Not responding to the particulars of the discussion below, but still on the topic expressed in the header above, I would like to know if the minutes of the board meeting in which the trustees voted to dismiss the executive director Lila Tretikov will be published.
I did look for them (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes) but these minutes (if they exist) are not currently there. Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically, "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila." I am interested a little further. I would like to know if Jimbo not only supported but *introduced* the motion to dismiss Lila. If not him, okay, but then whom? Thank you. I'd like to review some minutes but would also be pleased to hear the comment of any trustee that was there. Jimbo has already revealed his vote, so it doesn't seem like another trustee should be criticized for violating any confidence, after all Wikimedia prides itself on transparency. Trillium Corsage 16.03.2016, 12:17, "Andreas Kolbe" <email clipped>: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <email clipped> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <email clipped> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <email clipped> >> > wrote: >> >> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to >> >> release an email? >> > >> > Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about >> > whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James.  >> > >> > There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to >> > James and cc-ed to Pete. >> > >> > James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake.  >> > >> > Sarah >> > >> >  >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html >> >  >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html >> >> Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest >> priority. It has gone on too long. >> If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from >> other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part >> was redacted. > > As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here. > The same applies to the question Sarah posed here and others repeated > here. > > There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things > drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I > submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication > in this movement for long enough. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>