Chris, I think you are misreading something that I wrote.
On 2/28/16 1:03 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
The Jimmy sent an email to the mailing list:
It was written at a time when there were efforts underway by Patricio to get James to agree to a joint statement. It is an encouragement to James to be honest with the community about what happened. It is not a full explanation of what happened - he already knew that.
And yet, when he was advised by James that in fact that effort was spearheaded by James and not Patricio, he turns around and states that he didn’t know as he wasn’t involved.
Both of those things are true. I knew they were talking, I didn't know who who initiated it.
Yes, but you need to be more clear. At the risk of playing semantic games, your exact words here are “efforts underway *by Patricio* to *get James to agree* to a joint statement.
You are implying here that the effort was all on Patricio’s side, which has nothing to do with who initiated the conversation. I’m sure you didn’t mean that, but nonetheless you’ve said it now.
Given that the Board asked James to leave their meeting, you wouldn’t be able to clarify a point that’s been puzzling me for some time?
1. When James was made to leave, then did anyone tell him that there was going to be a joint or prepared statement from the WMF? 2. If so, did anyone ask James not to email the mailing list? And why did you feel that was so inappropriate? 3. Please help me in understanding - do you feel that Chatham House Rules must apply in the removal of an executive even to the point they are unable to announce their own departure?
Jimmy has just now written that it was the Wikimedia Foundation that “encouraged [him] to be honest with the community”.
No, I said that I wrote him a personal letter to that effect.
I follow, the mistake here is mine. I apologise for getting that wrong.
Jimmy, will you respond to some of the other points I made? In particular, what you wrote to James was dreadful. Even if you feel that his actions were wrong, surely you can see that your inflammatory words are unbecoming of someone of your stature within the Wikimedia Foundation?
There are a lot of other questions that have been asked, but that would be a reasonable start. I don’t think you quite grasp how many people were shocked at the way you dealt with James when he was removed.
Chris
On 2/28/16 5:45 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
Yes, but you need to be more clear. At the risk of playing semantic games, your exact words here are “efforts underway *by Patricio* to *get James to agree* to a joint statement.
You are implying here that the effort was all on Patricio’s side, which has nothing to do with who initiated the conversation. I’m sure you didn’t mean that, but nonetheless you’ve said it now.
Ok. I didn't mean to imply anything. All I knew was that efforts were underway by Patricio to get James to agree to a joint statement. That's 100% true. I didn't know something else that is 100% true - that James initiated the process and was, therefore, presumably trying to get Patricio to agree to a joint statement.
In any event, that effort failed, so that's that.
Given that the Board asked James to leave their meeting, you wouldn’t be able to clarify a point that’s been puzzling me for some time?
- When James was made to leave, then did anyone tell him that there
was going to be a joint or prepared statement from the WMF? 2. If so, did anyone ask James not to email the mailing list? And why did you feel that was so inappropriate? 3. Please help me in understanding - do you feel that Chatham House Rules must apply in the removal of an executive even to the point they are unable to announce their own departure?
Wow, this is really getting into some nitty gritty. 1. I don't know. 2(a) I don't think so, but I don't know. 2(b) There was a general feeling of surprise that he started spinning his version of events before the meeting even ended. It would have been better to at least wait for the meeting to end and discuss how to best communicate it. (3) No, I don't think anything resembling that at all.
Jimmy, will you respond to some of the other points I made? In particular, what you wrote to James was dreadful. Even if you feel that his actions were wrong, surely you can see that your inflammatory words are unbecoming of someone of your stature within the Wikimedia Foundation?
I was astonished that he made claims that were utterly false - remember that this is 100% confirmed now with a statement from every board member who was involved. I'm sorry if the words upset some people, but I really was astonished.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Jimmy Wales jimmywales@ymail.com wrote:
On 2/28/16 5:45 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
Jimmy, will you respond to some of the other points I made? In particular, what you wrote to James was dreadful. Even if you feel that his actions were wrong, surely you can see that your inflammatory words are unbecoming of someone of your stature within the Wikimedia Foundation?
I was astonished that he made claims that were utterly false - remember that this is 100% confirmed now with a statement from every board member who was involved. I'm sorry if the words upset some people, but I really was astonished.
This is why we need to see as many documents as can be released.
Everything Doc James has said so far appears to have been correct, based on the information we have.
Sarah
On 29 February 2016 at 06:18, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Everything Doc James has said so far appears to have been correct, based on the information we have.
Ha, like those "Oh, I have done nothing wrong and no have no idea why I was removed" messages we heard for two weeks after James' removal, during which James avoided to mention that just about a week before he got dismissed from the Board, he personally emailed his then-Board colleagues and apologized to them for his mistakes, saying that he himself even considered stepping down but instead now wanted to ask the other trustees for a "second chance" since he's a guy who "learn[s] from [his] mistakes"? Of which we only learnt after insistent nagging by Denny?
I don't know if James' removal from the Board was justified or not, and maybe it was not. But I find it difficult to come up with a rationale for suggesting to the world that you were kicked out of the Board without any reason, when you yourself begged the Board for a second chance just a week before that decision. When I ask someone for a second chance, I know I messed something up, and of course I know what that was.
At any rate, not mentioning that fact from the start strikes me as surprisingly intransparent, particularly so given that James quickly started to praise himself for his transparent approach, to the extent he eventually even suggested that his removal from the Board was a result of it.
Best, Patrik
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org