fire. We are a 'community' completely lacking in organization, foresight and/or human resource management.--Keithbob (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no one need apologise for refusing to follow an unconstitutional, unjust and immoral law. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 02:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one needs to follow unconstitutional, unjust and immoral orders by their superiors, and that's what Arnnon did here. Fire within the hour is only valid for someone, who stole company stuff or such. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 06:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

en:Sherman Antitrust Act#Criticism. Or sarcasm. Hard to tell. —Ruud 12:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i have no confidence in this community to give governance guidance to anyone. Slowking4 (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The actions stated aren't relevant to this position. Further, sticking to deals made across industry by heads of the respective companies is hardly a breach of integrity; more, a direct display of it! Leondz (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the substance of the deal is to steal from employees? How malicious does a deal have to be before you see it as bad for one's integrity? Lagrange 613 17:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody else thinking of Superior orders? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 17:07, 27 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]

"as Andreas laid out in his recent article profiting off the site's free content" Wikimedia makes knowledge freely available by anyone, for any purpose. It is not compulsory to share these values—you're not being forced to contribute—but those who oppose open & free knowledge are wasting their time if they think they can change this fundamental goal of Wikipedia.

"a charitable organization cannot be operated for the benefit of an individual or corporation" If a charity does not benefit any individuals or organisations, then it is literally of no benefit. Maybe you meant that a charity cannot be operated for the exclusive benefit, but then where is even the suggestion, never mind the evidence, that the Wikimedia Foundation is being run for the exclusive benefit of a for-profit company? MartinPoulter (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the IRS states regarding 501(c)(3) organizations:

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual . . . The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

In other words, it need not be an exclusive benefit and no law enforcement authority, certainly not the IRS, is known to be particularly gracious with regards to its interpretation of the law.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate: You take that to mean that 501(c)(3) status is incompatible with building and sharing free and open knowledge? If you're serious, then go ahead and raise a complaint to the IRS, citing "Wikipedia is Free" (one of the Five Pillars) and the licensing statements of all the Wikimedia projects. If this is something legally actionable, then the authorities have no shortage of evidence to act on. Do the same for Creative Commons and every other open knowledge project that has 501(c)(3) status. If you're not serious, then please find another place for these comments. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:03, 28 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]

I think you misremember, Marcus. As far as I can tell, no one at WMF ever said that. Ijon (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think, they think so, we are only useful idiots. We are generating the content and the Board is living from our work. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question has additional obvious application: what financial stipend does the WMF Board receive? Jusdafax 16:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Board members can get expenses paid for meetings related to the WMF. When I was on the board I paid all my own travel, accommodation, and meal expenses however this was a personal position. I think Jimmy also does but am not sure and am additionally not sure about the rest of the board. Page 8 here has compensation for all board members at zero. Not sure if the amounts spent on travel is listed anywhere. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Thanks, Doc. Jusdafax 01:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whoever is working in the interest of the community and has my confidence will also have my money. A great board my meet at Wolfgangs at our expense, so what? -- Andreas Werle (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe this is the problem of the board? that they are NOT paid? Nobody like to work for less. Only Wikipedians. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you are all heros and half gods working very hard without getting paid (like half the population of this planet raisng children cooking meals and cleaning stuff not getting paid either)--ChristophThomas (talk) 23:16, 25 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]

Wikipedia should accept funding and pay regular editors a salary, The Wikipedia Basic Income policy should commence. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree with paying editors. This place was built by volunteers. Too late to start paying people now, and impossible to go back and pay those who worked hard in the first place. Jus da fax 16:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's shocking to see such a suggestion being made. Unlike governance, in which the exact opposite to the following should apply, the only people editing wikipedia should be those who are intrinsically motivated. From the slightest to the most prolific, all should edit under the same conditions. FleetingJoy (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that was tongue in cheek Prokaryotes? Made me chuckle anyhow :-) Tim bates (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. The WMF has been accepting millions from Google for years. That must stop. Jus da fax 16:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is really no reason to not pay editors. The argument from above, because they did not pay in the past is silly, The problem with editor pay would be distribution, controlling (quality, amount of contribution, not just vandalism etc). Maybe a community vote could decide who gets paid. This would be very interesting. I guess content would exponential increase, as well as quality. Currently the only editors who get paid, are paid editors, many not disclosing it. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is related to Conflict_of_interest. What has happened with payment in the Debian community illustrate the fact that paying editorial (in that case programming) work on the project is better left to third parties. Quote from a LTS funding project: "Paying Debian developers with Debian money is still a no-go, the last time it was attempted, it generated quite some dissent (see this article)." This LTS project is paying Debian developer with a company outside Debian.--Rougieux (talk) 08:45, 27 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]

Unfortunately the WMF board does not make public a future schedule of meetings or calls, it is unclear why that is a good thing for transparency or simple logistics—perhaps this is why it is difficult for trustees or supporting employees to book cheaper flights.

