On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Keegan, that may very well be true (though I would say it's certain
> communication channels, not "our entire movement.")
> But stating that has no logical relation whatsoever to whether or not a
> certain trustee should remain in their position.

​You are correct, because that's not where I was going with that: Denny's
account here has no logical relation as to whether or not Jimmy should be
on the board. It's being used to promote a political position.​

> Also: If there are eight people who repeat something ad nauseum, doesn't it
> stand to reason that there might be more than eight who feel the same way,
> but don't see the benefit in repeating it ad nauseum? Doesn't it stand to
> reason that there might be more than eight who *cannot* publicly state
> their view, without risking (in reality or in their imagination)
> substantial backlash due to their roles?

​Yes, there is a political camp within the movement that is anti-Jimmy that
is larger than eight people. These eight do a fine job speaking up loudly
to let us know that there is a political camp that is anti-Jimmy. That's
fine to feel that way. To continually hijack important conversations about
vision, strategy, and process to have to /always/ talk about a single
individual or cause is harmful to our movement. It's simple
DivideAndConquer group dynamics, and it should not be supported. I'm not
saying that people or groups cannot or should not be criticised - it's very
important. But the shell game that Blame Jimmy is not helpful in the least.



This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
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