[Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
102 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI - was Re: [Board-l] Fwd: WMF etc.

Fæ
Sorry you've had to change email Florence.

(Tangent) Could those who use *Yahoo email addresses* ask their
friends to check if their emails regularly end up in spam boxes? I
have found several Yahoo users who write to this list getting marked
as potential trojans by Google and I only find their emails a month
later, by accident, if ever.

P.S. this is not a Google conspiracy theory.

Thanks,
Fae

On 22 January 2016 at 14:41, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 21/01/16 20:05, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :
>>
>> hi Florence,
>>
>>
>> Then I was astonished when I discovered that Dariusz, who has been a board
>>>
>>> member for over 6 months, was not aware of the existence of the Conflict
>>> of
>>> Interest Policy, which include a pledge of commitment and an obligation
>>> to
>>> disclose potential conflicts of interest. A policy voted by the board
>>> several years ago and mandatory for all board members. It is apparently
>>> not
>>> enforced anymore, even though it is an approved policy and obviously a
>>> good
>>> governance practice. This makes me think the board is not operating
>>> properly anymore on this serious matter.
>>>
>>
>>
>> just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI
>> pledges/disclosures
>> over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member.
>> Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to
>> consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to),
>> and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you
>> with
>> a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize for
>> my clumsy phrasing.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> dariusz
>
>
> My apologies Dariusz; This point was a misunderstanding on my part after
> reading this msg from you :
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html
>
> I am really happy to read your clarification and see that this point is in
> fact not an issue. Good :)
>
> I actually stayed in confusion because I commented it, but you never gave
> any further feedback.
> But some people warned me my emails got stuck in spambox...
> I changed my email address for the lists this morning... sent a message...
> and it got stuck in moderation !
> Hopefully this one will work out...
>
>
> Florence
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI - was Re: [Board-l] Fwd: WMF etc.

Austin Hair
And just so everyone's clear, Florence's new subscription has already been
whitelisted.

Austin

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sorry you've had to change email Florence.
>
> (Tangent) Could those who use *Yahoo email addresses* ask their
> friends to check if their emails regularly end up in spam boxes? I
> have found several Yahoo users who write to this list getting marked
> as potential trojans by Google and I only find their emails a month
> later, by accident, if ever.
>
> P.S. this is not a Google conspiracy theory.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 22 January 2016 at 14:41, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Le 21/01/16 20:05, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :
> >>
> >> hi Florence,
> >>
> >>
> >> Then I was astonished when I discovered that Dariusz, who has been a
> board
> >>>
> >>> member for over 6 months, was not aware of the existence of the
> Conflict
> >>> of
> >>> Interest Policy, which include a pledge of commitment and an obligation
> >>> to
> >>> disclose potential conflicts of interest. A policy voted by the board
> >>> several years ago and mandatory for all board members. It is apparently
> >>> not
> >>> enforced anymore, even though it is an approved policy and obviously a
> >>> good
> >>> governance practice. This makes me think the board is not operating
> >>> properly anymore on this serious matter.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI
> >> pledges/disclosures
> >> over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member.
> >> Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to
> >> consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to),
> >> and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you
> >> with
> >> a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize
> for
> >> my clumsy phrasing.
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> dariusz
> >
> >
> > My apologies Dariusz; This point was a misunderstanding on my part after
> > reading this msg from you :
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html
> >
> > I am really happy to read your clarification and see that this point is
> in
> > fact not an issue. Good :)
> >
> > I actually stayed in confusion because I commented it, but you never gave
> > any further feedback.
> > But some people warned me my emails got stuck in spambox...
> > I changed my email address for the lists this morning... sent a
> message...
> > and it got stuck in moderation !
> > Hopefully this one will work out...
> >
> >
> > Florence
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by SarahSV
Hi Sarah,

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:59 PM, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> You wrote to this list on 12 January that you were investigating with the
> Board Governance Committee what happened regarding the appointments process
> in this case – whether everyone was fully informed, and so on.
>
> Can you let us know what you've learned or when you'll publish your
> findings? I think the community is keen to know what happened.
>
> we've been working on it, discussing, and introducing improvements. I
guess that replying here quicker, rather than preparing an elaborate
document may be more sensible, since you're asking, and we may be perceived
as entirely inactive ;)

The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:

1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like
common sense  (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do
that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR
confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no
legal threats.

