I recognise and again apologise for confusing the actions of two different Board members that represent the "community".
I have directly contacted Nataliia and apologised in person, and offered to do what she requests to make amends for the statement. I had no intention to participate in this any further until I had heard from Nataliia as to her wishes.
If there was a way to take back the statements as whole I would have already requested it, if there is a way for admins of the list to put my comments on moderation for a period time I request they do so or alternatively they can ban me from the list though them I'd be able to answer to the list for my actions.
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 07:46, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to agree with Nathan here. I don't know the history of the event described, so I'm not sure whether or not it would be fair to bring up even if it had been Natalia. But certainly, publicly identifying the incorrect person in an accusation is no small thing.
Gnangarra, you have given yourself an opportunity to show the rest of us what it looks like to take responsibility for doing something wrong. I think we are all interested to see what path you take.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:08 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Considering the context, Gnangarra, I think you owe something a little
more
substantial. In the midst of tearing Nat down for misdeeds which you yourself acknowledge she didn't personally commit (that of Board miscommunication), and considering your opposition is based on Board directives that she did not write, you slandered her with an accusation that is both incorrectly applied to her and false in any case.
As you said, "Taking responsibility for a gross failure does in fact mean accepting and acknowledging you failed, and then stating what you intend
to
do to rectify that failing." I await your demonstration of this principle which is clearly so critically important to you. Nataliia is a human
being
and a volunteer, as are we all, and we should all be better than to toss off gross insults against colleagues on no basis whatsoever.
On the topic, I think others have said it very well - the core problem is that this rebranding approach is backward. It should have begun with community conversations, with a "grass roots" effort to develop a common understanding of the problem. Instead the Board decided, paid some
people a
lot of money to present a narrow range of options, and planned the community consultation as a last and limited step. These are serious
errors
with significant consequences, as we see.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:19 AM Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
My apologies for that error
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe