On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:29 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
By now, just two Board members explicitly stated what do they think about Jimmy's action: Jan-Bart de Vreede and Ting Chen (who explained his position in details).
According to not precise Board's statement I may guess who supports Jimmy's action and who doesn't. However, I don't want to guess. As a member of community who directly or through the chapters elects five Board members and other four through the delegation given to the previous five members, I want to know positions of other Board members.
Well, we as a community don't require such individual statements about any other issue; I realize this may be a personal dealbreaker for you but it doesn't seem like the single most important issue of our day. I'd much rather hear what individual board members think about strategy or the budget, which is of much more lasting import for how the foundation gets run.
There are some political reasons of why I am here. And they are about our values: all human knowledge... not censored... consensus culture... building encyclopedia etc., not surrealistic comedy...
(Saying so, I am not talking in absolute terms: we are not able to have all human knowledge, but the most important of; if people are deciding what should be censored for themselves, I am fine; sometimes we need [well planned] bold actions; sometimes it is nice to watch a surrealistic comedy.)
Those values are *before* finances. We are here because of them, not because of money or strategy. Money and strategy are here because of our values.
And I don't feel that I am the only one who has the opinion similar to the opinion described inside of my ask.