On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:23 AM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9 May 2010 07:30, Samuel J Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Perish the thought. The Board is not controlling content - I >> would oppose any Board action that did so. < >> The Board does not support this - although individuals may - it >> is not the role of the Board or the Foundation to get involved >> with project policy or content discussions. > > The board members that have bothered speaking up have so far supported > it. Ting has expressly endorsed Board control over project content.
They are still speaking as individuals - and were mainly commenting on whether they thought it was appropriate for Jimmy to spur a policy discussion as a community member. Please do not confuse personal opinions - including my own - for a stance of the Board. Our mandate as a Board explicitly precludes meddling in Project policy, community disputes, and the like. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_member And the Board has always taken care in its official statements not to suggest it is directing project policy or content, except where -- as with the 2007 licensing policy -- this is the explicit intent, and the policy change crafted after extensive discussion with the Projects. >> As to a way forward -- it is (as ever) up to the Commons >> community to work out what its policies are to be, with Jimmy >> if they are willing. I encourage those who feel strongly about >> these issues to engage directly in discussions there. > > The overriding question will be the editorial role of the board. The Board has no editorial role, on Commons or on any other Project, unless you consider high-level goal-setting and prioritization ( like http://j.mp/wmfblp ) editorial. SJ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
