Hey Frederico I will write an update for the meta page in the coming week or so but just to give you a general sense of where we are at: we are trying to reach potential candidates in a different way, and so far that looks like a good strategy. This means more direct contact between the Foundation and candidates and more pro-actively reaching out to people who initially showed no interest.
There is no scientific way to make the trade-off between characteristics/skills of candidates. We might very well choose to ignore an important characteristic if all the others fall into place. And it is of course easier to make a trade-off on less significant characteristics and skills. The decision to look for more candidates rather than make a choice in December was not an easy one, but we were not willing to go for a candidate who was missing too many of our desired characteristics/skills. This is something that the transition team does, and its not something that translates well to a table on meta. I am not sure what you are referring to as “avoid another fiasco”, but as far as I am concerned we are simply in a stage of finding new candidates and trying to surface the candidate that is up to the challenge and opportunity that we as a unique movement have to offer. This was always an option, and we would have liked to have found someone in the first round, but it wasn’t to be. Jan-Bart de Vreede On 18 Jan 2014, at 11:08, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know what to think about a final community consultation on a specific > name. Personally I suspect that I wouldn't be able to say anything about it, > as with > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Executive_Director_Transition_Team/Update_9_December>. > Speaking of which, I wonder how the problems there were addressed: > apparently they just expanded the search and reduced the number of people > participating, but I see no answers to the question: «Have we been looking > for a unicorn -- somebody who doesn't exist in the real world? [...] too > insular? [...] unfairly comparing [...]?». > If an answer was found, I'd like to know it. To me that only looked > like a rhetorical question, because of course I have no idea what exact > criteria/questions/interview practices are being applied or if unfair > comparisons were made. To avoid another fiasco, it would probably be useful > to publish on Meta an anonymised table of candidates, pointing out strengths > and weaknesses in a single line for each. Then one could say «oh, look, > "criterion" 175 made 12 otherwise awesome candidates "fail", do we really > need it?». > > Nemo > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
