I think the expectation is that, unless this truly was an emergency that
required immediate and unforeseen action, planning would have been done in
advance for the possible outcomes.
That wouldn't be making it a foregone conclusion, as Jimmy said. There
should have been plans for how to communicate an involuntary dismissal, how
to communicate a resignation, and how to go forward and put it behind them
if the removal vote failed.
Even if this was an emergency, there's now been plenty of time to urgently
handle the communication and do something besides stonewalling. We don't,
as of now, even have an expected time frame for a detailed answer.
On Dec 30, 2015 7:17 AM, "Nathan" <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <
> > wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 2015 12:33 AM, "Craig Franklin" <cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> > wrote:
> > > but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to deal
> > > with the fallout of that decision.
> > That, at least, was addressed in the text from Jimbo that you quoted:
> Not really, why should they expect him to stay silent about being fired
> while the Board takes its time drafting a press release? Can't blame James,
> especially when his obligation to the board and the foundation was
> terminated along with his position. We ought to be able to expect the board
> and its members to be prepared for the consequences of their decisions, and
> it would be a disservice to the board and the movement to expect less.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com