Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

Indeed, Steinsplitter, they are 'buying time' hoping they can sweep everything under the rug within a week, unfortunately for them, a few news sites have picked up on the drama including BBCArrnon may have step down, but the issue is still there, what's to stop WMF from hiring another person

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > hi Lodewijk, > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Lodewijk > wrote: > > > thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to > give > > a clear time table for further

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board > > Dear all, > the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have > raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all > information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the bo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

Alice, et al Ars Technica have now reported on Arnnon's statement, and your statement.[1] Their previous article[2] touches on the Meta discussion. Le Monde has also published an article on this debacle,[3] as a result of the original Ars Technica piece. Please take the time to read the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

May I ask a question: Do you think it's ethical to ignore community demand for an explanation or a statement for *three weeks *and then issue a statement just within *three hours* after the story publishes in BBC ? Is publicity and public image of

[Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

Dear all, the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the board are listening to your worries and talking with community members,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

Alice and Arnnon, Thank you for your recent messages and your efforts to grapple with these issues. I have two questions which have been much discussed; perhaps you can provide clarification, so we can better understand the process? On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Alice Wiegand

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

Hi Alice, thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to give a clear time table for further updates. The silence is damaging, and I hope it goes away quickly, allowing some honest conversation. I can understand that you want full information, but please also note that the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alice Wiegand wrote: > the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you have > raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all > information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

hi Lodewijk, On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Lodewijk wrote: > thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to give > a clear time table for further updates. let me step in, since Alice is probably already asleep :) We're going to follow

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

I hope that the Board will make clear in its longer statement that the value of competence is an unacceptable trade for the value of integrity, and will explain how the Board reconciles the history of this trustee with the values of WMF and the Wikimedia movement. Personally, I have great

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

Let me echo the call for more frequent, substantive updates from the board. Articles about the controversy are on Ars Techinca and the BBC