No. It's likely based on GerardM's comments on his blog, here: http:// ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about-process.html in which he suggests that the board should repudiate the results if Danny is elected.
-Dan On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
I'm hoping that was a joke.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:28 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] Will the Board accept the election result?
What are the chances of the Board ignoring the election result if it doesn't like it?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Very, very interesting. Thanks for the link, Dan.
Casey Brown
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dan Rosenthal Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:39 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Will the Board accept the election result?
No. It's likely based on GerardM's comments on his blog, here: http:// ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about-process.html in which he suggests that the board should repudiate the results if Danny is elected.
-Dan
On 07/07/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
No. It's likely based on GerardM's comments on his blog, here: http:// ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about-process.html in which he suggests that the board should repudiate the results if Danny is elected.
LIKELY?
?????????????????
I suppose this is why Wikipedia doesn't generally accept blogs as 'reliable sources'?
I could suggest that the Board do lots of things, but I don't see how that makes it 'likely' that the Board will in fact do any of them.
This seems a very weird suggestion to me.
regards Brianna user:pfctdayelise
On 7/7/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/07/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
No. It's likely based on GerardM's comments on his blog, here: http:// ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about-process.html in which he suggests that the board should repudiate the results if Danny is elected.
LIKELY?
?????????????????
I suppose this is why Wikipedia doesn't generally accept blogs as 'reliable sources'?
I could suggest that the Board do lots of things, but I don't see how that makes it 'likely' that the Board will in fact do any of them.
This seems a very weird suggestion to me.
regards Brianna user:pfctdayelise
I think he meant that this thread was likely based on that blog post, not that what was said in the blog post was likely to actually happen.
Rory
Rory is correct, that is exactly what I meant. I was pointing out that the rumors of it were probably based on GerardM's comments.
-Dan On Jul 7, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Rory Stolzenberg wrote:
On 7/7/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/07/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
No. It's likely based on GerardM's comments on his blog, here: http:// ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about-process.html in which he suggests that the board should repudiate the results if Danny is elected.
LIKELY?
?????????????????
I suppose this is why Wikipedia doesn't generally accept blogs as 'reliable sources'?
I could suggest that the Board do lots of things, but I don't see how that makes it 'likely' that the Board will in fact do any of them.
This seems a very weird suggestion to me.
regards Brianna user:pfctdayelise
I think he meant that this thread was likely based on that blog post, not that what was said in the blog post was likely to actually happen.
Rory _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Please read what I wrote, I asked Danny Wool to finally answer the question that the refuses to face, the question is and was: Why do you think that it is appropriate for you to stand.
I also wrote that I agreed with a point made by Kelly Martin, that it is the board that accepts the election results.
There is nothing new here and it certainly does not say that the board should or will repudiate the election.
With the process of the election changed as a result of the action of Gregory Maxwell, there is ROOM to ask Danny AGAIN why he does stand. There are great arguments why he should not stand. The best arguments are the ones that he provides himself, his opinions indicate that he is not likely to be a cooperative member when elected. When he resigned from his position as an employee, he did not provide any reasons.
So to recapitulate:
- Kelly Martin originally suggested that the board has the option to use the results as it likes, she is correct - Danny Wool has been invited several times to answer the question why it is a good thing for him to stand, a question that he refuses to answer - Given that the process of the election has changed, there is again room to ask this question - Please read carefully because you assume that I wrote something that I did not.
Thanks, GerardM
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/07/election-drama-continues.h...
On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
No. It's likely based on GerardM's comments on his blog, here: http:// ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about-process.html in which he suggests that the board should repudiate the results if Danny is elected.
-Dan On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
I'm hoping that was a joke.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:28 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] Will the Board accept the election result?
What are the chances of the Board ignoring the election result if it doesn't like it?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Not speaking on the behalf of Danny in any shape or form...
There could nevertheless be many reasons why Danny could be prevented from speaking his full mind. For instance confidentiality agreements he had undertaken as an employee.
I find it amusing that you are asking for a close reading of your own message, to avoid over interpretation or whatever, when it would behove us all to AGF well and deeply.
Hoi, Assume good faith does not mean that you have to continue this assumption when faced with facts that make this impossible. I have had dealings with Danny about possible potential donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. These donations did not happen because Danny did not bother to do his job. He did not even contact me when he was told to do so.
From my perspective, Danny is not fit for a position as a board member. As
he does not answer the question why it would be good for him to stand, there is no reason to think otherwise.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7/7/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Not speaking on the behalf of Danny in any shape or form...
There could nevertheless be many reasons why Danny could be prevented from speaking his full mind. For instance confidentiality agreements he had undertaken as an employee.
I find it amusing that you are asking for a close reading of your own message, to avoid over interpretation or whatever, when it would behove us all to AGF well and deeply. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 7/7/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Assume good faith does not mean that you have to continue this assumption when faced with facts that make this impossible. I have had dealings with Danny about possible potential donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. These donations did not happen because Danny did not bother to do his job. He did not even contact me when he was told to do so.
From my perspective, Danny is not fit for a position as a board member. As he does not answer the question why it would be good for him to stand, there is no reason to think otherwise.
Thanks, GerardM
Apart from top posting, your view is excellently valid.
People are well advised to heed
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 7/7/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com > wrote:
Hoi, Assume good faith does not mean that you have to continue this assumption when faced with facts that make this impossible. I have had dealings with Danny about possible potential donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. These donations did not happen because Danny did not bother to do his job. He did not even contact me when he was told to do so.
From my perspective, Danny is not fit for a position as a board member. As he does not answer the question why it would be good for him to stand, there is no reason to think otherwise.
Thanks, GerardM
Apart from top posting, your view is excellently valid.
People are well advised to heed any and all views that are freely offered.
and can I just say that gmail sucks big tiem....
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 7/6/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
From my perspective, Danny is not fit for a position as a board member. As he does not answer the question why it would be good for him to stand, there is no reason to think otherwise.
If you object to him being on the board, that's one thing; you are free to campaign against him. You and others have repeatedly raised valid questions regarding Danny's past actions.
Arguing that he should not be allowed to stand for election in the first place is... wrong.
Believing that you should be able to impose new arbitrary criteria for fitness of people to stand for election to the board is .... wrong.
That's not what free elections are all about. Please stop this insanity.
Hoi, I do agree with you up to a point. We are past that point.
I agree with you that from the moment elections are announced, the rules and the way people are expected to behave is fixed at that time. I have opposed Danny's candidature from the moment he resigned as a staff member. In the e-mail send by Jan-Bart it is plain that it is not considered a good thing when staff members and ex-staff members stand for a board position.
When Gregory Maxwell changed the rules as I understood them by canvassing the people who had not elected yet by e-mail, it changed the way you are allowed to behave. I have consistently argued that it is not a good idea for Danny to stand. I have been vocal about this. The suggestion that there is an arbitrary criteria that I would want to impose is wrong. I agree with Jan-Bart, staff members and ex-staff members should not stand for election and I agree with Jan-Bart that this should be a rule at the start of a next election.
An election is a procedure that should be fixed when the call for elections go out. I have again raised the question only after this notion went out the window. I have raised the issue again and again there is no answer, as there is no answer I can only conclude that my conclusion is correct; not only should he not stand, he is also the wrong person for the job.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7/7/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/6/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
From my perspective, Danny is not fit for a position as a board member.
As
he does not answer the question why it would be good for him to stand,
there
is no reason to think otherwise.
If you object to him being on the board, that's one thing; you are free to campaign against him. You and others have repeatedly raised valid questions regarding Danny's past actions.
Arguing that he should not be allowed to stand for election in the first place is... wrong.
Believing that you should be able to impose new arbitrary criteria for fitness of people to stand for election to the board is .... wrong.
That's not what free elections are all about. Please stop this insanity.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In the UK we have laws about what can be said during an election period regarding candidates, and
On Sat, July 7, 2007 20:34, GerardM wrote:
I have opposed Danny's candidature from the moment he resigned ...
and
I have consistently argued that it is not a good idea for Danny to stand.
and
not only should he not stand, he is also the wrong person for the job.
are not things that, imho, should be published on an email list such as this. You are welcome to your opinion, certainly, but making that opinion public via a foundation-sponsored / -organised email list is, to my mind, completely wrong and unfair on not just Danny but also all the other candidates.
There is no good reason why you should be able to smear one candidate against the others. All the candidates are - clearly - sincere in their intentionsm and none of them deserve the treatment you are meting out.
Please desist.
Alison Wheeler
On 7/7/07, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote: < All the candidates are - clearly - sincere in their intentions
This is one of the wonderful things about the projects... that we have so many people deeply committed to make them thrive that even at the heart of election drama, all involved share that greater goal.
