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: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to