On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:29 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Milos Rancic
<millosh(a)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.