2016-03-09 23:21 GMT-08:00 SarahSV <sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com>om>:
> And no, I'm not a fan how things have played
out so far, and I'm not
> arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances.
> But this isn't how we should move forward.
Erik, what do you see as the alternative?
To clarify, I was specifically objecting to the leaked private email,
not to addressing the issues with James' ejection from the Board. I
know James and worked with him especially on the Wikivoyage migration;
I understand well why he is so widely trusted and why this matter has
cut deep wounds.
I would suggest the following.
* I would still ask to give the Board a little time to finalize their
decision regarding the interim ED, which seems imminent. That means
not just announcing, but also some time to provide support and
orientation in that person's first weeks. (E.g., the interim ED will
need to build a relationship with the Board itself.)
* Until then, I suggest focusing on documenting rather than debating.
What Molly did with the timeline is a fine example of "collaborative
journalism" and the Wikimedia community is at its best when it
collects the facts in an NPOV manner. Coordinating this on a single
page can reduce the forest fire nature of this conflict. I strongly
recommend avoiding one-sided leaks of private emails and such for the
reasons I gave.
* Once the Board has a bit of bandwidth, the Chair of the Board
(Patricio) really is the primary person to look to for bringing
closure to this matter. Dealing with issues with current and former
Board members is _precisely_ the kind of thing a Board Chair needs to
demonstrate leadership on, because it can't be done by committee.
* To do this in a manner that's both transparent and consistent with
community norms, I've suggested engaging a professional facilitator.
(I believe Pete has also said so several times.) There could be a
private/public meeting, where there's a private discussion with James
and the facilitator, and a public joint statement that comes out of
this, even if it ends up being "agree to disagree". It's the
facilitator's job that this comes to pass.
* That public bit could lead into a general public discussion with the
Board. I would recommend a metrics meeting style format (video + IRC
backchannel) with a wiki page to submit questions beforehand, and +1
If that plan seems sensible, I would also suggest Jimmy disengage on
the James Heilman matter from here on and leave this issue to the
Board Chair to bring closure to.
Hope that helps. I know this has all been exhausting for lots of
folks, so please take it in the spirit in which it is intended, i.e.
to help bring closure to it in a step-by-step way.