I appreciate that you have responded to the community outcry, though I
fear that the flowery rhetoric was not only lost on me, it also seems
to be obfusacting on the serious matters raised. The substantial
matters themselves rated a direct mention or a skerrick of
I believe that the community has clearly expressed that while you may
have a significant HR/P&C background, the dark shadow that you drag
into the Wikimedia is not one which a sizeable proportion of
interested and knowledgeable participants believes outweighs a clear,
untarnished integrity 
From your people management background, you cannot seriously have us
And you may be the fall guy / scapegoat / ...for the board's
short-sighted appointment / inexacting process / evident lack of
diligence; however, that may be the role that you need to take so that
the Board can get the clear air to regain the trust that it has lost.
Until that time we peasants may well be revolting. Who knows, this
time maybe we can create a white-out, rather than a black-out.
Risk-denial, risk-blindness and obstinacy are not traits that I see as
valuable in members of boards.
Further, I believe that there would surely be candidates with similar
people management credentials who don't have the dead weight. That
they may not have worked for Google, be male, or be in the Bay area
may be a problem, ... oh no ... maybe not!
Be pragmatic, it is clearly time for pragmatism. Please resign, as at
this time the hole has been dug by you and others has broken through
to the other side you have no base, there is no real return.
currently running at 263 no confidence votes, compared to 21. noting
that ref includes significant number of voices of clear reason and
office holders, senior and highly trusted volunteers within the WMF
movement who have a demonstrated history of intent, and integrity.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com