Hi all - Just to be clear, none of my previous posts were meant to suggest that the sky was falling - just that from the information that has been made public and am aware of, choosing to remove James from the board certainly wasn't legally necessary, and that there's a good chance it wasn't in the interests of the movement to remove him, and that it should probably be examined publicly whether or not it was a good or necessary idea. I'm not calling for anyone's heads even if a mistake was made; I know and respect many of the board as well, and don't doubt their devotion to Wikimedia - I just question if a mistake was made, and think that we should be transparent enough as a movement to figure out a mistake was made in a transparent fashion. If a mistake was made, then it would be a good idea to examine both procedures around the removal of board members, and also, potentially to ensure that the idea of transparency believed in by the Board is the same as the idea of transparency believed in by much of the rest of the movement. We've already learned one valuable lesson from this: Board should probably consult with comms before holding a meeting likely to generate controversy, even if that decision isn't 100% yet.
Best, KG On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote: > > > Den 2016-01-02 kl. 10:44, skrev Yaroslav M. Blanter: > >> >> This is an interesting theoretical discussion, and I criticized WMF in >> the past on a number of occasions, but I feel necessary to emphasize that >> there is not a slightest indication at this time that they do not care >> about retaining the community. At most, we have indications that they did >> not handle some issues in sub-optimal way. The probability that Wikipedia >> and sister projects will collapse in say ten years because some novel >> technical means become available and we do not manage to respond properly >> is in my opinion a billion times higher than that we will collapse because >> BoT or WMF staff function sub-optimally in their daily communications with >> the community. Let us discuss real things and not what happens if Martians >> come to enslave us. >> >> Cheers >> Yaroslav >> >> > I agree and I also think we should not over dramatize that someone is at > odds with a group and leave the group (by resignation or by forced leaving). > > I have myself been part of numerous groups in my life, probably several > hundreds, and have left in being at odds with the group/employer almost a > dozen times. A very few times by being sacked or ousted and mostly with me > resigning, but then feeling I have had very sound reasons for taking my > position making me becoming at odds with the rest. > > But in no case after the resignation has been a fact, have I continued to > dwell publicly over it. A fact is a fact and it is better to go on with > life for all parties (and it is enough my loyal wife has had to hear "my > side of it") . > > In this case I know first hand a majority of the Board and I know them to > be true to the values and belief of the movement, and as individuals being > caring, and the opposite to my most hated disliked personality, power > hungry persons without empathy. > > Anders > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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 New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>