Sarah, thanks for the response -- but I find this puzzling. I don't want to
get into too many details here, as I think the comment thread on the
Signpost op-ed, or the poll on the letter's talk page, are more appropriate
venues for that; but briefly:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:30 PM, SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Pete, it does seem that since Lila arrived a lot of
the tension between
the Foundation and community has gone. I've several times heard her talk of
the need to respect the community because Wikipedia is nothing without it.
I am more interested in discussing actions than words.
You wrote above: "As I understand it, we are
still very much in the
'Superprotect disaster' era -- one which began under the same Executive
Director we have today."
Superprotect was implemented just after Lila arrived, but it was a decision
I'd say "citation needed," but in this case I am highly confident that no
citation exists. We have had no formal statement whatsoever on which to
base speculation. Beyond that, Lila was Erik's boss; and people closer to
the situation than myself have actually (privately) asserted just the
opposite, that Lila was the driving force.
The tensions behind it were very much a product of the pre-Lila
era, and had been growing for years.
I very much agree with this, yes.
It appeared that Lila quickly understood that it
needed to go.
I do not agree with this. She did acknowledge that the software feature had
been a problem, when she announced its removal. (Keep in mind, its
implementation happened on a Sunday afternoon, and its removal took a year
and a half -- so I'm not sure about "quickly.")
But more importantly, neither she nor the board have acknowledged, much
less moved to address, non-technical aspects of the letter.