User talk:Cullen328/Arnnon Geshuri

No poaching or no recruiting?

I don't know if US law differentiates between them, but to me there is a difference between no recruiting and no poaching, and I'm not sure the essay always differentiates. If Company G had a policy of not offering jobs to company M employees even if they were responding to a vacancy on their website that seems very different to me than companies G and M agreeing not to coldcall each others employees with job offers. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This case involved no recruiting. This page doesnt make that clear enough. IMO we need an article about the scandal, not about one player. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is at High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation and could definitely use expansion. But note that Cullen's page is an essay, not an article, and focusing on one player is the purpose of it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage anyone to expand the existing article using the sources I used here or any other sources they can find. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jim. Do you get pinged automatically from your sub-page Talk pages? Have you seen this smoking gun? https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1019489/google-email-chain.pdf Succinct. Yowsa. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Checkingfax. I am posting that as an external link. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. In this video Sue Gardner mentions the word "integrity" as being a cornerstone around here:

Lila Tretikov introduced to WMF employees, Wikimedia Foundation: Introduction by Sue Gardner 0:00–6:40, remarks by Tretikov 6:40–18:45, Q&A 18:45–36:00

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article

There is now an article on Arnnon at Arnnon Geshuri, if you'd be interested in contributing to it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike Peel. I corrected a wikilink in the article. Given my very public criticism of the choice of Geshuri, I think that it would be unwise for me to edit this biography more substantively at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

Excellent work, Cullen. This kind of anti-competitive cartel collusion is extremely unethical and harmful at an individual level. We need to ask ourselves and the board if the new board member could possibly be ignorant of baseball collusion United States antitrust law, the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, antitrust lawsuits like US v Microsoft, the breakup of AT&T, etc.--Elvey^(t•c) 01:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Elvey. Because this new trustee is a defendant in a pending shareholder lawsuit, I suspect that his lawyer will advise him against commenting on this matter unless legally obligated to. It is those who put him on the board of trustees who need to explain their actions, or inaction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Comment edited.--Elvey^(t•c) 19:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He studied psychology, not law. Psychology courses do not teach about baseball collusion United States antitrust law, the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, antitrust lawsuits like US v Microsoft, the breakup of AT&T, etc. Instructions about compliance with such standards would come from a company's legal department. Psychology degrees might include coverage of legal issues relevant to the practice of psychology (patient privacy, for instance). Edison (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd claim. We learned about stuff like that in my public high school U.S. history class. -Pete (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US history is not one of the courses which lead to a graduate degree in psychology. Edison (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point (perhaps intentionally). Antitrust law is not esoteric. It's something anybody who knows anything about business in the USA knows about. In addition, every manager in every business (including my 4-person business) knows that when you make an agreement, you need to run it past a lawyer. Does this step get skipped sometimes? Absolutely. It gets skipped when either (a) the agreement is very straightforward and very obviously does not expose you to liability, or (b) you know the agreement is illegal, disadvantageous to your employer, or otherwise problematic, and you don't want to leave a paper trail. I rather doubt that (a) applies very often in a company the size of Google, but I can't speak from experience. -Pete (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether his degree was in psychology. He was an executive employed by Google, and interacted with Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs. Both Google and Apple have hundreds of attorneys on staff to consult regarding employment and recruiting policies. In his position in Human Resources for Google, Geshuri probably even had attorneys reporting to him. This isn't some arcane issue about which Geshuri was unaware and unlikely to have received input as to its illegality. P.S. Hello, Peter! I just noticed that your response was directly above mine. I agree with you, by the way. Your friend, Ellie Kesselman :o) --FeralOink (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote of no confidence in Geshuri

Hi, as Patricio has failed to reply to my open letter by email, nor set any schedule for the board of trustees to vote on Geshuri's competence to remain a trustee, I'm thinking of creating a vote of no confidence on meta for the community to provide some direct feedback. I'm happy to consider other options or delay doing this if there's been some news leaked about what the board is up to. Does anyone interested here have thoughts on next steps if the board continues to keep Geshuri in place? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this is probably the way to go. Honestly, I don't think the WMF cares what editors think but if you think you can pressure them to relent I'd certainly sign. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Yes, I had in mind exactly this sort of thing and it can refer back to my open letter on Wikimedia-l, so that anyone interested can review the full discussion so far. --Fæ (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether a vote of no confidence should be "directed at" Geshuri, who eventually may have been surprised by the recent events, or — primarily — against the whole board, who voted Geshuri into the board (except Kelly Battles and Geshuri himself), when they should have known better. --Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in two minds. A vote of no confidence in the whole board is likely to be confusing, with many members of the community arguing that they trust individual trustees and long debate about what action we would be voting for. In a sense, yes, it is more accurate, although a vote with the narrow expected action being that Geshuri should leave the board of trustees is direct and the wider criticism that all trustees failed in their duty can be expressed in a short preamble without creating lots of tangents. It would be down to the board or their future governance review (if they relent and have one) to pick up on what actions must be taken. --Fæ (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now created at m:Vote of confidence:Arnnon Geshuri. --Fæ (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already that petition has an oppose: from a board member. Maybe they will read it, at least. Jonathunder (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]