Jimmy, a lot of us are bewildered and are finding it very hard to
understand, why you continue to spin and distract.  I do understand that
your current strategy is to pin a bunch of this on Damon. That is not going
to fly.

You are not accountable to anyone, Jimmy.  That you can write things like
what you write below to this whole list, is a testament to that.  That is
not good for anyone.  Not you, and not the movement.

What you apparently cannot see in your email to James, is the arrogance in
it, and that the certainty that you are correct and James is incorrect,
dressed in nice clothes.  Wikipedia is a laboratory of human behavior,
where all too often we all watch people flounder and persist in IDHT
behavior.  You apparently cannot see how transparent your behavior is.

I cannot understand why you continue digging.

Outside the sea of perception - here are three facts -  both you and
Patricio lost a boatload of credibility by misrepresenting the board's
stance in November. That was incredibly damaging to the movement.  None of
you have done anything in public to address that.

Here is my perception - your refusal in particular to deal in a
straightforward manner with James' dismissal and the whole KE debacle has
further made anything you say hard for me to believe.  I believe this is
true for a growing number of people.

My preference would be that you all pivot, disclose what has gone on over
the last year or so, and apologize.  I do not see that anywhere on the
horizon.

Why?  It is transparent to me, that it is because neither you nor the board
is accountable to anyone.  You all can behave as you did, and talk now
about that as you are talking now, and ... nothing happens.  Asking you to
be straightforward, has no effect.

I intend to work with others to make a significant number of board seats
elected.  This is coming down to a matter of power; we cannot rely on
values.



On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@wikia-inc.com>
wrote:

> On 3/10/16 8:18 AM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
> > I was glad when I saw Jimbo indicate he was reaching out to James.  At
> > the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, maybe Jimbo should send James
> > another email, this time extending a clearer olive branch.  If we're
> > past the point of no return on that, then so be it, but I would be
> > happy to know that after three months of talking about and at each
> > other, you guys _sincerely_ tried talking to each other.
>
> I agree completely.  My email, which seems so horrifying to a few
> people, was meant exactly as that.  The truth is, I am genuinely
> bewildered and finding it very hard to understand why James says things
> that the entire rest of the board find contrary to fact.
>
> There is nothing horrible about encouraging him to think about whether
> emotion has blinded him.  When so many other people who know the facts
> are telling you that you have it wrong, it's a good idea to pause and
> reflect.
>
> And yes, it would have been more charitable and kind to include other
> options in that email.  I wrote it as an opening to a dialogue, not as a
> formal statement of position to be analyzed in public.  I invite people
> to think whether Pete's publishing of it was done in the interests of
> healing and harmony, rather than to further inflame and create drama.
>
> There's a lot more to respond to on wikimedia-l, and I may do so this
> weekend.  But there's one thing that is worth saying quite strongly:
> There was never a project at the Wikimedia Foundation to build a search
> engine to compete with Google.  This has been confirmed by engineers
> working in that area.  I have been very straightforward in telling
> people what I know about it, and I have not seen any evidence that the
> people who have told me what happened have lied to me about that.
>
> What there was, and this has become clear only recently, was a proposal
> by Damon, passed around with great cloak-and-dagger, with his ideas
> about how we could and should do that.  Those ideas never got traction
> and never made it to the board level.  What was proposed to the board
> was an investment in internal search and discovery.
>
> There's also the side issue - and I don't mean it is unimportant, I mean
> it is a side issue - of the language in the Knight Foundation some of
> which apparently survived from Damon's early brainstorms.  I am not
> happy about that language, but my understanding is that the Knight
> Foundation is fine, that they understood and understand that the
> deliverables in the grant - which is what matters - are modest and
> reasonable as an exploration of what we should do next in this area.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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