On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:29 PM, phoebe ayers <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote: >> By now, just two Board members explicitly stated what do they think >> about Jimmy's action: Jan-Bart de Vreede and Ting Chen (who explained >> his position in details). >> >> According to not precise Board's statement I may guess who supports >> Jimmy's action and who doesn't. However, I don't want to guess. As a >> member of community who directly or through the chapters elects five >> Board members and other four through the delegation given to the >> previous five members, I want to know positions of other Board >> members. > > Well, we as a community don't require such individual statements about > any other issue; I realize this may be a personal dealbreaker for you > but it doesn't seem like the single most important issue of our day. > I'd much rather hear what individual board members think about > strategy or the budget, which is of much more lasting import for how > the foundation gets run.
There are some political reasons of why I am here. And they are about our values: all human knowledge... not censored... consensus culture... building encyclopedia etc., not surrealistic comedy... (Saying so, I am not talking in absolute terms: we are not able to have all human knowledge, but the most important of; if people are deciding what should be censored for themselves, I am fine; sometimes we need [well planned] bold actions; sometimes it is nice to watch a surrealistic comedy.) Those values are *before* finances. We are here because of them, not because of money or strategy. Money and strategy are here because of our values. And I don't feel that I am the only one who has the opinion similar to the opinion described inside of my ask. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