SJ
Hoi, There is nothing new in what I have said about Danny, I said the same thing from the moment that he announced that he was going to run. This is also not an election that is run under UK laws, the election is not run under any election laws except for the rules as published by the WMF.
The reason why I object to Danny is because of my personal dealings with Danny. These and other things I have learned, observed make him a person that is in my honest opinion not the right person for the function of board member of the WMF.
I do not smear Danny against any other candidate, the direct dealings I have had are of a sufficient gravitas that I have no need to make comparisons. The point that I have been making is that THIS candidate is not the best for the job. Also sincerity does not make for sterling arguments why someone should run. I have explicitly asked for Danny's motivation why he should run. These questions have not been answered.
In conclusion, what you wrote does misrepresent the situation and as such it deserves a rebuttal.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7/7/07, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
In the UK we have laws about what can be said during an election period regarding candidates, and
On Sat, July 7, 2007 20:34, GerardM wrote:
I have opposed Danny's candidature from the moment he resigned ...
and
I have consistently argued that it is not a good idea for Danny to
stand. and
not only should he not stand, he is also the wrong person for the job.
are not things that, imho, should be published on an email list such as this. You are welcome to your opinion, certainly, but making that opinion public via a foundation-sponsored / -organised email list is, to my mind, completely wrong and unfair on not just Danny but also all the other candidates.
There is no good reason why you should be able to smear one candidate against the others. All the candidates are - clearly - sincere in their intentionsm and none of them deserve the treatment you are meting out.
Please desist.
Alison Wheeler
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, July 7, 2007 21:59, GerardM wrote:
The point that I have been making is that THIS candidate is not the best for the job. Also sincerity does not make for sterling arguments why someone should run. I have explicitly asked for Danny's motivation why he should run. These questions have not been answered.
Categorically, No.
What you have been doing is trying to force your *personal* opinion down the throats of all the other readers of this email list. What you think of Danny is your *personal opinion* and is *not* (imho) an appropriate use of this list to repeatedly diss him in this way. Danny is welcome to answer questions or not as he sees fit,. Likewise, i have asked questions of candidates but not always been answered and I am sure that they too have their reasons for failing to do so, but I don't troll this list about it.
You are welcome to your opinion but you are not welcome to 'force feed' the rest of us with this diatribe, thank you very much.
Alison Wheeler
On 7/7/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The reason why I object to Danny is because of my personal dealings with Danny. These and other things I have learned, observed make him a person that is in my honest opinion not the right person for the function of board member of the WMF.
I have no problem with this position, and for that reason you should feel free to not vote for him, and to urge others not to vote for him. You can even vote for everyone but him, if you are so inclined.
I do not, however, see any reason he should feel compelled to justify, to your satisfaction, why he's running. The mere fact that he wants to is grounds enough in our system, and others have provided less.
Even then, the very strong statements that he's made have indicated, to me anyway, that he believes the current board has made bad decisions and that he seeks to change several precisely enumerated things. Whether I agree or not, I have no problem divining the reason he wants a seat on the board.
The fact that Greg Maxwell spammed users of the English Wikipedia certainly does not "change the rules" and justify renewing a vitriolic smear campaign. It seems hateful and petty, and I expect more from, well, everyone.
Austin
In the UK we have laws about what can be said during an election period regarding candidates
We do? There are laws about what the media can say, there are laws about libel and slander, but laws preventing regular people stating their opinions? I've certainly never heard of such a thing, and I would be very surprised if it exists ("freedom of speech" mean anything to you?).
Why shouldn't people be allowed full possession of the facts when they vote? Those facts include people's opinions.
On Sat, July 7, 2007 22:46, Thomas Dalton wrote:
In the UK we have laws about what can be said during an election period regarding candidates
We do? There are laws about what the media can say, there are laws about libel and slander, but laws preventing regular people stating their opinions?
I suggest you check the Representation of the People Act regarding what may be published (and, lest you forget, an email list *is* publishing).
I've certainly never heard of such a thing, and I would be very surprised if it exists ("freedom of speech" mean anything to you?).
"Freedom of Speech" is actually an American state of law, not an English/British one.
Why shouldn't people be allowed full possession of the facts when they vote? Those facts include people's opinions.
"facts include opinions" huh? I suggest you never appear in a court of law as you'd be laughed out of it!
Alison
On 7/7/07, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
I suggest you check the Representation of the People Act regarding what may be published (and, lest you forget, an email list *is* publishing).
Which one? there have been over 10 of the things.
