The Signpost

Arnnon Geshuri
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

  • Well done. Thanks for the timely and appropriate resignation and best wishes. I hope you will use your skills and aptitudes for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What about making the following suggestion to all the San Francisco big ones: "Maybe, you should phone all these discontent employees, and see if they are recruitable". A recent poll in the Wikimedia circles described this practice as highly commendable. Uncomfortably, this would left open the question of what to do if some of them have never been phoned ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Blame the employees": Brilliant move! Strange the Board nor Google thought of this escape — or didn't they? -DePiep (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I appreciate this decision. - Hopefully this event triggers the reshaping of WMF as a membership organisation [1]. --MBq (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • re: The Board has indicated that you were appointed for your expertise in human resources. - For me it indicates that WMF lost its major purpose and started evolving according to Parkinson's Law. Forget Wikipedia. To manage WMF staff is vital and HR skills are vital. I am wondering, if WMF non-software staff takes a half-year hiatus, will Wikipedia collapse? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "I googled his name, I saw that he had been at google" We've read before about Jimbo and his "googling" for people and what that leads to. Clearly, the next non-binding petition at Meta ought to be asking for Jimbo to leave, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It would never had happened if WMF had a policy of asking wikipedia community to write a detailed bio for pre-selected members. Wikipedia is very efficient. They should know. Jul~frwiki (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Or, just putting candidates before the community for scrutiny, rather than the current super-sekrit closed-door model where we don't even know who nominated Geshuri to the board. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]





       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0