On 29 Dec 2015 01:17, "Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Even if there are legal reasons that disclosure is not possible, a simple statement to that effect ("For legal reasons, we cannot provide additional information") should be at the very least forthcoming.
If the removal was "not for cause", which apparently is allowed, that should be explicitly stated as well.
I think it's probably likely there will be a limit on how much we can know.
If James was removed because of some serious disagreement with the rest of the Board on an important issue, then the issue itself might mean WMF has duties of confidentiality. This would be true for instance in almost any issue connected with WMF staff, for instance.
If (much less likely ) it related to James's personal conduct then WMF continues to have a duty of care towards him (and also must avoid defaming him).
And finally, all involved will doubtless be trying to resolve whatever the underlying problem,which is probably very difficult for all concerned - and trying to avoid further provocation or anguish by saying things in public.
Regards,
Chris
On Dec 28, 2015 5:45 PM, "Steven Zhang" cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
Quite surprised by this action, it does indeed seem unprecedented and I would hope the board would release a statement as to why this decision
was
made. Unless there are legal reasons that mean the board cannot disclose why, I would think that an explanation should be provided.
Steve Crossin
Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Dec 2015, at 11:32 AM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
I really, really hope that, as fast as one can be written, a
resolution
explaining more fully the circumstances of James' departure from the
board
is written and passed. If there are legal reasons that mean that his departure cannot be more fully explained, that itself needs to be
noted -
and I hope they're particularly strong reasons. Without looking up
the
vote count in the last election: James has the trust of a huge
segment of
the community, and also has a much stronger sense of direction in how
WMF
should be steered than many of our trustees have in the past. His
sudden
removal (the power mechanism I've cobbled together to have my laptop functional today is hilarious) without further explanation looks way
too
much like one of only three directly elected trustees spoke up too
openly
in a way that wasn't welcomed about the directions he thought
Wikimedia
should go - even though he literally published a platform before he
was
elected. The sudden removal of a very well respected community
elected
trustee has at least the appearance of a board that may not want to be responsive to those who literally create it's only valuable asset.
Best, KG
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com
wrote:
Add me as well. Eager to know what happened. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
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