Only thing I can find in the 2000 act is some stuff relateing to to exit polls
Which section as well.
"Freedom of Speech" is actually an American state of law, not an English/British one.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been both english and welsh and scotish law for some time. No where near as solid as the US equiv mind.
"facts include opinions" huh? I suggest you never appear in a court of law as you'd be laughed out of it!
It would appear to be a fact that Margaret Thatcher was of the opion that retakeing the Falkland Islands was the right thing to do
"facts include opinions" huh? I suggest you never appear in a court of law as you'd be laughed out of it!
It would appear to be a fact that Margaret Thatcher was of the opion that retakeing the Falkland Islands was the right thing to do
Exactly. While "Danny would be a bad board member" may not be a fact, "Gerard thinks Danny would be a bad board member" most certain is factual, and I see no reason why people should not be allowed to know that fact when voting.
On Sat, July 7, 2007 23:43, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Exactly. While "Danny would be a bad board member" may not be a fact, "Gerard thinks Danny would be a bad board member" most certain is factual, and I see no reason why people should not be allowed to know that fact when voting.
Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the UK.
You and Gerard are no Prime Ministers, indeed all that stating "I see no reason why people should not be allowed to know {your opinion]" demonstrates is your conceit that anyone else would be at all interesting in your opinions!
Anyway, enough of this waste of time. There is an election still going on (just) ...
Alison
Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the UK.
You and Gerard are no Prime Ministers, indeed all that stating "I see no reason why people should not be allowed to know {your opinion]" demonstrates is your conceit that anyone else would be at all interesting in your opinions!
Anyway, enough of this waste of time. There is an election still going on (just) ...
Surely it is up to individuals to decide if they give any weight to Gerard's opinion - how can they make that decision if they aren't allowed to hear the opinion in the first place? It's perfectly on-topic for this mailing list, so I don't see how anyone can have a legitimate complaint about it wasting their time and bandwidth.
I think we're getting a bit too far off the topic for this one. While it may be appropriate to note that some jurisdictions have laws regarding what can be said about a candidate during elections (for public office).....getting into the nittygritty of it doesn't really apply to this election.
We've established that Florence has said that the election results will stand, so that should clear up that whole spiel. And maybe it will prompt a new blog post from GerardM ;) . Margaret Thatcher is an opinionated woman about the Falklands, we've got that. Now with those two things settled, if we can stand to wait for the results, we can move on to bigger and better flamewars?
-Dan
On Jul 7, 2007, at 6:33 PM, geni wrote:
On 7/7/07, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
I suggest you check the Representation of the People Act regarding what may be published (and, lest you forget, an email list *is* publishing).
Which one? there have been over 10 of the things.
Only thing I can find in the 2000 act is some stuff relateing to to exit polls
Which section as well.
"Freedom of Speech" is actually an American state of law, not an English/British one.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been both english and welsh and scotish law for some time. No where near as solid as the US equiv mind.
"facts include opinions" huh? I suggest you never appear in a court of law as you'd be laughed out of it!
It would appear to be a fact that Margaret Thatcher was of the opion that retakeing the Falkland Islands was the right thing to do
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 07/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When Gregory Maxwell changed the rules as I understood them by canvassing the people who had not elected yet by e-mail,
I understand other projects have been running extensive drives to get the vote out. What's the difference from those, in your mind?
- d.
Hoi, The difference is in the methodology. When a community is interested in the election and as a consequence enthuse about this you have what has been the practice of the previous elections. Gregory added to the process the automated electioneering that is common to American elections. This resulted in a change of my appreciation of what is permissible. It resulted in people removing e-mail as a method of getting into contact with them. It is the first time that a method of spamming MediaWiki users was proven to be feasible.
Again for the record, as Gregory has been instrumental in making this functionality available to other projects it ended reasonably positive.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7/7/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When Gregory Maxwell changed the rules as I understood them by
canvassing
the people who had not elected yet by e-mail,
I understand other projects have been running extensive drives to get the vote out. What's the difference from those, in your mind?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As I stated in my prior email, Gerard, I was pointing out to...cbrown I believe it is, what the comments were about and where they likely came from.
Gerard: I used these comments from your blog:
"So I agree with our "drama queen"; the board can repudiate results it does not like. I am known to be of the opinion that Danny should not be a candidate in the first place as his behaviour makes it quite clear to me that he his hostility towards other board members. Also given the statutes of the WMF when Danny were to be elected, he can be removed when my misgivings about him prove to be correct."
