I think the expectation is that, unless this truly was an emergency that required immediate and unforeseen action, planning would have been done in advance for the possible outcomes.
That wouldn't be making it a foregone conclusion, as Jimmy said. There should have been plans for how to communicate an involuntary dismissal, how to communicate a resignation, and how to go forward and put it behind them if the removal vote failed.
Even if this was an emergency, there's now been plenty of time to urgently handle the communication and do something besides stonewalling. We don't, as of now, even have an expected time frame for a detailed answer. On Dec 30, 2015 7:17 AM, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) < bjorsch@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Dec 30, 2015 12:33 AM, "Craig Franklin" cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to deal with the fallout of that decision.
That, at least, was addressed in the text from Jimbo that you quoted:
Not really, why should they expect him to stay silent about being fired while the Board takes its time drafting a press release? Can't blame James, especially when his obligation to the board and the foundation was terminated along with his position. We ought to be able to expect the board and its members to be prepared for the consequences of their decisions, and it would be a disservice to the board and the movement to expect less. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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