How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a
modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger
background check process.

2. The BGC has failed individually as well, for a rather silly reason. An
often returning argument has been that we must have known about the case,
since it is high in google.com results.
The initial screening was conducted by Alice, Frieda, and me. None of us is
a native English speaker and our searches included google.de, google.it and
google.pl - none of them included the information about the controversy in
the top 10 results at the time (btw, the pando article is clearly trending
up and is in the top 10 results in google.pl now, while it was not even a
couple of weeks ago).

How are we going to address this in the future? We are going to assume a
global audience of our movement and conduct searches specifically taking
that in mind.

3. We have not asked the candidates a very simple question: is there
anything in your past that may be perceived as controversial, or require
additional explanations?

How are we going to address this in the future? We will basically start
asking that.

best,

dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-6
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
>>>
> Misinterpretation on my part for what you wrote here :
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html
>
>
> After reading it again, it actually referred to public statements rather
> than private ones. And since you did not comment on the list when I raised
> the issue, my misinterpretation was not corrected. My apologies.
>

no worries :) I'm glad it is clear now.

cheers,

dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Cristian Consonni
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
Hi Dariusz,

2016-01-22 19:21 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>:
> we've been working on it, discussing, and introducing improvements. I
> guess that replying here quicker, rather than preparing an elaborate
> document may be more sensible, since you're asking, and we may be perceived
> as entirely inactive ;)

I appreciate the update and the explanation of the changes that are
being made to the process.

However I would like to know if you are tackling the main issue at
hand, i.e. whether Arnnon Geshuri should remain a trustee or not.

Thank you.

Cristian

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Pete Forsyth-2
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
Dariusz, thank you for this explanation. This is the kind of thing it is
very helpful to hear about; it's a good example of how to be transparent
about ongoing learning processes. I'm sure I'm not the only one who
appreciates this bit of insight into how the board is proceeding.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Sarah,
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:59 PM, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > You wrote to this list on 12 January that you were investigating with the
> > Board Governance Committee what happened regarding the appointments
> process
> > in this case – whether everyone was fully informed, and so on.
> >
> > Can you let us know what you've learned or when you'll publish your
> > findings? I think the community is keen to know what happened.
> >
> > we've been working on it, discussing, and introducing improvements. I
> guess that replying here quicker, rather than preparing an elaborate
> document may be more sensible, since you're asking, and we may be perceived
> as entirely inactive ;)
>
> The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:
>
> 1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
> have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like
> common sense  (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do
> that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR
> confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no
> legal threats.
>
> How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a
> modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger
> background check process.
>
> 2. The BGC has failed individually as well, for a rather silly reason. An
> often returning argument has been that we must have known about the case,
> since it is high in google.com results.
> The initial screening was conducted by Alice, Frieda, and me. None of us is
> a native English speaker and our searches included google.de, google.it
> and
> google.pl - none of them included the information about the controversy in
> the top 10 results at the time (btw, the pando article is clearly trending
> up and is in the top 10 results in google.pl now, while it was not even a
> couple of weeks ago).
>
> How are we going to address this in the future? We are going to assume a
> global audience of our movement and conduct searches specifically taking
> that in mind.
>
> 3. We have not asked the candidates a very simple question: is there
> anything in your past that may be perceived as controversial, or require
> additional explanations?
>
> How are we going to address this in the future? We will basically start
> asking that.
>
> best,
>
> dj
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Ziko van Dijk-3
Hello Fae,

To be very clear, is it that you reproach A.G. that he did not disclose
relevant questionable behavior, prior to running as a candidate?

Kind regards
Ziko
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Andy Mabbett-2
In reply to this post by Cristian Consonni
On 22 January 2016 at 18:39, Cristian Consonni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> However I would like to know if you are tackling the main issue at
> hand, i.e. whether Arnnon Geshuri should remain a trustee or not.

If he's reading or aware of this discussion (I've seen no indication
of either, either way), I wonder why he would want to be.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] 15 days to (was Re: COI - was Re: [Board-l] Fwd: WMF etc.)

Florence Devouard-6
In reply to this post by Austin Hair
I did not know this list had an approval step when subscribing :) Sorry
about that.


Le 22/01/16 19:03, Austin Hair a écrit :

> And just so everyone's clear, Florence's new subscription has already been
> whitelisted.
>
> Austin
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Sorry you've had to change email Florence.
>>
>> (Tangent) Could those who use *Yahoo email addresses* ask their
>> friends to check if their emails regularly end up in spam boxes? I
>> have found several Yahoo users who write to this list getting marked
>> as potential trojans by Google and I only find their emails a month
>> later, by accident, if ever.
>>
>> P.S. this is not a Google conspiracy theory.


Just for the fun of it... for wikimedia lists, I unsubscribed a yahoo
email address and subscribed a gmail address ;)

Ok. I used my email quota for the month. Time to go back to the projects.


Guys. We could need more participation in English on the "15 days to
create (at least) 15 biographies of African women"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Women/Writing_Contest/Teams


Flo


>> Thanks,
>> Fae




_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Fæ
In reply to this post by Ziko van Dijk-3
On 22 January 2016 at 18:46, Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello Fae,
>
> To be very clear, is it that you reproach A.G. that he did not disclose
> relevant questionable behavior, prior to running as a candidate?
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko

TL;DR
No, I don't reproach Geshuri personally, everyone makes mistakes, I
certainly have. For all I know he has no past trustee experience and
the level of scrutiny he would be exposed to once appointed may never
have been made clear to him. I do not expect Geshuri to be a fall guy,
I expect the board of trustees to come forward and handle their
governance failure fully and honestly, even if that means that more
than one trustee will need to find the right words to exit gracefully.

BACKGROUND
Let's emphasise this point, the WMF is a very unusual organization,
the board is scrutinized by the eyes of many passionate and committed
volunteers - some to the level of a compulsive disorder - and the n *
$100,000,000 the trustees are trusted to oversee during their terms to
the benefit of open knowledge is considered a huge responsibility by
us, the community.

When this first was raised by my open letter two weeks ago, were I in
Patricio's shoes I would have had a 30 minute phone call with Geshuri
that day, and talked through allegations about his background. As the
allegations in this case are entirely factual, there's a legal case to
refer to, I would have advised him that if he thought he might resign
to avoid a potential fuss in public, that it is better to do it within
a couple of days rather than letting it run and get entrenched. If
there had been a good chance that it would blow over as there was no
meaningful conflict of interest/loyalties, nor any significant
reputational damage that could damage the WMF, then I would suggest we
talk to all trustees by phone that week, to answer their questions and
go over the facts, as I would hope that the full board would continue
to support him as a trustee despite the likelihood for criticism of
the board's decision to appoint him.

Unfortunately in this case I could see no chance that his part in the
Google scandal would just blow over ($400m+ in damages is a *big*
mistake). I expect Patricio would have made the same deduction. By not
giving Geshuri frank advice on day one, we now have a Wikipedia
article about him, a public vote of no confidence and a rising profile
about his past on Google searches that he no doubt wants to leave
forgotten.

Lastly, adding "is there anything in your past" to a standard set of
questions is not good governance. Trustees with this high a public
profile *must* understand what it means to be a trustee on the WMF
board. The Trustee who nominated Geshuri created this problem but not
having a frank chat before his name was ever put forward, and the rest
of the board of Trustees compounded it by never personally checking
whether Geshuri understood the unusual commitment he would be making -
as well as blatantly failing their duty of oversight to ensure the
most basic background checks; such as Geshuri being named in past
legal cases which should be a standard report to the board from WMF
legal for candidates. More detailed checks than this are made for
teachers with access to children, or shop staff with access to a cash
till, but nothing is done for prospective trustees with decisions to
make for our future, as well as approving how that huge pile of money
gets spent and to whom... In this particular case, we have no reasons
given as to why when Jimmy Wales knew about the Google antitrust
scandal in advance of Geshuri's appointment, he failed to ask the
obvious question of Geshuri's role, he failed to either talk to his
fellow trustees about it or quietly ask the governance committee to
look into it before a board vote. Instead we see the repeated excuse
that this was not on the first page of Google searches in various
languages. Bizarre.

