Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree with your point, and hope that we can find the courage to remind each other of this more often. Small, early reminders can go a long way towards avoiding a gradual erosion of boundaries. Gabriel On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Denny Vrandecic <dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: -- Gabriel Wicke Principal Engineer, Wikimedia Foundation

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Chris Sherlock <chris.sherlock79(a)gmail.com> wrote: ​It is not hard to keep discussions involving people relevant to the issues at hand, and discuss people in context of their role or influence in events and decision making, and these discussions are good to have. Starting threads pointedly about individuals, with discussions about the issues only tangential to the point of the attack on the individual is a very different thing, one that I think most recognize when they see this, as well as other threads that are coatracks and sea lioning.[0][1] For every positive thread we're generating, we're producing at least two other toxic threads. And we're tolerating it. We have to stop. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack 1. http://wondermark.com/1k62/ -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity.

I agree to do so. I'll help you constructively remind. Thank you. /a On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Keegan Peterzell &lt;keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Anna Stillwell Major Gifts Officer Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*

+1 On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Anna Stillwell &lt;astillwell(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266

Thank goodness. I was trying to work out for ages what wasn’t quite right about that! Agreed +1 from me also. Chris

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I did not bring this up in response to any one particular person, thread, or individual post. ​The issues are much broader and run far deeper, namely, the acceptability of actively or passive-aggressively seeking to hurt others in the guise of all of our shared concerns.. -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address is in a personal capacity.

Hoi, To be brutally honest. The way several people on this list have behaved has been really distressing. The format they used has been a disguise for hostility. The problem is that these "pillars of society" bring the house down. At issue was trust. Trust between staff and the ED. There were other issues like problems at board level that had little to do with what was initially brought as a big thing (think search engine). The ED has been sacrificed. It is obvious that the baying for blood has not stopped. Sad, depressing. Thanks, GerardM On 3 March 2016 at 12:31, Anthony Cole &lt;ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 3 March 2016 at 11:53, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: ... Last time I checked, Lila was still alive and supporting the WMF for the rest of the month. Fortunately the age of martyrs is long past. It is true that a change of CEO, means a convenient scapegoat so that issues that had absolutely nothing to do with Lila, such as Jimmy Wales' "utter fucking bullshit" attacks,[4] can be spun away and might be forgotten by the community. The trouble is, that many of these problems have not vanished just because Lila will be moving on. The deep rooted problems must be faced by the current board of trustees, and they can rely on the fact that after 15 years of organic growth of the community, there are too many passionate WMF observers, tech journalists and long serving Wikimedia volunteers who have memories stretching back longer than most trustees have been around. Criticism of the WMF board to be expected, when we read ridiculous contradictions in public statements and the jaw dropping failures in trustee governance over the past few months. Though a couple of "nutcases" (to quote a recent email sent to me) may be read as bloodthirsty and probably not worth focusing on, the vast majority of critical posts are supported by the facts and expressed in a civil way, even if they are grounded in anger and disappointment because, you know, those of us writing here who are not paid to do so, care about what happens to *our* Wikimedia projects and the future of *our* content. Fortunately we have been reassured many, many times that the trustees are listening, being thoughtful and they are nothing like clowns. Sadly the trustees are also many months overdue to take any meaningful positive action on their own failed governance. As an example, the Geshuri fiasco has not resulted in a single improvement so far, perhaps there never will be anything more than political spin in response, even the Board Governance Committee has not changed a single face as far as I can tell (though, they appear to have not published any minutes since 2013, may there are minutes hidden away somewhere equally opaque, it's beyond my skills to discover them at this moment).[1] In the meantime, dearest Gerard, please turn down the dial from 11 to a 6, especially if you are going to keep on being the most prolific poster breaking the 30 post soft limit month after month.[2][3] Links 1. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Category:Minutes 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_to_eleven 3. https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html 4. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/27/trust_me_pleads_wikipedia_former_go… Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae