On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)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.
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
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.
This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.