You can find meetings listed at wmf:Meetings with the last minutes (November) stating "near the end of January or beginning of February" as the next meeting. Unfortunately the (unplanned) December meeting has yet to be published, presuming that the resolution to appoint Geshuri was at a minuted meeting. It would be surprising if the majority of trustees did not believe that this fundamental governance problem did not warrant an unplanned call before the in-person meeting, considering that the decision to appoint Geshuri was back on 9th December 2015, 44 days ago. As there is published evidence that some trustees knew about Geshuri's key role in the Google scandal during his time on Google's board, and others did not when they appointed him to the board, this naturally is seen by the public as a fundamental failure for WMF trustees to either communicate or govern themselves professionally. --Fæ (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the Board plans an in-person meeting, not a voice call. This might take time to schedule (thus an imprecise data does not suprise me), and it may perfectly happen that some board members are not immediately available. Of course I would prefer an immediate answer but I would accept waiting till the next meeting — NickK (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the board can wring their hands in private for several days or weeks before giving a meaningful answer to the questions the community has raised over the last two weeks, such as who recommended Geshuri to the board. They are also free to respond more quickly by holding a ten minute call to vote Geshuri out if he has chosen to not resign, or agree an immediate public statement if they recognize this is a critical governance issue and a communications disaster. However, being prepared to wait for several more weeks while the board and Geshuri consult lawyers and PR specialists (or whatever they are up to) now puts you in the minority. The Wikimedia community's views about the basic competence of the current board of trustees to govern themselves, or ethically take direct personal responsibility for hundreds of millions of dollars in budgets and reserves, is becoming firmly entrenched while we speak, and it will be increasingly tough to turn around without seeing several major changes to the board and their non-transparent behaviour at the "top" of our collegiate movement; a community which claims to put openness, accountability and transparency at the core of everything we do. --Fæ (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given past actions by the board my guess is they are just buying time and hoping this thing blows over. I think its also going to take a lot more votes than what we have to force the boards hand into picking a decent board member or better yet, allowing the community to choose the member rather than replace a community elected position with one that was not chosen by the community. Again, just my opinion here, but this seems to be a deliberate powerplay on the part of the board to reduce the number of elected community seats and shift power away from the community. Reguyla (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with superprotect it took them over a year after they (both board and WMF) spat the community in the face, until they removed without any apology for their misdeeds a tiny piece of software, that should never have been deployed at all, at least in a morally intact WMF and board. Up to now absolutely nothing in terms of content has been said about either the Doc James removal or the crook appointment. They have lost contact with the communities and obviously don't even have a desire to get some back.

There is absolutely no excuse for this long silence in such alarming circumstances. But there was absolute no reaction at all towards the 1000 community members, that signed the letter in regard of MV/superprotect, why should we expect any reaction here? Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair there has literally been reaction, after all two current board members wrote on this page in the first 24 hours of it being created, and the Chairman was suddenly moved to reply to my private email from two weeks ago. So there are reactions, but what is needed is credible remedial action and preventative action.