So, Geshuri probably deserves an apology from the board because they
failed him. The board urgently requires an independent governance
review, and if one does not happen because a few plasters have been
stuck on the current process and exactly the same people who made this
mistake think they are experts in good governance, that will be
extreme hubris which inevitably leads to falling down another deep
hole in no time at all. If anyone doubts this, they need to go back to
the WMF blog post only a fortnight ago with glowing quotes from Lila
and Dariusz which are now embarrassing to read. Hopefully they will
never put themselves in this position
again.<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/05/new-wikimedia-foundation-trustees>

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Yann Forget-3
Hi,

Thanks Fae, I agree 100% with that.
The biggest mistake is not from A.G., but from the board as you mention.
So A. G. resigning won't solve the issue. We need a complete review of
the board governance and appointment process.

Regards,

Yann

2016-01-22 21:00 GMT+01:00 Fæ <[hidden email]>:

> On 22 January 2016 at 18:46, Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hello Fae,
>>
>> To be very clear, is it that you reproach A.G. that he did not disclose
>> relevant questionable behavior, prior to running as a candidate?
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>
> TL;DR
> No, I don't reproach Geshuri personally, everyone makes mistakes, I
> certainly have. For all I know he has no past trustee experience and
> the level of scrutiny he would be exposed to once appointed may never
> have been made clear to him. I do not expect Geshuri to be a fall guy,
> I expect the board of trustees to come forward and handle their
> governance failure fully and honestly, even if that means that more
> than one trustee will need to find the right words to exit gracefully.
>
> BACKGROUND
> Let's emphasise this point, the WMF is a very unusual organization,
> the board is scrutinized by the eyes of many passionate and committed
> volunteers - some to the level of a compulsive disorder - and the n *
> $100,000,000 the trustees are trusted to oversee during their terms to
> the benefit of open knowledge is considered a huge responsibility by
> us, the community.
>
> When this first was raised by my open letter two weeks ago, were I in
> Patricio's shoes I would have had a 30 minute phone call with Geshuri
> that day, and talked through allegations about his background. As the
> allegations in this case are entirely factual, there's a legal case to
> refer to, I would have advised him that if he thought he might resign
> to avoid a potential fuss in public, that it is better to do it within
> a couple of days rather than letting it run and get entrenched. If
> there had been a good chance that it would blow over as there was no
> meaningful conflict of interest/loyalties, nor any significant
> reputational damage that could damage the WMF, then I would suggest we
> talk to all trustees by phone that week, to answer their questions and
> go over the facts, as I would hope that the full board would continue
> to support him as a trustee despite the likelihood for criticism of
> the board's decision to appoint him.
>
> Unfortunately in this case I could see no chance that his part in the
> Google scandal would just blow over ($400m+ in damages is a *big*
> mistake). I expect Patricio would have made the same deduction. By not
> giving Geshuri frank advice on day one, we now have a Wikipedia
> article about him, a public vote of no confidence and a rising profile
> about his past on Google searches that he no doubt wants to leave
> forgotten.
>
> Lastly, adding "is there anything in your past" to a standard set of
> questions is not good governance. Trustees with this high a public
> profile *must* understand what it means to be a trustee on the WMF
> board. The Trustee who nominated Geshuri created this problem but not
> having a frank chat before his name was ever put forward, and the rest
> of the board of Trustees compounded it by never personally checking
> whether Geshuri understood the unusual commitment he would be making -
> as well as blatantly failing their duty of oversight to ensure the
> most basic background checks; such as Geshuri being named in past
> legal cases which should be a standard report to the board from WMF
> legal for candidates. More detailed checks than this are made for
> teachers with access to children, or shop staff with access to a cash
> till, but nothing is done for prospective trustees with decisions to
> make for our future, as well as approving how that huge pile of money
> gets spent and to whom... In this particular case, we have no reasons
> given as to why when Jimmy Wales knew about the Google antitrust
> scandal in advance of Geshuri's appointment, he failed to ask the
> obvious question of Geshuri's role, he failed to either talk to his
> fellow trustees about it or quietly ask the governance committee to
> look into it before a board vote. Instead we see the repeated excuse
> that this was not on the first page of Google searches in various
> languages. Bizarre.
>
> So, Geshuri probably deserves an apology from the board because they
> failed him. The board urgently requires an independent governance
> review, and if one does not happen because a few plasters have been
> stuck on the current process and exactly the same people who made this
> mistake think they are experts in good governance, that will be
> extreme hubris which inevitably leads to falling down another deep
> hole in no time at all. If anyone doubts this, they need to go back to
> the WMF blog post only a fortnight ago with glowing quotes from Lila
> and Dariusz which are now embarrassing to read. Hopefully they will
> never put themselves in this position
> again.<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/05/new-wikimedia-foundation-trustees>
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Ziko van Dijk-3
In reply to this post by Fæ
So, Fae, it's not someone's obligation to inform about his past, but
its the obligation of the other to examine?
Ziko

2016-01-22 21:00 GMT+01:00 Fæ <[hidden email]>:

> On 22 January 2016 at 18:46, Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hello Fae,
>>
>> To be very clear, is it that you reproach A.G. that he did not disclose
>> relevant questionable behavior, prior to running as a candidate?
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>
> TL;DR
> No, I don't reproach Geshuri personally, everyone makes mistakes, I
> certainly have. For all I know he has no past trustee experience and
> the level of scrutiny he would be exposed to once appointed may never
> have been made clear to him. I do not expect Geshuri to be a fall guy,
> I expect the board of trustees to come forward and handle their
> governance failure fully and honestly, even if that means that more
> than one trustee will need to find the right words to exit gracefully.
>
> BACKGROUND
> Let's emphasise this point, the WMF is a very unusual organization,
> the board is scrutinized by the eyes of many passionate and committed
> volunteers - some to the level of a compulsive disorder - and the n *
> $100,000,000 the trustees are trusted to oversee during their terms to
> the benefit of open knowledge is considered a huge responsibility by
> us, the community.
>
> When this first was raised by my open letter two weeks ago, were I in
> Patricio's shoes I would have had a 30 minute phone call with Geshuri
> that day, and talked through allegations about his background. As the
> allegations in this case are entirely factual, there's a legal case to
> refer to, I would have advised him that if he thought he might resign
> to avoid a potential fuss in public, that it is better to do it within
> a couple of days rather than letting it run and get entrenched. If
> there had been a good chance that it would blow over as there was no
> meaningful conflict of interest/loyalties, nor any significant
> reputational damage that could damage the WMF, then I would suggest we
> talk to all trustees by phone that week, to answer their questions and
> go over the facts, as I would hope that the full board would continue
> to support him as a trustee despite the likelihood for criticism of
> the board's decision to appoint him.
>
> Unfortunately in this case I could see no chance that his part in the
> Google scandal would just blow over ($400m+ in damages is a *big*
> mistake). I expect Patricio would have made the same deduction. By not
> giving Geshuri frank advice on day one, we now have a Wikipedia
> article about him, a public vote of no confidence and a rising profile
> about his past on Google searches that he no doubt wants to leave
> forgotten.
>
> Lastly, adding "is there anything in your past" to a standard set of
> questions is not good governance. Trustees with this high a public
> profile *must* understand what it means to be a trustee on the WMF
> board. The Trustee who nominated Geshuri created this problem but not
> having a frank chat before his name was ever put forward, and the rest
> of the board of Trustees compounded it by never personally checking
> whether Geshuri understood the unusual commitment he would be making -
> as well as blatantly failing their duty of oversight to ensure the
> most basic background checks; such as Geshuri being named in past
> legal cases which should be a standard report to the board from WMF
> legal for candidates. More detailed checks than this are made for
> teachers with access to children, or shop staff with access to a cash
> till, but nothing is done for prospective trustees with decisions to
> make for our future, as well as approving how that huge pile of money
> gets spent and to whom... In this particular case, we have no reasons
> given as to why when Jimmy Wales knew about the Google antitrust
> scandal in advance of Geshuri's appointment, he failed to ask the
> obvious question of Geshuri's role, he failed to either talk to his
> fellow trustees about it or quietly ask the governance committee to
> look into it before a board vote. Instead we see the repeated excuse
> that this was not on the first page of Google searches in various
> languages. Bizarre.
>
> So, Geshuri probably deserves an apology from the board because they
> failed him. The board urgently requires an independent governance
> review, and if one does not happen because a few plasters have been
> stuck on the current process and exactly the same people who made this
> mistake think they are experts in good governance, that will be
> extreme hubris which inevitably leads to falling down another deep
> hole in no time at all. If anyone doubts this, they need to go back to
> the WMF blog post only a fortnight ago with glowing quotes from Lila
> and Dariusz which are now embarrassing to read. Hopefully they will
> never put themselves in this position
> again.<https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/05/new-wikimedia-foundation-trustees>
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Tim Landscheidt
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> wrote:

