(Sorry, ignore the last two sentences - they're left over from a previous draft)
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Adam Cuerden <[email protected]> wrote: > Mr. Godwin, are you aware that, before Jimbo acted unilaterally, that > a discussion of policy had been opened by him, and was proceeding > towards something that had reasonable support, based on the legal > issues that he implied were the source of his hurry to do something. > > That was derailed by his actions, which also completely ignored the > evolving community decision, and has been completely derailed as it > turns out completely different motives (Public relations) were, in > fact, the real ones. > > If you want policy discussions, first regain the trust of the > community Jimbo lied to in what turned out to be a sham effort to > develop a consensus policy about the reporting issues for photographic > and filmed pornography. > > After actively deceiving us as to the reasons for a policy discussion, > Jimbo needs dealt with, and someone we can trust to play fair and give > us the actual reasons - and who won't pretend to be cooperating on > building policy, then ignore every single bit of community consensus - > because community consensus came down hard on the side of keeping > artworks - before we can go back to trying to restart a policy > discussion which began with active deceit of the community, first off > as to the reasons, and secondly, that it was a discussion. > > > We now are told this is a free speech issue. > > So what policy > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
