I know you probably realize this pb, but I just want to emphasize that the verbiage that certainly something untoward has taken place wasn't coming from me, and would like to stress that to the rest of the list. It's just such a serious matter, that I believe outside investigation is almost certainly warranted, unless James agrees that there was no such withholding and additionally agrees that the degree of transparency with which his removal took place is in line with both the law and the values of the movement. On the extreme end, under california NPO governance, there are certain situations where such intentional document withholding could actually risk eliminating the normal shield trustees enjoy for most of their actions and making them personally liable, so it's a situation that's weird enough that clearing it up with transparency and speed is in the best interests of the Wikimedia movement.
Best, KG On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Philippe Beaudette <phili...@beaudette.me> wrote: > Kevin, > > I disagree with nothing you’ve said here. What I disagreed with was the > characterization that “certainly” something untoward had taken place. > > pb > > > > On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Philippe - > > > > I totally agree with you that none of my experiences with WMF suggest > that > > such a thing is likely to happen. Organizations and people change over > > time, though - similarly, this is the first time a sitting trustee has > been > > dismissed. Given the unusuality of the situation, in my opinion at > least, > > given the *drastic* seriousness that something like deliberately > > withholding documents in such a manner under California state law (I > can't > > speak with familiarity about Florida NPO governance,) and the fact that > > both the BoT and James could pretty easily give flat out answers to the > > question of whether or not they think it occurred, I think it's worth > > asking for those answers. > > > > If James and the BoT agree that such withholding took place, I think it > > demands an outside review of WMF governance. If James thinks it did, but > > the rest of the BoT disagrees.. given the general respect held for James' > > and the seriousness of the charge, I think an outside review of WMF > > governance is *still* probably reasonably necessary. If neither thinks > > such withholding took place, then it settles a serious charge quite > simply. > > > > Best, > > KG > > > > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 7:01 PM, <phili...@beaudette.me> wrote: > > > >> I don't believe that's "very clear" at all. You yourself said "If what > >> Ben said is true...." I think it's very possible - to the extent that > Ben > >> cautioned against it himself - that this may be a misunderstanding. > >> > >> In my nearly seven years at the WMF I never once saw corruption of the > >> sort you suggest. Not once. And I think it's safe to say I was well > >> connected. > >> > >> -- > >> Philippe Beaudette > >> philippe.beaude...@icloud.com > >> > >>> On Jan 2, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Comet styles <cometsty...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> We should probably start with our high and mighty leader, Jimbo, just > >>> like everyone else, He should now be 'elected' into the BoT, no more > >>> free seats..Wikimedia has now grown to an extent where we may no > >>> longer need him to run the foundation or to hold a deciding vote on > >>> issues where he has his own interests in..This problem of lacking > >>> transparency has leaked down to the lower levels of wikimedia as well, > >>> is that the example they are going to set? .. As I said before, the > >>> longer this drags on, the more likelihood of a 'manufactured' truth > >>> coming out.. > >>> > >>> People who do wrong need time to come up with a good lie....everyone > >>> knows this..James spoke the moment he was "fired" for which he was > >>> reprimanded by the same authority that 'fired' him...If what Ben > >>> Creasy said is true, then its definitely not James on the wrong here > >>> and I'd be really effing pissed if he was made a 'scapegoat' by the > >>> powers that be to save their own useless hide..Its very clear that > >>> there is corruption at the highest order at WMF....the question is.. > >>> How deep does it go? .. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Cometstyles > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > >>> New messages to: 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 > >> New messages to: 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 > > New messages to: 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 > New messages to: 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 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
