Hello, I would also prefer to avoid an expression such as "fiasco". Having not found a candidate in 2013 was unpleasant, unfortunate, undesirable...
Kind regards Ziko Am Dienstag, 21. Januar 2014 schrieb Jan-Bart de Vreede : > 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]<javascript:;>> > 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] <javascript:;> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;> > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] <javascript:;> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;> > ?subject=unsubscribe> -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Ziko van Dijk voorzitter / president Wikimedia Nederland Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht http://wikimedia.nl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
