Risker, your suggestion that by asking for board minutes I was really calling (and "pruriently" so!) for public release of Lila's performance appraisals is so bizarre and ridiculous that I don't know how to defend it except by advising anyone confused by you to actually read my prior email.
Similarly, your assertion that "Patricio's email and public posting stating that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it" equates to official board minutes, and no more is needed, leaves me a bit lost for words. What I asked for is a document like the dozens posted here (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings), and as I've written here before those things are so sparse of detail to barely qualify as "minutes" but they *do* typically say who raised a motion, who seconded it, and the result. Which is all I asked for. Now, what you also did is place the resignation ball firmly in Lila's court "Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it." This is at odds with the common perception that the board issued the call for her resignation, and she had little choice as a professional but to comply. Is that not what you thought? Or you thought the resignation came spontaneously from Lila? At least GorillaWarfare didn't see it that way. She said " It is clear that she did not up and resign on her own." Anyhow, it's a simple request for transparency. The board should publish the minutes or let it be known otherwise which trustee initiated (and which seconded) (and which opposed if any) the call for the ED's resignation. Trillium Corsage 16.04.2016, 02:23, "Risker" <email clipped>: > I think they already have been - by Patricio's email and public posting > stating that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it. It > doesn't matter who makes the motion to accept the resignation, since the > Board would have to debate it regardless; for motions like this, the > identity of the mover is more process than substance. > > The rest of the discussion would be a human resources matter which I > certainly hope was not recorded, or if it was, that it would ever be > published. I cannot imagine that anyone on this list would seriously > believe that personal performance appraisals should be published. It would > probably violate quite a few labour and human rights laws, not to mention > the separation agreement that no doubt exists. That's not transparency, > it's prurience. > > Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ 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>