Actions that might be necessary and sufficient would be a frank public statement explaining why Geshuri, along with the trustee that showed a personal judgment failure by recommending him, have chosen to step forward and resign, plus commitment from the remaining trustees to empower an independent governance review with recommendations for board structure and process improvements by the end of March 2016. --Fæ (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Fae, but does it look healthy to you that for example your email just gets a response after the public pressure that a running vote of no confidence puts? Does it look healthy to you that the reaction of one board memeber comes so fast that the first "oppose" is by him (with obviously not much thinking paid on questions like if this is a good idea to make this signature as board member in this context)? To be fair: The board who governs our movement doesn't feel the obligation to be transparent to us. To be fair: The board of the foundation that always is in for some lofty words about diversity does nothing to enforce this on itself. To be fair ... I could continue. I have no words for how disappointed and desillusened this organization leaves me after ten years of being a volunteer. --Julius1990 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julius, I agree the WMF board is not healthy right now and needs advice and lifestyle changes to get fit again. This thread is getting too long and a bit ranty, so my reply here to a direct question from my collegiate friend Ziko, is more useful for you and others if you are interested in my perspective. --Fæ (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be clear that things do not work that way and buying time would not help at all. Superprotect was an action of an employee, not an action of the Board. Appointment of Arnnon Geshuri was an action of the Board, and we do want the Board itself to take action. Had they issued a quick statement, it would have calmed down the situation, and we would have forgotten the issue by this time. A late statement would be still OK, as that would mean that the Board indeed takes community feedback into account, although may need some time to answer. However, lack of any statement is definitely the worst: this would deepen the distrust between the community and the Board, as this would mean that Board simply failed to address a serious issue raised by the community. I do hope that trustees have common sense and want to avoid this — NickK (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We still shouldn't be speculating as to a response. If a meeting is scheduled, we need to hear "We will be discussing this in a meeting on _________. Following that, you can expect our statement by _________." In that case, it's entirely reasonable that we wait until that date. But the total silence, and no commitment to provide answers, isn't acceptable. Seraphimblade (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how I look at this. The board cast out a community elected member and then replaced that position with one that they selected and that individual was not only a google employee, but also had an extremely negative history. In my opinion, this vote of no confidence should extend to the entire board including Jimbo. The community needs to send a clear message that the board doesn't just support the WMF, they also support the community. I also agree, a meeting should occur quickly (like in a period of hours or days) and they should clearly tell us, the community clear details as Seraphimblade suggests. Reguyla (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Reguyla, but that is simply not true. As you can read on various places, these two are totally separate. Actually the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri took place before James Heilman was removed, and they occupied totally different seats. The seat of James is still empty, and will be filled in coordination with the elections committee. If you want to send a message to the board, to jimmy or to anyone - please do. But don't muddle discussions with untruths. Effeietsanders (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you're right, those are separate actions. But of course they show the same mindset of removal from the core values and the communities within the Board. One of the best legitimized members was removed for dubious reasons, not been made public until now, and a disgraced member, that has proven not to have a high moral standard, has been appointed at nearly the same time. Thus de facto a valid member was removed without valid reason, and a unsuitable, and far less validated member was appointed. He was not a direct replacement, but he was part of a pattern. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 10:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget about Guy Kawalski who apparently doesn't even know enough about the project to sign their posts, who is in a position to make decisions that affect the entire community they they apparently know nothing about. Then we have Jimbo, who does absolutely nothing on the project except pontificate eventhough he has long had the ability of actual interaction and helping, etc. Then you have a board that unanimously ejected a well trusted member that was selected by the community and unanimously selected the member this discussion is based on. This board needs to be dissolved and we need to start over...but I am content with showing them that we aren't going to just stand aside while they make decisions like this that are not in the best interests of the movement, the project or the foundation. Reguyla (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last month or so leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, and given others' comments above on issues dating back still further, I now support community investigation of the WMF Board. Deeper scrutiny will hopefully be welcomed by board members, under the circumstances. If not, if they "dig in," then yes, a motion of No Confidence should be considered for the WMF Board as a whole, and I welcome discussion of board functions, philosophy and governance. It's time for transparency and accountability, and the community discontent and requests for information and possibly far-reaching change can hardly be considered surprising or unreasonable, given the events of past weeks. The vacant seat should not be appointed by this Board, that seems clear. I also feel everything up to and including "firing" the entire WMF Board should be under discussion by the community, especially if they fail to remove Geshuri in the face of clear-cut overwhelming community rejection. His position should also be filled by community. That's called democracy. We need more. Jus da fax 17:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support Lodewijk's reasoning and I am not yet prepared to vote support or oppose.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those comments Lodewijk. I feel similar, but additionally, this vote 'scares' me a bit. That I have to consider it at all right now, even though my gut tells me that it's not the appropriate setting. It feels 'witch hunt'y and I'm worried that by not voting, I might be unable to stop the burning of a possibly innocent man, and that by voting I would legitimize a mock trial that will unavoidably still lead to the burning of a possibly innocent man. This mob mentality I'm seeing, although understandable in its origins, is increasingly worrying me as someone who loves our projects, it worries me at LEAST as much as the functioning of the board does. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheDJ: Please accept that votes of no confidence are also given by people who love our projects. They are not a mob but a majority with serious concerns. I and a lot of others have voted "per Anthere", who gave a balanced view of the situation, very far from burning anybody, neither mr. Geshuri nor the BoT as a whole. A loss of confidence vote is not a trial, much less a mock one. The community had/has confidence in James according to the votes he received, while it shows here that mr. Geshuri does not have it, and the serious concerns are that the former is no longer in the BoT while the latter still is. --Sir48 (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from trustee Alice Wiegand

