On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not
> arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances.
> But this isn't how we should move forward.

​Erik, what do you see as the alternative?

There is a pattern here. For example, when James was removed in December,
Jimmy said he was not releasing information about it out of concern for

He wrote: "a man's reputation is at stake here." [1] "Our choice might have
been to post something blunt and damaging to him ... Remember, a man's
public reputation is at risk here." [2] And "Because a man's reputation is
at stake here, I think it wise to take it slow here. I care more about
James' future than I care about your foot stamping impatience." [3]

Those posts were troubling – on a par with someone on the Board making
James feel that he ought to propose accepting the Knight grant, when in
fact he was the one who objected to it. That James proposed it was then
held up as evidence that he wasn't telling the truth about other issues. [4]

Is this the kind of Board we want? How are we to move forward if we're not
allowed to talk about it?


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