On 12 May 2010 00:38, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the
people involved. I can understand that they want to at least formally
defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all-
-recognize that the
David Goodman wrote:
I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the
people involved. I can understand that they want to at least formally
defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all-
-recognize that the discussion has moved in a somewhat more
A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the
concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful
about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between
the principles the Board agreed to in our statement and the actions taken
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote:
A lot has happened since my email so here's a quick follow-up. I hear the
concerns many of you have raised on this list and elsewhere. I feel awful
about them. As Kat said so well, I think there is a big difference between
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote:
...snip...
Jimmy acknowledged this wasn't right and I respect his apology.
...snip...
- stu
You mean his little smug little reply that it was a press stunt?[1][2]
and saying that it was a urgent matter[3] (yes! because
I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the
people involved. I can understand that they want to at least formally
defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all-
-recognize that the discussion has moved in a somewhat more permissive
direction now than
On 09.05.2010 02:04, Noein wrote:
On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote:
(1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography
distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous
hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issue
A few of you have asked for more perspectives from Board members on the
goings-on at Commons. I'm happy to share some of my personal views on the
events of the past few days.
First off, let me thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I've kept
up with many of the email threads, talk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote:
(1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography
distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous
hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the
Stu,
Thank you for telling us your views. You have admitted that the way
this was dealt with was messy. That such an approach would be messy
should have been obvious to everyone involved, so do you think it
would have been better to take a less messy approach? Perhaps the
Board could have issued
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Stuart West s...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...snip...
- We were hosting material that was unambiguously not
relevant to our educational mission and it needed to go. Its presence on
our projects/servers alienated people (users, potential new volunteers,
educators,
Hi,
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Stuart West s...@wikimedia.org wrote:
- Due to the failure of the community process, something extraordinary had to
be done. A small step was our Board statement we hoped would focus attention.
A bigger step was the work by Jimmy and other individuals on
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Stuart West s...@wikimedia.org wrote:
A few of you have asked for more perspectives from Board members on the
goings-on at Commons. I'm happy to share some of my personal views on the
events of the past few days.
First off, let me thank everyone who has
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote:
(1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography
distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free
On 9 May 2010 01:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote:
(1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography
distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous
Hello,
2010/5/9 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Stu,
Thank you for telling us your views. You have admitted that the way
this was dealt with was messy. That such an approach would be messy
should have been obvious to everyone involved, so do you think it
would have been better to
16 matches
Mail list logo
