Gergő Tisza wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:54 AM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>> Removing a roof without also having a plan for an interim roof is a
>>really amateur mistake.
>Not really if the roof was radioactive, and on fire.
The roof didn't blow off in a storm; it was structurally unsound. We know
this because roof repair has been in discussion for months. We know this
because the old roof will be around until the end of March 2016. If the
roof were really on fire, I think we would all hope for faster action!
>It is entirely a matter of priorities - is it more urgent to fix a
>situation that was causing serious unrest amongst staff, and was
>escalating quickly, or to compose a nice transition plan? You might
>disagree with the board's answer to that question, but there are more
>honest ways of criticizing it than attacking them for not doing
>everything at the same time.
Respectfully, I think you're presenting a false dichotomy here.
The board was aware of the issues with the roof since at least November
2015, as I understand it. Is four months really not enough time to develop
a transition plan, not for a permanent replacement, but for an interim
replacement for the roof? Nobody is saying that the Board of Trustees must
do everything at the same time. But at some point in time, the board
should exhibit some meaningful leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com