Christophe, Wil tried to open issues closed few years ago. Besides that, not under ED mandate.
Everything else in his behavior was behavioral problem, not substantial one. Thus, quite irrelevant. Just if Lila opens the same questions -- and I am sure they are far from her focus -- that would become relevant. That's known by everybody gossipping about them and thus it is quite comparable with gossips related to sex, with the addition that this one is much more destructive. On Jun 15, 2014 8:14 PM, "Christophe Henner" <christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm puzzled of those emails. Especially melting organisational discussions > and private issues. > > Who sleeps with whom is of no importance actually. What you seem to > describe is someone using a personal relationship with a leader of our > movement to push forward its POV. > > This asks for an organisational discussion, not a personnal one. What > happens in someone's private life is private. > > If you believe that we're facing a leadership issue, as a movement, please > say so. > > Now, and this is not a first, you're hinting that there are issues on the > english Wikipedia following last weeks wikimedia-l discussions. Fair > enough, but what ARE those issues? (Austin asked the question I failed to > find a clear answer sadly.) > > From my point of view, french wikimedian, all I saw is some drama around > specific topics that stopped days ago. As far as I know, the crisis isn't > going further than that. And what your email, sofar, is doing, is > generating fruitless discussions. > > Hinting someone dumping someone else is NOT an organisational solution. > From my culture and my values it's not only rude and violent, but way over > the line. > > So if you want to solve the issue wp:en, one of many projects if I dare > remind you, is facing could you please : > * Recap the situation > * Provide links to the discussions you mention > * Provide organisational solutions > > Then, we, the larger community you reach out to through that email, will be > able to assess the situation and perhaps help you get through this. > > Best, > > > > -- > Christophe > > > On 15 June 2014 19:49, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > No, I have not recapped the whole situation. What I think is appropriate > > is > > > that we find a way to bring the situation to a calm conclusion of some > > > kind. I think the ED has far more options at her disposal than anybody > > > else, as well as a fair amount of responsibility for it happening in the > > > first place, but to date hasn't done anything about it. I think it's > > > appropriate to voice concerns about a situation that appears to be > > having a > > > strong impact on the existing social structure of Wikipedia. > > > > > > Finger-wagging about minor gossip is a distraction from the important > > > dynamics. > > > > > > -Pete > > > _________________________________ > > > > > > > > > You brought this nasty, hurtful gossip to a much larger stage. Wikimedia-L > > is a global list with many subscribers, including Wikimedia employees, Lila > > and Wil themselves, journalists and interested observers. Whether the > > rumors and deeply inappropriate commentary existed elsewhere is irrelevant > > to the fact that you made it much more widely known. You seem unable to > > understand how this kind of thing can effect real, living people with > > feelings. You also seem oblivious to the sexist nature of the gossip > > itself. > > > > Whatever you think of Wil and Lila and Wil's role so far (and, honestly, > > what you think is well known since you posted your insulting comments about > > Lila to this list), nothing justifies exacerbating the situation by > > republishing hateful gossip. You seem to think the core issue, whatever it > > is now (Wil's effect on Lila's reputation? On her effectiveness in her job? > > On the reputation of WMF in general?), deserves more discussion on this > > list. Yet you offer no evidence of this, or even reasoning in support of > > it. The gossip jabs are incidental, and seem calibrated to generate just > > the sort of drama you claim to disdain. Feel free to try again - start a > > new thread, explain what you think the actual problem is, limit yourself to > > discussion of that problem, and we'll see what happens. > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
