So there is another shitstorm.. I experience it as increasingly militant
and unpleasant and irrelevant for me, GMAIL has the option to mute and the
other threat has already been muted.  So a new thread was opened with a
call to reduce the noise level..

From my perspective, the board does what the board does. There were a lot
of people who voted new people in because ... The composition of the board
is very different and it shows. The board was really consistent and a new
board has to grow up.But to be realistic, it does not matter too much. It
will remain business as usual

What people have to appreciate is that with business as usual, change comes
at best at a "glacial" speed. It does not matter what the quality of
arguments is, change is not accepted and the argument used most often is
"the community thinks otherwise". Community is conservative, is set in its
ways, arguments do not matter and contrary opinions are easily dismissed as
negative and irrelevant.

When enough people work each other up, it easily becomes a mob. With mobs
there is no room for the rational consideration of arguments. So I will
likely mute this thread as well.

On 3 January 2016 at 12:54, billinghurst <billinghurstw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kevin,
> ==Re opinion==
> I didn't mention anyone in particular, I was asking for people to
> reflect on their contributions, and that more people contributing here
> is better than the same people going around again. [I would prefer the
> mature approach that each author review their own posts and honestly
> reach their own conclusion, not to be told by others.]
> Some respond as if their contributions are of primacy and immediacy,
> and when that is done multiple times then it could be said to be
> without consideration for other opinions.
> Some bring in their gloom with the Foundation, or a part of their
> history, and try to link that to some catastrophe/action/conspiracy,
> which is all very shallow, in my opinion, and not helpful to the
> discourse for this complex matter.
> I gave my opinion on what I was seeing in the list, and hoped that it
> was informative to such reflections.  I would also think that numbers
> of us have experience in non-profits around the world, though
> indubitably not of the size and complexity. That said, whomever has
> has had to deal with the principles of privacy, confidentiality,
> by-laws, policies, fiduciary duties and it seems to me that these are
> being used here as a shield to answering questions, so let us get
> clarity on these statements. [1]
> ==My PoV==
> We all wish for lots of things, but most importantly I think that we
> all wish for the Board to note our disquiet of their operational
> processes and outcomes. I wish to hear the answers of the Board,
> though I will note that means their meeting in some form, and getting
> through their official processes and that all takes time.  I would
> much rather here the right statements, rather than quick or
> whitewashed statements. To me, speed of resolution comes second to the
> right resolution.
> To me what is clearly needed here is a fulsome statement from the
> Chairman to acknowledge the disquiet and to make a commitment to
> review their process, their needs and this outcome.  I see that his
> previous statement as more troubling than enlightening.
> To me (as an outsider observing only) the Board has taken on an issue
> 1) without understanding the consequences of the outcome
> 2) without a plan for what they were going to do if the resolution was
> successful
> 3) thinking that their historic methodology is unquestionably the right
> method
> 4) that disruptive technology (aka James) was successful in his
> candidacy due to exactly what they were railing against; and one would
> think that our Board should clearly be attuned to community's messages
> and aware of disruptive ideology.
> To me, at face value, this is an appalling fail in terms of risk
> management, and if nothing else our Board should be practising good
> risk management. That fail sets off alarm bells for me. Now I am
> wishing to understand whether I just don't have enough information, or
> whether we have elements of either risk blindness or risk denial, and
> the only means to understand that is clarity from the Board.
> The Board's inability to respond in a professional manner (one voice:
> a clear and timely voice)  to this revolt from their informed and
> experienced user base, speaks to one or more of: insufficient skills;
> insufficient planning; unsuitable systems;, wrong processes; or
> incompetent people.
> And please don't start me on this call for involvement of the Comms
> team and the right messaging. I have met them and hold them in great
> regard, this, however, is not about their massaging a determination of
> the Board. In plain man speak "you cannot shine a turd!"
> Now having spoken, I will be quiet and go back to reading and
> contemplating of (most) others' emails (and editing).
> Regards, Billinghurst
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Patricio.lorente#Re_your_statement_to_Wikimedia-L_2015-12-31
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com>
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Cc:
> > Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 22:19:33 -0800
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Over-opinionated
> > Billing -
> >
> > I hope some of my earlier contributions were, well, contributions, since
> I
> > do have fairly extensive training in the governance requirements of
> > CA-based non-profits - which certainly aren't Florida-based nonprofits,
> but
> > definitely share some similarities.  One of the things that has concerned
> > me is the public words of board members have pretty much entirely
> stressed
> > a hope to move past this smoothly, rather than a desire to instigate even
> > the sort of external review that the IEP resulted in.  One thing that
> would
> > make me pretty much shut up about the matter instantly is if, preferably
> > the BoT as a whole, but even an individual board member, voiced a strong
> > opinion/desire/committment to try to ensure that events that have
> > transpired so far are subject to an outside review by a group without
> > previous strong connections to the WMF that has a strong familiarity with
> > Florida NPO governance, and is as transparent as possible.
> >
> > Best,
> > KG
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Richard Ames <rich...@ames.id.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, please slow down the conversation and reduce the alarmist tones
> ....
> >>
> >> Regards, Richard (one of your moderators)
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 3:16 PM, billinghurst <
> billinghurstw...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > The whole process of James sacking from and by the Board is disturbing
> >> > to many of us. At this point there are many who have ... much to say.
> >> <cut>
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to