On Jun 23, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > To be frank, I also disagree that changing the timing would have > improved things in any practical sense. It doesn't really obscure the > connection much, if that's even what we would want to do. And for people > who were worrying about the implications, I think setting things up in > stages is just as likely to make it look worse as to make it look > better. The delay simply adds the possibility of new concerns, like > wondering what other unstated "conditions" had to be satisfied in the > intervening time for the other part of the "deal" to go through. And it > also encourages the idea that there must still be even more shoes to > drop. Basically, the timing issue would just become more raw material > for people inclined to engage in speculation.
It could have been positive, actually. There will be some people who will be unconvinced entirely regardless of whatever the board says, and however long they delay. For them, the fact that it was an "outsider with money" taints the seat. Not really anything you can do about that. But it might have given some sort of separation between those simply speculating or worrying about the implications and perception issue vis-a-vis those who firmly hold the belief that the seat was bought no matter what you say. And I'm not sure I agree that it would have created any more speculation during the intervening period than there was from the immediate announcement. But then again, now I'm speculating too, so I think my intrusion into this thread has run its course. -Dan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