Danny does not have to answer your question. Certainly because he did not answer your question, is not grounds for him to be repudiated. It's grounds for you and possibly others not to vote for him.
You asked "Why does Danny stand for election." I think it to be obviously answered multiple times: He believes he can make a change (my words, not his). You've spent all this time demanding that he not stand....on the "questions" page no less (and in the edit you did not even ask a single question, only made demands). That, combined with your blog posting that the board may repudiate any results that they don't like (which I likewise, along with you, agree with Kelly Martin about), implies very strongly that you believe that were he to be elected he should be barred from the board.
So Gerard, I challenge your statement that you have asked him many times: I think he has given many answers: he is campaigning for fiduciary responsibility, he believes he can make changes, etc. (again, my words not his).
Gerard, you say he's made unfounded accusations against several board members. What about your accusation here?: "I have had dealings with Danny about possible potential donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. These donations did not happen because Danny did not bother to do his job. He did not even contact me when he was told to do so."
Where is the evidence about that?
I agree with you, I think it's bad form for a candidate to speak against standing board members in the way that Danny did. I also think it's just as bad for a non-candidate to do the same thing to that candidate.
-Dan
On Jul 7, 2007, at 2:23 AM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, Please read what I wrote, I asked Danny Wool to finally answer the question that the refuses to face, the question is and was: Why do you think that it is appropriate for you to stand.
I also wrote that I agreed with a point made by Kelly Martin, that it is the board that accepts the election results.
There is nothing new here and it certainly does not say that the board should or will repudiate the election.
With the process of the election changed as a result of the action of Gregory Maxwell, there is ROOM to ask Danny AGAIN why he does stand. There are great arguments why he should not stand. The best arguments are the ones that he provides himself, his opinions indicate that he is not likely to be a cooperative member when elected. When he resigned from his position as an employee, he did not provide any reasons.
So to recapitulate:
- Kelly Martin originally suggested that the board has the
option to use the results as it likes, she is correct
- Danny Wool has been invited several times to answer the
question why it is a good thing for him to stand, a question that he refuses to answer
- Given that the process of the election has changed, there is
again room to ask this question
- Please read carefully because you assume that I wrote
something that I did not.
Thanks, GerardM
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/07/election-drama- continues.html
On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
No. It's likely based on GerardM's comments on his blog, here: http:// ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about-process.html in which he suggests that the board should repudiate the results if Danny is elected.
-Dan On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
I'm hoping that was a joke.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:28 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] Will the Board accept the election result?
What are the chances of the Board ignoring the election result if it doesn't like it?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, After several attempts to get Danny's attention I have gone to the people who were organisationally in a senior position to Danny. I have skyped and e-mailed about this issue. There is a sufficient paper trail. This paper trail should be available within the WMF itself. That should suffice as "evidence". Thanks, Gerard
On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
As I stated in my prior email, Gerard, I was pointing out to...cbrown I believe it is, what the comments were about and where they likely came from.
Gerard: I used these comments from your blog:
"So I agree with our "drama queen"; the board can repudiate results it does not like. I am known to be of the opinion that Danny should not be a candidate in the first place as his behaviour makes it quite clear to me that he his hostility towards other board members. Also given the statutes of the WMF when Danny were to be elected, he can be removed when my misgivings about him prove to be correct."
Danny does not have to answer your question. Certainly because he did not answer your question, is not grounds for him to be repudiated. It's grounds for you and possibly others not to vote for him.
You asked "Why does Danny stand for election." I think it to be obviously answered multiple times: He believes he can make a change (my words, not his). You've spent all this time demanding that he not stand....on the "questions" page no less (and in the edit you did not even ask a single question, only made demands). That, combined with your blog posting that the board may repudiate any results that they don't like (which I likewise, along with you, agree with Kelly Martin about), implies very strongly that you believe that were he to be elected he should be barred from the board.
So Gerard, I challenge your statement that you have asked him many times: I think he has given many answers: he is campaigning for fiduciary responsibility, he believes he can make changes, etc. (again, my words not his).
Gerard, you say he's made unfounded accusations against several board members. What about your accusation here?: "I have had dealings with Danny about possible potential donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. These donations did not happen because Danny did not bother to do his job. He did not even contact me when he was told to do so."
Where is the evidence about that?
I agree with you, I think it's bad form for a candidate to speak against standing board members in the way that Danny did. I also think it's just as bad for a non-candidate to do the same thing to that candidate.
