I discussed with both James and Jimmy the choice of the word "unanimous". I'm satisfied with their responses. The BoT had a straw poll to make a decision about the leadership in November and the result of that poll may or may not have been unanimous (I'm fine with it being a straw poll at that point in time given the fact that there was a big information asymmetry among BoT members which would question doing a real poll. I'm also happy to see that BoT members are listening and want to improve our information sharing mechanisms). However, all BoT members agreed to support Lila, which is what Patricio has told us.
As a side note, I'd like to ask that we don't bring the conversations specifically tagged private to lists or conversations that include a broader audience. For example, staff were asked to create a safe space for everyone and not share the content of the November meeting publicly.
Leila On Feb 29, 2016 5:43 PM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
So please, let's stop pretending those two words mean the same thing.
They don't mean the same thing at all. But would you really dispute the statement that WMF leaders should be both transparent AND honest?
Transparency is a fundamental WMF value.
Nobody here is talking about vendor agreements; at least I am not. I have no problem whatsoever with your scenario. If the WMF enters into an umbrella agreement or business deal with Google or whoever, then that is something the community should know. If the WMF gets computer hardware at a preferential rate, absolutely no one is interested in that.
Andreas _______________________________________________ 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