After a chat with someone more familiar with Jimmy Wales' user talk
page than myself (I don't regularly follow it, as Jimmy does not grant
me free speech there), I think this may be the link, but we agree
it's impossible to tell for sure as it all seems too obscure and
tangential; quote:"... I continue to make the case to the board that
greater transparency is desirable with regard to the reasons for
None of the discussion seems to be anything that reads as much more
than hearsay with plausibly deniability, and we are left hanging on a
promise of something eventually where all the other trustees, not
Jimmy, must be at fault for dragging their feet and failing to be
transparent about an email that Jimmy wrote to James, that nobody else
could have any legal or ethical reason to think they had a right to
veto publishing; considering it has already been suggested that
anything that might give the board of trustees a legal problem could
be redacted in a minimal fashion.
It's a shame that WMF trustees are not subject to the type of legal
constraints which most European charities operate under, forcing the
organization to release records given a subject access request within
a limited time... unless they sadly have an unexpected "administrative
error" and delete the important/embarrassing records they should have
It's not quite reached a month since publication was first requested
and agreed to by James to avoid any issue with respecting
confidentiality, so readers of this list may have unrealistic
expectations that this will be clarified in a timely way.
On 23 March 2016 at 23:32, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:
Thanks for the general pointer, but given the high amount of discussions on
your talkpage, I'm uncertain which comment you are referring to?
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales <jimmywales(a)wikia-inc.com> wrote:
> > But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
> Diff, please.
> Andy Mabbett