-Dan
On Jul 7, 2007, at 2:23 AM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, Please read what I wrote, I asked Danny Wool to finally answer the question that the refuses to face, the question is and was: Why do you think that it is appropriate for you to stand.
I also wrote that I agreed with a point made by Kelly Martin, that it is the board that accepts the election results.
There is nothing new here and it certainly does not say that the board should or will repudiate the election.
With the process of the election changed as a result of the action of Gregory Maxwell, there is ROOM to ask Danny AGAIN why he does stand. There are great arguments why he should not stand. The best arguments are the ones that he provides himself, his opinions indicate that he is not likely to be a cooperative member when elected. When he resigned from his position as an employee, he did not provide any reasons.
So to recapitulate:
- Kelly Martin originally suggested that the board has the
option to use the results as it likes, she is correct
- Danny Wool has been invited several times to answer the
question why it is a good thing for him to stand, a question that he refuses to answer
- Given that the process of the election has changed, there is
again room to ask this question
- Please read carefully because you assume that I wrote
something that I did not.
Thanks, GerardM
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/07/election-drama- continues.html
On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
No. It's likely based on GerardM's comments on his blog, here: http:// ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about-process.html in which he suggests that the board should repudiate the results if Danny is elected.
-Dan On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
I'm hoping that was a joke.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:28 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] Will the Board accept the election result?
What are the chances of the Board ignoring the election result if it doesn't like it?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard: I'm asking you to provide it, not them.
-Dan On Jul 7, 2007, at 4:58 PM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, After several attempts to get Danny's attention I have gone to the people who were organisationally in a senior position to Danny. I have skyped and e-mailed about this issue. There is a sufficient paper trail. This paper trail should be available within the WMF itself. That should suffice as "evidence". Thanks, Gerard
On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
As I stated in my prior email, Gerard, I was pointing out to...cbrown I believe it is, what the comments were about and where they likely came from.
Gerard: I used these comments from your blog:
"So I agree with our "drama queen"; the board can repudiate results it does not like. I am known to be of the opinion that Danny should not be a candidate in the first place as his behaviour makes it quite clear to me that he his hostility towards other board members. Also given the statutes of the WMF when Danny were to be elected, he can be removed when my misgivings about him prove to be correct."
Danny does not have to answer your question. Certainly because he did not answer your question, is not grounds for him to be repudiated. It's grounds for you and possibly others not to vote for him.
You asked "Why does Danny stand for election." I think it to be obviously answered multiple times: He believes he can make a change (my words, not his). You've spent all this time demanding that he not stand....on the "questions" page no less (and in the edit you did not even ask a single question, only made demands). That, combined with your blog posting that the board may repudiate any results that they don't like (which I likewise, along with you, agree with Kelly Martin about), implies very strongly that you believe that were he to be elected he should be barred from the board.
So Gerard, I challenge your statement that you have asked him many times: I think he has given many answers: he is campaigning for fiduciary responsibility, he believes he can make changes, etc. (again, my words not his).
Gerard, you say he's made unfounded accusations against several board members. What about your accusation here?: "I have had dealings with Danny about possible potential donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. These donations did not happen because Danny did not bother to do his job. He did not even contact me when he was told to do so."
Where is the evidence about that?
I agree with you, I think it's bad form for a candidate to speak against standing board members in the way that Danny did. I also think it's just as bad for a non-candidate to do the same thing to that candidate.
-Dan
On Jul 7, 2007, at 2:23 AM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, Please read what I wrote, I asked Danny Wool to finally answer the question that the refuses to face, the question is and was: Why do you think that it is appropriate for you to stand.
I also wrote that I agreed with a point made by Kelly Martin, that it is the board that accepts the election results.
There is nothing new here and it certainly does not say that the board should or will repudiate the election.
With the process of the election changed as a result of the action of Gregory Maxwell, there is ROOM to ask Danny AGAIN why he does stand. There are great arguments why he should not stand. The best arguments are the ones that he provides himself, his opinions indicate that he is not likely to be a cooperative member when elected. When he resigned from his position as an employee, he did not provide any reasons.
So to recapitulate:
- Kelly Martin originally suggested that the board has the
option to use the results as it likes, she is correct
- Danny Wool has been invited several times to answer the
question why it is a good thing for him to stand, a question that he refuses to answer
- Given that the process of the election has changed, there is
again room to ask this question
- Please read carefully because you assume that I wrote
something that I did not.
Thanks, GerardM
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/07/election-drama- continues.html
On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
No. It's likely based on GerardM's comments on his blog, here: http:// ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about- process.html in which he suggests that the board should repudiate the results if Danny is elected.
-Dan On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
I'm hoping that was a joke.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:28 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] Will the Board accept the election result?
What are the chances of the Board ignoring the election result if it doesn't like it?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, There are details in these e-mails that I am not able and willing to make public.
It should suffice that this has never been denied by Danny and it should suffice that several board members have been informed when Danny was still employed.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard: I'm asking you to provide it, not them.
-Dan On Jul 7, 2007, at 4:58 PM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, After several attempts to get Danny's attention I have gone to the people who were organisationally in a senior position to Danny. I have skyped and e-mailed about this issue. There is a sufficient paper trail. This paper trail should be available within the WMF itself. That should suffice as "evidence". Thanks, Gerard
On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
As I stated in my prior email, Gerard, I was pointing out to...cbrown I believe it is, what the comments were about and where they likely came from.
Gerard: I used these comments from your blog:
"So I agree with our "drama queen"; the board can repudiate results it does not like. I am known to be of the opinion that Danny should not be a candidate in the first place as his behaviour makes it quite clear to me that he his hostility towards other board members. Also given the statutes of the WMF when Danny were to be elected, he can be removed when my misgivings about him prove to be correct."
Danny does not have to answer your question. Certainly because he did not answer your question, is not grounds for him to be repudiated. It's grounds for you and possibly others not to vote for him.
You asked "Why does Danny stand for election." I think it to be obviously answered multiple times: He believes he can make a change (my words, not his). You've spent all this time demanding that he not stand....on the "questions" page no less (and in the edit you did not even ask a single question, only made demands). That, combined with your blog posting that the board may repudiate any results that they don't like (which I likewise, along with you, agree with Kelly Martin about), implies very strongly that you believe that were he to be elected he should be barred from the board.
So Gerard, I challenge your statement that you have asked him many times: I think he has given many answers: he is campaigning for fiduciary responsibility, he believes he can make changes, etc. (again, my words not his).
Gerard, you say he's made unfounded accusations against several board members. What about your accusation here?: "I have had dealings with Danny about possible potential donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. These donations did not happen because Danny did not bother to do his job. He did not even contact me when he was told to do so."
Where is the evidence about that?
I agree with you, I think it's bad form for a candidate to speak against standing board members in the way that Danny did. I also think it's just as bad for a non-candidate to do the same thing to that candidate.
-Dan
On Jul 7, 2007, at 2:23 AM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, Please read what I wrote, I asked Danny Wool to finally answer the question that the refuses to face, the question is and was: Why do you think that it is appropriate for you to stand.
I also wrote that I agreed with a point made by Kelly Martin, that it is the board that accepts the election results.
There is nothing new here and it certainly does not say that the board should or will repudiate the election.
With the process of the election changed as a result of the action of Gregory Maxwell, there is ROOM to ask Danny AGAIN why he does stand. There are great arguments why he should not stand. The best arguments are the ones that he provides himself, his opinions indicate that he is not likely to be a cooperative member when elected. When he resigned from his position as an employee, he did not provide any reasons.
So to recapitulate:
- Kelly Martin originally suggested that the board has the
option to use the results as it likes, she is correct
- Danny Wool has been invited several times to answer the
question why it is a good thing for him to stand, a question that he refuses to answer
- Given that the process of the election has changed, there is
again room to ask this question
- Please read carefully because you assume that I wrote
something that I did not.
Thanks, GerardM
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/07/election-drama- continues.html
On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
No. It's likely based on GerardM's comments on his blog, here: http:// ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about- process.html in which he suggests that the board should repudiate the results if Danny is elected.
-Dan On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
I'm hoping that was a joke.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:28 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] Will the Board accept the election result?
What are the chances of the Board ignoring the election result if it doesn't like it?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Heh, no offense Gerard but I wouldn't be surprised if you and Danny are not on speaking terms. Given that it's not likely to have been denied, affirmed, or even acknowledged.
-Dan On Jul 7, 2007, at 5:09 PM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, There are details in these e-mails that I am not able and willing to make public.
It should suffice that this has never been denied by Danny and it should suffice that several board members have been informed when Danny was still employed.
Thanks, GerardM
On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard: I'm asking you to provide it, not them.
