I understand your reasoning, but we already have an extremely difficult time finding a suitable candidate. While such community vetting would definitely weed out the people we don't want, it will also slim down the pool we do want, which currently sits around a cool 0. I don't think we can afford that either. On Feb 1, 2014 4:47 PM, "Todd Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm sure dismissively calling people's legitimate concerns "playing with > (a) toy" will help greatly in that regard. > > If someone's going to apply for a job where they'll be scrutinized by a > large volunteer community, it is not unreasonable to determine if they can > withstand that type of scrutiny by a real world test, nor to find whether > they'll be responsive and direct to concerns brought up when that happens. > The community has had enough of "diplomatic" null statements with lots of > words, and should be. Someone needs to give an answer, not just blather on > and wind up saying nothing concrete at all. > > It is right for the community to be fed up with that and demand that a > candidate go through that process. Yes, it would be hard. Yes, it would > discourage some applicants. Those are the applicants we want to discourage. > We want someone who fits well with our particular project, and who will be > responsive and direct with our volunteer community. They are the > underpinnings of every project WMF undertakes. > > Todd Allen > > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Tony Souter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Folks: are we still playing with this toy? > > > > I've sat here and watched this discourse - variously frivolous, slightly > > insulting, and embarrassing - and said nothing in the hope it would just > > fizzle away. > > > > But amazingly, it's still here. > > > > We have to accept that while crowdsourcing is the genius of Wikipedia and > > a few of its sister projects, it's totally inappropriate for choosing the > > executive director of a big, prominent Foundation that lives in a > > competitive, complex, and often negative jungle. There's a bunch of > reasons > > for doing this largely away from the gaze of the rest of the world. Do I > > really need to spell them out? > > > > It would be good to move on to more useful and practical topics. > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 02/02/2014, at 1:32 AM, Benjamin Lees <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 3:29 AM, ENWP Pine <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Chad, I wonder if Rory has been considered. (: > > >> > > >> > > > Given his history of biting newbies, I'm not sure he'd be in a good > > > position to help solve the editor retention problem. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
