On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy, given the fact that James has requested you release it combined with the fact that it contains no confidential information, please release the particular email James requested you release. You've said that you would release it when you received permission from the board, but it was a private communication between James and you that did not contain any confidential information. The combination of private emails from you to Pete, me, and I suspect the email James refers to, combined with your public statements, makes me honestly have serious doubts about your ability to place the interests of the WMF above your personal interests, something your position requires you do.
I'm expecting no bombshells in the email - I imagine it's just insulting or untrue language directed at James - but you can't keep claiming to be an advocate of radical transparency while refusing to release emails that don't contain confidential information that shine light on an issue of public contention. In three seconds, you could demonstrate that my concerns are unfounded and that your email was reasonable, and with a little more you could demonstrate that there were defensible reasons for removing James in the first place.
Kevin,
You've been touting your experience on Boards in giving advice, and I have some experience there myself, so let's think of it in those Real World terms:
Regardless of what anyone's personal opinion on what may or may not be confidential, what may or may not be an insult or personal attack, what may or may not be etc., there is a very real legal shield of confidentiality in place not just for this board, but for any semi-professional organization that exists because personal opinion does not matter in the eyes of the law.
Multiple people are asking why James was removed. The answer has been given: the Board felt that they were unable to work with James, and due to the privacy of Board work, nothing can be disclosed further. While this answer is frustrating in a movement where we demand transparency for trust and collaboration (as we should), for Jimmy or anyone else to comment further would be - as an understatement - a poor decision, and one I'm sure Counsel would drop their jaw over, if not outright resign their position.
If you were in the same position, you'd do the exact same thing. If you didn't, you'd be opening up a hole for a lawsuit that you can drive a truck through. And that lawsuit and hole, friends, is what will be the death of the Wikimedia Foundation. Not this.