On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein <prono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote: >>> (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography >>> distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous >>> hosting). . >> >> In order to help us understand better the situation, can you refer >> concrete examples of 1 > > Indeed. (1) is a definite [citation needed]. > Stu, I'm going to put this as civilly as possible, going out of my way to AGF. Recently there have been some very substantial 'misunderstandings' between some individual board members and the community. For example, one board member made a number of statements that, unfortunately, led many in the community to believe that the Foundation was ordering a substantial new policy. This turned out not to be true. Earlier, there were similar misunderstandings over this same issue. At one point, many in the community may have mistakenly come to believe that there was a new legal opinion by the Foundation-- there was not. In light of all this, I think everyone needs to take a _very_ close look at anything that board members say, to make sure no future misunderstandings like this occur again. In short-- yeah, if you want us to believe you, you're gonna need to cite things. Nothing against you personally-- I'm sure you're a trustworthy individual. But "Just trust us" isn't gonna be very persuasive this week. Jimbo's trust is gone, and now the community is watching you guys, trying to figure out whether the foundation is trustworthy still or not. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
