David Goodman wrote:
> I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the
> people involved. I can understand that they want to at least formally
> defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all-
> -recognize that the discussion has moved in a somewhat more p
On 12 May 2010 00:38, David Goodman wrote:
> I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the
> people involved. I can understand that they want to at least formally
> defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all-
> -recognize that the discussion has mo
I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the
people involved. I can understand that they want to at least formally
defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all-
-recognize that the discussion has moved in a somewhat more permissive
direction now than
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Stuart West wrote:
> ...snip...
> Jimmy acknowledged this wasn't right and I respect his apology.
> ...snip...
> - stu
You mean his little smug little reply that it was a press stunt?[1][2]
and saying that it was a urgent matter[3] (yes! because starting a
huge del
On 11 May 2010 22:48, Stuart West wrote:
> A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the
> concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful
> about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between
> the principles the Board
On 11 May 2010 22:54, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Thank you, Stu!
Indeed, thank you, Stu! The first round of statements we got from
individual board members were very disappointing, but I'm glad to see
board members admitting their mistakes and acknowledging things that
were done wrong.
__
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Stuart West wrote:
> A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the
> concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful
> about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between
> the principles
A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the
concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful
about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between
the principles the Board agreed to in our statement and the actions taken by
On 09.05.2010 02:04, Noein 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). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated th
Hello,
2010/5/9 Thomas Dalton :
> Stu,
>
> Thank you for telling us your views. You have admitted that the way
> this was dealt with was "messy". That such an approach would be messy
> should have been obvious to everyone involved, so do you think it
> would have been better to take a less messy a
On 9 May 2010 01:09, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein 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). (2) As a com
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein 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). .
On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein 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). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issu
Stu wrote: '"Due to the failure of the community process, something
extraordinary had to be done"
There's been many statements claiming that Commons cannot police
itself, however, the deletions have been counted: a mere 400 files
were deleted, after which Jimbo said the cleanup was done. A lot o
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Stuart West wrote:
> A few of you have asked for more perspectives from Board members on the
> goings-on at Commons. I'm happy to share some of my personal views on the
> events of the past few days.
>
> First off, let me thank everyone who has participated in the
Hi,
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Stuart West wrote:
>
> - Due to the failure of the community process, something extraordinary had to
> be done. A small step was our Board statement we hoped would focus attention.
> A bigger step was the work by Jimmy and other individuals on Commons who too
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Stuart West wrote:
> ...snip...
> - We were hosting material that was unambiguously not
> relevant to our educational mission and it needed to go. Its presence on
> our projects/servers alienated people (users, potential new volunteers,
> educators, others) who we n
Stu,
Thank you for telling us your views. You have admitted that the way
this was dealt with was "messy". That such an approach would be messy
should have been obvious to everyone involved, so do you think it
would have been better to take a less messy approach? Perhaps the
Board could have issued
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated th
A few of you have asked for more perspectives from Board members on the
goings-on at Commons. I'm happy to share some of my personal views on the
events of the past few days.
First off, let me thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I've kept
up with many of the email threads, talk p
20 matches
Mail list logo