Comments from trustee Alice Wiegand on appointment of Arnnon Geshuri

Can we get this in English please!. Reguyla (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She explicitly wrote it in German, because the translation of Schweigen (lit. silence) was not with enough other meanings for her. So don't expect the subtleties with any translation. BTW: I think it's quite arrogant of the english crowd to expect everything to be spoon-fed to them Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 20:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I at first also wondered why Wiegand's comments were only shown in German. But then I clicked through to the original blog post and saw that Peteforsyth requested it be reposted here specifically so that other Wikipedians could see and translate it. Assume Good Faith as they say. :-) Regardless, this was a good reminder to this US-American that Wikimedia/Wikipedia is a global project. I used Google Translate to get the gist of the post, as I only studied German for one year over 20 years ago, but regardless I'm sure I'm missing many subtleties. Funcrunch (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect Sanger it has nothing to do with arrogance, but of a global understanding. Far more people speak English than German and that's not a matter of arrogance but of fact. I can read German to about a 4th grade level and google translate apparently to about the 6th grade so although I did get the gist of the translation, many others would not and I thought, for the sake of the wider audience, it might be useful. I do also wonder why another member of the board apparently does not have enough understanding of the projects to leave it here themselves. As I said above, I do not expect the board members to be experts nor even participate actively, but they should at least know enough about the projects they are making decisions for that they should have an account and be able to sign comments properly. This makes the 2nd board member in 48 hours that cannot even sign in to leave a comment. That does not look good on the board. Just my opinion of course. Reguyla (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look up near the top of the Oppose section, Alice Wiegand did post and sign an unrelated comment earlier. (I'm not defending the Board in general or the appointment at issue, BTW, just pointing this out.) Funcrunch (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. My apologies and I struck out my comment regarding not leaving her own comment. Reguyla (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be lovely if someone could translate Alice's post; I read it via google translate and it looked very insightful, though I'm sure I've missed things. However, I agree thoroughly with Funcrunch that it's a useful reminder to us native speakers of English that not everything happens in English, and that many people are effectively excluded from English-language debates. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished a quick'n'dirty translation of Alice's blog post here. Don't hit her for a weak translation, that's mine. Anybody with better bilingualism: please improve it! Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 22:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sänger! Reguyla (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed helping to translate Alice's piece into English, especially where she raises the vision of a future where the board of trustees and the communities can have "civilised discussions even when controversial". However this evening I was overcome by irony when pointed to current WMF trustee Jimmy Wales' petulant rant against our respected colleague, and previous WMF trustee James Heilman, while at the same time he is responding on the same page to questions about the impact of this vote of no confidence:

"James has made a lot of noise about why he was dismissed which is utter and complete bullshit. He wrote a nice piece for the Signpost about transparency which implied that the board got rid of him for wanting more transparency. Utter fucking bullshit." diff (emphasis mine).

While the WMF board is being embarrassed by one of its trustees behaving like a teenage troll swearing with his locker-room mates, there is little chance of building bridges. When the current trustees discuss how to improve themselves, I urge them not be so polite and respectful of each other that they never discuss how to change Jimmy's role as a voting trustee, so that at least he will be quoted by the press as an amusing internet celebrity/pundit who happens to be a founder of this exciting project, rather than as an official default voice of the WMF and our community. --Fæ (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the Board extended the term of the Founder's Seat from two to three years in July 2015, and renewed that three year term in November 2015. -Pete F (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried warning everyone of the dangers of this, since early 2007, when I saw how the Board had been constructed by Jimbo to be 60% Wikia-centric. Few people listened. They were quick to assure me (and themselves) that such a self-dealing arrangement was only coincidental at best, and benign at worst. It may be too soon to say "I told you so", but I think in 1 or 2 more years, it will be decisive. - Thekohser (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter and Wikimedia are in Google domain