> […]

> The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:

> 1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
> have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like
> common sense  (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do
> that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR
> confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no
> legal threats.

> How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a
> modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger
> background check process.

> […]

This makes it sound like a communications mishap, i. e. in
the hypothetical case that the board would not have had to
publish Arnnon's appointment, everything would be okay.

The question that has been raised here in the last few weeks
is different: Is someone who apparently in the past had a
major and costly difficulty to choose between right and
wrong suitable for serving on the Board of the Wikimedia
Foundation?  It was not addressed to HR or Legal, but to the
Board itself.

Tim


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:
>
> 1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
> have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like
> common sense  (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do
> that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR
> confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no
> legal threats.
>
> How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a
> modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger
> background check process.
>
> 2. The BGC has failed individually as well, for a rather silly reason. An
> often returning argument has been that we must have known about the case,
> since it is high in google.com results.
> The initial screening was conducted by Alice, Frieda, and me. None of us is
> a native English speaker and our searches included google.de, google.it
> and
> google.pl - none of them included the information about the controversy in
> the top 10 results at the time (btw, the pando article is clearly trending
> up and is in the top 10 results in google.pl now, while it was not even a
> couple of weeks ago).
>


I think this is almost exactly wrong. The lesson here should not be that
the Board failed to take public relations into consideration when co-opting
a new member. The message is that the examination of candidates failed to
turn up really quite substantial allegations of a lack of integrity and
ethical leadership. If your background check process looks for expertise or
criminal history but doesn't examine work experience for serious failures,
then the background check process is broken. Adding a "what will people
think?" 'subroutine' is not a solution.

The question of in what language did BGC members search Google is bizarre
but really a distraction - the Board should ensure that a superior
background check process is in place, and neither the Board members nor the
community should have to rely on Board members Googling in their spare time
to turn up major defects in finalist candidates.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think this is almost exactly wrong. The lesson here should not be that
>> the Board failed to take public relations into consideration when co-opting
>> a new member. The message is that the examination of candidates failed to
>> turn up really quite substantial allegations of a lack of integrity and
>> ethical leadership. If your background check process looks for expertise or
>> criminal history but doesn't examine work experience for serious failures,
>> then the background check process is broken. Adding a "what will people
>> think?" 'subroutine' is not a solution.
>>
>
it may be a language issue. We want to widen the background check process
so that it includes issues beyond just criminal activity, basically. I
called it a "PR check", but it is not just focusing on "what will people
think" for its sake, but rather paying particular attention to a wide array
of issues that could raise concerns, basically to be able to sensibly
discuss which of them are legitimate, and which are not.

dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> wrote:

>..
> The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:
>
> 1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
> have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like
> common sense  (doh! I know, although many organizations don't actually do
> that), it seems that each department focused on their own turf mostly- HR
> confirmed the highest expertise, and the legal department confirmed no
> legal threats.
>
> How are we going to address this in the future? We have already prepared a
> modification to the process, including a PR subroutine into the larger
> background check process.
>
> 2. The BGC has failed individually as well, for a rather silly reason. An
> often returning argument has been that we must have known about the case,
> since it is high in google.com results.
> The initial screening was conducted by Alice, Frieda, and me. None of us is
> a native English speaker and our searches included google.de, google.it and
> google.pl - none of them included the information about the controversy in
> the top 10 results at the time (btw, the pando article is clearly trending
> up and is in the top 10 results in google.pl now, while it was not even a
> couple of weeks ago).