-Dan On Jul 7, 2007, at 4:58 PM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, After several attempts to get Danny's attention I have gone to the people who were organisationally in a senior position to Danny. I have skyped and e-mailed about this issue. There is a sufficient paper trail. This paper trail should be available within the WMF itself. That should suffice as "evidence". Thanks, Gerard
On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
As I stated in my prior email, Gerard, I was pointing out to...cbrown I believe it is, what the comments were about and where they likely came from.
Gerard: I used these comments from your blog:
"So I agree with our "drama queen"; the board can repudiate results it does not like. I am known to be of the opinion that Danny should not be a candidate in the first place as his behaviour makes it quite clear to me that he his hostility towards other board members. Also given the statutes of the WMF when Danny were to be elected, he can be removed when my misgivings about him prove to be correct."
Danny does not have to answer your question. Certainly because he did not answer your question, is not grounds for him to be repudiated. It's grounds for you and possibly others not to vote for him.
You asked "Why does Danny stand for election." I think it to be obviously answered multiple times: He believes he can make a change (my words, not his). You've spent all this time demanding that he not stand....on the "questions" page no less (and in the edit you did not even ask a single question, only made demands). That, combined with your blog posting that the board may repudiate any results that they don't like (which I likewise, along with you, agree with Kelly Martin about), implies very strongly that you believe that were he to be elected he should be barred from the board.
So Gerard, I challenge your statement that you have asked him many times: I think he has given many answers: he is campaigning for fiduciary responsibility, he believes he can make changes, etc. (again, my words not his).
Gerard, you say he's made unfounded accusations against several board members. What about your accusation here?: "I have had dealings with Danny about possible potential donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. These donations did not happen because Danny did not bother to do his job. He did not even contact me when he was told to do so."
Where is the evidence about that?
I agree with you, I think it's bad form for a candidate to speak against standing board members in the way that Danny did. I also think it's just as bad for a non-candidate to do the same thing to that candidate.
-Dan
On Jul 7, 2007, at 2:23 AM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, Please read what I wrote, I asked Danny Wool to finally answer the question that the refuses to face, the question is and was: Why do you think that it is appropriate for you to stand.
I also wrote that I agreed with a point made by Kelly Martin, that it is the board that accepts the election results.
There is nothing new here and it certainly does not say that the board should or will repudiate the election.
With the process of the election changed as a result of the action of Gregory Maxwell, there is ROOM to ask Danny AGAIN why he does stand. There are great arguments why he should not stand. The best arguments are the ones that he provides himself, his opinions indicate that he is not likely to be a cooperative member when elected. When he resigned from his position as an employee, he did not provide any reasons.
So to recapitulate:
- Kelly Martin originally suggested that the board has the
option to use the results as it likes, she is correct
- Danny Wool has been invited several times to answer the
question why it is a good thing for him to stand, a question that he refuses to answer
- Given that the process of the election has changed, there is
again room to ask this question
- Please read carefully because you assume that I wrote
something that I did not.
Thanks, GerardM
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/07/election-drama- continues.html
On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
No. It's likely based on GerardM's comments on his blog, here: http:// ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about- process.html in which he suggests that the board should repudiate the results if Danny is elected.
-Dan On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
> I'm hoping that was a joke. > > -----Original Message----- > From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org > [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of > David Gerard > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:28 PM > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Subject: [Foundation-l] Will the Board accept the election > result? > > What are the chances of the Board ignoring the election result > if it > doesn't like it? > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 07/07/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
After several attempts to get Danny's attention I have gone to the people who were organisationally in a senior position to Danny. I have skyped and e-mailed about this issue. There is a sufficient paper trail. This paper trail should be available within the WMF itself. That should suffice as "evidence".
I'm sure it'll look just darling in discovery.
- d.
I don't foresee the board repudiating the results. Removing certain members by majority vote of the new board, maybe, but repudiating the results of the election doesn't seem necessary no matter what the result. Even that is probably unlikely, since a single board member probably can't do much damage. I think... Not sure what the law is about board members having access to financial information.
Also note that Danny suggests in his questions that he would be required to sign a confidentiality agreement, and he has to my knowledge made no indication that he would break it or refuse to sign it.
Anthony
On 7/6/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
No. It's likely based on GerardM's comments on his blog, here: http:// ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about-process.html in which he suggests that the board should repudiate the results if Danny is elected.
-Dan On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
I'm hoping that was a joke.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:28 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] Will the Board accept the election result?
What are the chances of the Board ignoring the election result if it doesn't like it?
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org