Right now was announced the dismissal of the senior executive management of Twitter. The replacement appointed is Omid Kordestani, ex-executive from Google and wrapped in the same scandal with Arnnon Geshuri.^[6] Perhaps what we are seeing is only the tip of the iceberg --The Photographer (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ex-(Executive-)Googlers are EVERYWHERE in the SF bay area. it's one of the biggest employers after public services and Disney (if i'm not mistaken) and one of the oldest existing Internet companies around. Like all corners of society, the same people tend to pop up when niche-expertise (Internet-tech is still 'a different beast') is required. Yes, it's one big carousel, and yes Google's size and tenure make up a very big part of that carousel. You can say that the "Larger Bay Area-tech mentality" is unhealthy in the global scope, but to argue everyone is in bed with Google is rly giving Google way too much credit, or if you will too little credit to the stupidity of groupthink amongst individuals. Let's try to stay on topic instead of going to Roswell. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call Rosweell this issue is like tell that mediawiki is a community project. Ridicule my comment using generic Roswell and Disney fallacies could be nice, however, the preceding facts and the evidence is very strong about the pressure from big companies to Wikipedia control. --The Photographer (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adviser or visitor

Above, User:NickK says, "In my view, the best solution would be inviting Arnnon Geshuri to serve the Wikimedia movement in another capacity, for instance, as a member of the Advisory Board or as a Board Visitor." I agree. There seems to be general agreement that Arnnon is eminently fit to oversee WMF's procurement and nurturing of staff. The problems with our board don't stop with Arnnon, though.

Denny and Kelly have incredibly valuable expertise to bring to the board but Kelly has no expertise useful in guiding the overall direction of this movement, and, while he is being paid by Google, Denny has a fatal financial conflict of interest. Both would be better positioned as advisers or visitors. Guy seems like an odd choice. Do we really need a marketing executive on the board?

Jimmy Wales has no expertise of any relevance to bring to the movement. I see he's made a place for himself on the board that will manage WMF's endowment fund. Ridiculous. Why are we stuck with this man? He didn't make Wikipedia. We did. He only "gave it away" when he realised the community wouldn't let him sell advertising. And he "gave it away" to an entity whose board he has a permanent seat on. Wales brings nothing, nothing to the table. All he does is take glory for our work and big fat speaker's fees. Why does Jimmy get to appoint himself to the board and name himself our spokesperson? The next RfC should be on the role, and usefulness, of Jimmy Wales.

Voting trustees should have deep knowledge and experience in such fields as epistemology, volunteer-driven non-profits, and education. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denny was elected by the community to be a full member of the board because we trust him to make decisions on behalf of the movement, regardless of his employment. (He was already working at Google before the election, and included this information in his candidacy presentation.) Jimmy Wales is actually quite well respected throughout Wikimedia, and I strongly suspect his position on the board is well supported by the community. The members appointed by the board are there primarily for their expertise, are frequently previously active and respected Wikimedians, and are able to help guide the WMF using their particular skills. I have no idea why you would want board members to specifically have expertise in epistemology.

Regarding Arnnon Geshuri, I agree that if he is removed from the board, it could be beneficial to invite him to serve in another capacity on the Advisory Board or similar. --Yair rand (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding epistemology, it would be good to have someone who knows a bit about the nature of knowledge setting the goals for a foundation whose vision is of "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." A lot of people deeply involved in this movement have a problem distinguishing knowledge from unreliable assertions.

Regarding, "I strongly suspect his [Jimmy's] position on the board is well supported by the community", the only way to know that would be by submitting his seat to the community's vote. I prefer to know things than "strongly suspect" them.

As for the rest, thank you for your opinion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that that I am not against appointing experts to the Board, my reasoning applies only to controversial cases like this one. Having diverse profiles on the Board is generally a good idea, and an HR expert should be a good choice in current circumstances. However, as the story went to media I do not believe we can continue as if nothing happened, hence my suggestion. This reasoning cannot apply to Kelly and especially to Denny — NickK (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Nick, while the WMF needs board-level expert oversight of its finances, HR and no doubt other areas of its work, that technical expertise can be provided by a long term non-voting advisory board. We have a limited number of voting trustees. The affiliates and the community throw up well-respected voting trustees with a lot of chapter and project experience, but we're not getting the diversity or range of experience we need from them. When it comes to selecting voting members - who will decide the vision and long-term goals of the organisation - the board needs to choose people with deep expertise in education, knowledge, volunteer-led nonprofit governance and third world knowledge-distribution issues. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we would need people with both expertise in a particular field and education/knowledge/nonprofit experience. I cannot say if Kelly (whose Board profile suggests she has nonprofit experience) was the best candidate as I don't know names of other candidates, but I do not see why we should question Kelly's presence on the Board. Your comment would be more relevant to a discussion on Board composition and election/selection process but I would prefer having this discussion once the controvercy surrounding Arnnon's appointment is resolved — NickK (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue

There is another issue that Geshuri's involvement in the Google scandal has overshadowed. Have a look at Geshuri's profile on LinkedIn, & examine what are his skills & expertise. The answer is as obvious as it is depressing:

The man is from HR!

While this may mean nothing to readers outside of the US, the letters "HR" (aka Human Resources) should say it all about this man. Based on my experience, as well as others, HR is the dumping grounds for people who can't for various reasons be fired, yet are too incompetent to be entrusted with any responsibilities. (And as bad as Brits will argue their version of Human Resources is, believe me when I say ours is much worse.) While I admit there have been exceptions, my usual interaction with anyone from HR is the initial orientation on the first day of a new job & whenever I have a question about benefits or filing out a form their telling me that I need to speak to someone else. Books about conducting a successful new job search routinely explain that getting one involves treating HR as a barrier between the applicant & the hiring manager -- you find a way around HR. And the horror stories are endless of employees turning to HR for help with a job situation, only to find HR betrayed the employee & sided with management even if the issue was that a manager was breaking the law.

In short, anyone with only HR experience has nothing to offer the Wikimedia movement. Unless the Foundation is considering requiring all volunteers to fill out a job application & submit to a background check before we make edits. Or maybe offering us all benefits similar to what employees in many Silicon Valley companies have, such as free meals, concierge services, or fitness gym memberships.

Now I did say there were exceptions. And I did perform due diligence (unlike the Board of Trustees) to see if maybe Geshuri is one of those exceptions. I found nothing. What motivated me into making this statement was reading his email to Wikimedia-L, offering his apologia pro vita sua, in which he says nothing. Nothing about what he can bring to the movement, the Foundation, or even to the profession of HR. Well, he does say "trust me", which has interesting connotations. And which HR is always telling employees whenever they report an incompetent boss is screwing up managing people or handling responsibilities from above.

I'll stop here. Either you share my misgivings & want him gone posthaste, or you don't.

It's not that hard to believe that there are countless better candidates out there for the Board of Trustees than Arnnon Geshuri, & not only should he either resign or be removed from the Board, but so should the person who suggested him as a possible candidate. -- Llywrch (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. There are some strange community member round here who are not familiar with every single two-letter combination in English. And after reading your comment and doing tiny research here, I'm still not sure if HR stands for Croatia, heart rate or human rights. Thanks for further hints. → «« Man77 »» ^[de] 19:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. Fixed. -- Llywrch (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antitrust law

Ruud;good info. Monopolies and oligopolies have been considered "Un-American" for 125 years. The Supreme Court explained the Sherman Antitrust Act like this: "The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself."This is taught in all business schools so the leaders of most Silicon Valley companies with any business education, like Eric Schmidt are well acquainted with not only the letter of the law but the morality behind it. The monopolies got so bad before the law that cattlemen who were not in the good graces of Railroad monopolies could not even get their cattle to market.For today's silicon valley celebrities to not only engage in oligopoly activities but to frame them as "capitalism" that they are proud of, is an insult to the intelligence of the people who are ripped off by such market manipulations and such activities are, indeed, inherently criminal and have been so for 125 years, which is why the Department of Justice got involved in this Human Resources' manipulation, I think. The arrogance behind these type of activities seems grounded in the belief that the shareholders and public will be the only ones to pay for the illegal activities they embrace with such puffed out chests, while they go forward from company to company with pay raises at each stop and the reputation of being a tough guy capitalist. I think and hope they are pushing their luck in 2016.Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Press

Footnotes

[1] ttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Pledge_of_personal_commitment

[2] ttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Values

[3] ttps://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Appointing_Arnnon_Geshuri_as_Board_Member

[4] ttp://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/667467

[5] ttp://www.avid.com/us/press-room/avidconnect

[6] ttp://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/23/google-shareholders-miffed-over-wage-fight.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]