May I ask a question:
Do you think it's ethical to ignore community demand for an explanation or
a statement for *three weeks *and then issue a statement just within *three
hours* after the story publishes in BBC
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35411208> ? Is publicity and public
image of WMF BoT is this important to you comparing to what community asks?

Note: the BBC story has published in "2016-01-26T18:10:21+00:00" UTC. You
can check when the statement has issued.

I really really want to be mistaken, please tell me I'm mistaken

Best

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:50 AM Elliott Eggleston <eeggles...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Let me echo the call for more frequent, substantive updates from the board.
> Articles about the controversy are on Ars Techinca
> <
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/editors-demand-ouster-of-wikimedia-board-member-involved-in-no-poach-deal
> >
> and the BBC <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35411208>, and have made
> it
> to the front page of Reddit
> <
> https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/42r7t3/wikipedia_editors_revolt_vote_no_confidence_in/
> >.
> This has gone beyond diminishing the staff's and community's trust in the
> board and is now damaging the image of the entire movement. The idea that
> "Wikipedia is something special" where integrity and transparency are
> priorities has attracted editors, donors, and employees. Let's not lose
> that.
>
> -Elliott
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alice,
> >
> > thanks for the update. It's been quite a while - and you don't seem to
> give
> > a clear time table for further updates. The silence is damaging, and I
> hope
> > it goes away quickly, allowing some honest conversation. I can understand
> > that you want full information, but please also note that the
> conversation
> > in the community continues, with or without the board (whether we like it
> > or not) - and I'd prefer your voices of reason to be part of that. Could
> > you at least check back every few days to confirm you're still discussing
> > it, that there's still investigation going on, etc? For us, it is hard to
> > differentiate between nothing going on, or busy discussions in a
> backroom.
> >
> > After this all is over, maybe it is good to sit back, and consider some
> > kind of protocol or standard approach for a next time - because there
> > always will be a next time.
> >
> > Best,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Alice Wiegand <awieg...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > > the Board has read your messages and is discussing the concerns you
> have
> > > raised about Arnnon Geshuri’s appointment. We need to consider all
> > > information and we have conversations among ourselves. Arnnon and the
> > board
> > > are listening to your worries and talking with community members,
> > > considering people's opinions and his own next steps.
> > >
> > > In the recent round of appointments, the Board identified that we
> needed
> > > support and expertise in two areas: financial oversight and planning,
> and
> > > human resources. Kelly and Arnnon were identified through the process,
> > > reviewed alongside other nominees, and selected as finalists based on
> > their
> > > expertise and backgrounds. We all agreed they were excellent candidates
> > and
> > > people, and supported their progress as finalists.
> > >
> > > We understand this conversation will continue, and we will continue to
> > > monitor it. However, we want to be clear that the Board approved Arnnon
> > > unanimously and still believes he is a valuable member of the team.
> > >
> > > Please see this as a brief update. We owe you a more detailed response,
> > and
> > > we plan to come back to you with more information soon.
> > >
> > > Alice.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alice Wiegand
> > > Board of Trustees
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > >
> > > Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>

Reply via email to