Hi all, Emiliano Vavassori wrote: > Willfully and actively excluding *just one single* legally elected > director without *any whatsoever valid reason* for this exclusion is > IMHO, at the very least, highly debatable and, for sure, it does not > fit my general approach on making everyone, even with different > opinions than mine, engaged over non-consensual items and endeavors. > There's quite some irony here, in being upset about excluding a disruptive person from drafting work, while at the same time being upset for being included.
Why this approach was taken, should be relatively obvious. Questions on that will be answered, but I'd very much prefer that conversation to be members-internal. Best, -- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
