I do think though that the longer the promised statement takes, the more it'll look like spin rather than truth. I agree that "rushed" is bad, but "prompt" should still be a goal. I suppose it doesn't help that potentially some of the folks at WMF Legal are relaxing on a proverbial beach on a Christmas getaway, blissfully unaware that this is happening.
Cheers, Craig On 30 December 2015 at 16:34, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > I am not so ready to throw stones (: Perhaps because I have had one-on-one > conversations with a number of people involved in this situation, and I > would like to believe that they are all good people. > > Reports that are rushed can lead to mistaken conclusions. I'd rather get a > comprehensive report than a rushed one. I do expect an explanation, soon, > and I expect it will be provided with the kind of integrity and > professionalism that I would hope everyone involved in this situation has. > > Pine > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Comet styles <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Well the longer this drags on, the more likelihood of us getting a > > "false" answer ..it takes seconds to speak the truth, but days to > > connive a lie..so i doubt we will get the 'truth' or atleast the full > > truth.. > > > > On 12/30/15, Craig Franklin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks Brad for spotting this and bringing it here, and also to Jimbo > for > > > filling in a few more details. > > > > > > Just as an aside, my thinking is that this must have needed to be an > > > emergency action. Because if the BoT has been mulling this over for > > > awhile, it would be very poor governance to not have a strategy for how > > > this would be communicated, and to only have WMF Legal on the case > after > > > the fact. We already see this thread filling up with a bunch of > > > speculation that is unhelpful and unhealthy, not just for James but > also > > > for the BoT and the movement in general. I trust that there will be an > > > explanation forthcoming, not only for why James has been removed in > this > > > way, but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to > > deal > > > with the fallout of that decision. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Craig > > > > > > On 30 December 2015 at 03:47, Newyorkbrad <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one > > >> of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP > > >> talkpage. Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that > > >> page, I have copied his comment below: > > >> > > >> "Hi everyone. I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have > > >> been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV > > >> explanation. Why didn't that happen? Because James chose to post > > >> about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even > > >> begun to discuss what an announcement should say. WMF legal has asked > > >> the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what > > >> can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues. > > >> Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now > > >> when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For > > >> now, please be patient. Accuracy is critically important here, and to > > >> have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more > > >> likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29 > > >> December 2015 (UTC)" > > >> > > >> I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly > > >> find this whole situation strange and unfortunate. However, it seems > > >> relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be > > >> aware of it.. > > >> > > >> I also agree that the information about the two new board members > > >> should be circulated promptly. > > >> > > >> Newyorkbrad/IBM > > >> > > >> On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > The removal is not transparent at all. > > >> > > > >> > Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words > > >> > different. > > >> > > > >> > Very disappointing. > > >> > > > >> >> From: [email protected] > > >> >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100 > > >> >> To: [email protected] > > >> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board > > >> >> > > >> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> >> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, > > at > > >> >> > least > > >> >> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to > > be > > >> >> > able > > >> >> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board > of > > >> >> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or > > >> >> > without > > >> >> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public > > >> >> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to > > >> simple > > >> >> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to > > >> provide > > >> >> > > >> >> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in > this > > >> >> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a > > >> >> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient > > >> >> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a > > >> >> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it > cannot > > >> >> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him > beeing > > >> >> ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it > > >> >> transparent. > > >> >> > > >> >> best, > > >> >> rupert > > >> >> > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > > >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > >> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > >> >> New messages to: [email protected] > > >> >> Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > >> >> <mailto:[email protected] > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > >> > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > >> > New messages to: [email protected] > > >> > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > , > > >> > <mailto:[email protected] > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > >> New messages to: [email protected] > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > , > > >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > -- > > Cometstyles > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