> How are we going to address this in the future? We are going to assume a
> global audience of our movement and conduct searches specifically taking
> that in mind.
>
> 3. We have not asked the candidates a very simple question: is there
> anything in your past that may be perceived as controversial, or require
> additional explanations?

There is also a fourth problem.

Every single board of trustee member is responsible for their vote,
and should have done their own due diligence, checking the dossier
they had been given.  It means that 10 people failed to find and/or
highlight this issue.  There were three native English speakers on the
board who would have been using English searches  (James, Jimmy &
Stu).

Jimmy has disclosed on January 8 that he did 'Google' Arnnon prior to
the appointment.

"
I cannot speak for the entire board. As for myself, I was aware (from
googling him and reading news reports) that he had a small part in the
overall situation when he was told by Eric Schmidt that Google had a
policy of not recruiting from Apple, and that a recruiter had done it,
and that the recruiter should be fired, and he agreed to do so. As for
your other allegations, that he "helped manage that collusion", the
part about some "ugly and humiliating" termination, and chastisement
by a Federal Judge, I don't (yet) know anything about
that.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo
Wales#top|talk]]) 09:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=698802294

I would expect that a board member seeing that would raise it for all
other board members to consider if it wasnt part of the dossier
provided by HR and/or board committees.

fwiw, A few days ago Jimmy disclosed that "James voted in favor of Arnnon".
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=700325768

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Pete Forsyth-2
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:00 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> fwiw, A few days ago Jimmy disclosed that "James voted in favor of Arnnon".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=700325768
>

It's known that the decision was unanimous among the 10 (then-)Trustees:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Appointing_Arnnon_Geshuri_as_Board_Member

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

Alex Monk
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
On 22 January 2016 at 22:00, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> fwiw, A few days ago Jimmy disclosed that "James voted in favor of Arnnon".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=700325768

I'm not sure I'd call it a disclosure since it had already been made public
11 days earlier:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution:Appointing_Arnnon_Geshuri_as_Board_Member&oldid=104421
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI - was Re: [Board-l] Fwd: WMF etc.

Josh Lim
In reply to this post by Fæ
Hi Fae,

I’m subscribed to this mailing list using a Yahoo! e-mail address, and the problem also happens in reverse: some e-mails end up in my spam folder.  The problem is so bad that I’m contemplating switching my subscription to a different e-mail address, but hopefully I won’t need to do that for the foreseeable future.

Is there anyone else here who’s subscribed using a Yahoo! address and has spam problems, either with their or others’ e-mails?

Josh

> Wiadomość napisana przez Fæ <[hidden email]> w dniu 23.01.2016, o godz. 01:38:
>
> Sorry you've had to change email Florence.
>
> (Tangent) Could those who use *Yahoo email addresses* ask their
> friends to check if their emails regularly end up in spam boxes? I
> have found several Yahoo users who write to this list getting marked
> as potential trojans by Google and I only find their emails a month
> later, by accident, if ever.
>
> P.S. this is not a Google conspiracy theory.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On 22 January 2016 at 14:41, Florence Devouard <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>> Le 21/01/16 20:05, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :
>>>
>>> hi Florence,
>>>
>>>
>>> Then I was astonished when I discovered that Dariusz, who has been a board
>>>>
>>>> member for over 6 months, was not aware of the existence of the Conflict
>>>> of
>>>> Interest Policy, which include a pledge of commitment and an obligation
>>>> to
>>>> disclose potential conflicts of interest. A policy voted by the board
>>>> several years ago and mandatory for all board members. It is apparently
>>>> not
>>>> enforced anymore, even though it is an approved policy and obviously a
>>>> good
>>>> governance practice. This makes me think the board is not operating
>>>> properly anymore on this serious matter.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI
>>> pledges/disclosures
>>> over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member.
>>> Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to
>>> consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to),
>>> and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you
>>> with
>>> a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize for
>>> my clumsy phrasing.
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> dariusz
>>
>>
>> My apologies Dariusz; This point was a misunderstanding on my part after
>> reading this msg from you :
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html
>>
>> I am really happy to read your clarification and see that this point is in
>> fact not an issue. Good :)
>>
>> I actually stayed in confusion because I commented it, but you never gave
>> any further feedback.
>> But some people warned me my emails got stuck in spambox...
>> I changed my email address for the lists this morning... sent a message...
>> and it got stuck in moderation !
>> Hopefully this one will work out...
>>
>>
>> Florence
> --
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>
> New messages to: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>>

JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> | +63 (915) 321-7582
Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor
http://about.me/josh.lim <http://about.me/josh.lim>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI - was Re: [Board-l] Fwd: WMF etc.

Benjamin Lees
"This message was not sent to Spam because of a filter you created."

In the absence of filters, Gmail tends to put mailing list messages
from Yahoo addresses in the spam folder.  As far as I know,
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2141120/yahoo-email-antispoofing-policy-breaks-mailing-lists.html
is still basically valid.

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Josh Lim <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Fae,
>
> I’m subscribed to this mailing list using a Yahoo! e-mail address, and the problem also happens in reverse: some e-mails end up in my spam folder.  The problem is so bad that I’m contemplating switching my subscription to a different e-mail address, but hopefully I won’t need to do that for the foreseeable future.
>
> Is there anyone else here who’s subscribed using a Yahoo! address and has spam problems, either with their or others’ e-mails?
>
> Josh
>
>> Wiadomość napisana przez Fæ <[hidden email]> w dniu 23.01.2016, o godz. 01:38:
>>
>> Sorry you've had to change email Florence.
>>
>> (Tangent) Could those who use *Yahoo email addresses* ask their
>> friends to check if their emails regularly end up in spam boxes? I
>> have found several Yahoo users who write to this list getting marked
>> as potential trojans by Google and I only find their emails a month
>> later, by accident, if ever.
>>
>> P.S. this is not a Google conspiracy theory.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>>
>> On 22 January 2016 at 14:41, Florence Devouard <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>> Le 21/01/16 20:05, Dariusz Jemielniak a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> hi Florence,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then I was astonished when I discovered that Dariusz, who has been a board
>>>>>
>>>>> member for over 6 months, was not aware of the existence of the Conflict
>>>>> of
>>>>> Interest Policy, which include a pledge of commitment and an obligation
>>>>> to
>>>>> disclose potential conflicts of interest. A policy voted by the board
>>>>> several years ago and mandatory for all board members. It is apparently
>>>>> not
>>>>> enforced anymore, even though it is an approved policy and obviously a
>>>>> good
>>>>> governance practice. This makes me think the board is not operating
>>>>> properly anymore on this serious matter.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI
>>>> pledges/disclosures
>>>> over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member.
>>>> Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to
>>>> consider PUBLIC statements (as proposed in the email I was replying to),
>>>> and not statements in general (which we do have). It may have left you
>>>> with
>>>> a reading that I was unaware of the COI policy as a whole; I apologize for
>>>> my clumsy phrasing.
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>>
>>>> dariusz
>>>
>>>
>>> My apologies Dariusz; This point was a misunderstanding on my part after
>>> reading this msg from you :
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-January/080945.html
>>>
>>> I am really happy to read your clarification and see that this point is in
>>> fact not an issue. Good :)
>>>
>>> I actually stayed in confusion because I commented it, but you never gave
>>> any further feedback.
>>> But some people warned me my emails got stuck in spambox...
>>> I changed my email address for the lists this morning... sent a message...
>>> and it got stuck in moderation !
>>> Hopefully this one will work out...
>>>
>>>
>>> Florence
>> --
>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines>
>> New messages to: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>>
>
> JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
> Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
> Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
> Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
>
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> | +63 (915) 321-7582
> Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor
> http://about.me/josh.lim <http://about.me/josh.lim>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123456