sannse wrote: I know he did not talk to Erik I hope he did not talk to too many people to lead to a collective decision of blocking and unsysoping Erik on several projects, because it would not be just a mistake in the heat of a tough action he had to implement for the Foundation, but rather a planned cabal :-) By the reasoning above that seems a reasonable Confidential conversations ? Errrr... To board members ? Yeah Sannse. I totally support Danny in what he did on the article itself. He did it for the good of the project and the good of the Foundation. And he did it upon the recommandation of one of our most trusted legal counsellors. If that was not clear, I totally support that and I absolutely trust Brad for the advice given. However, what I object to is the fact of blocking undefinitly and mostly unsysoping editors we have known for years (and who were trusted by enough editors not so long ago that they could have been right now board member instead of myself), for what seems to me either a mistake from the editor, or more likely the willingness to make a point. I know it is rather frowned upon to do something only to *make a point*. But bear in mind that Danny was acting under his editor account to implement a Foundation decision, which some editors are perfectly in their right (imho) to object to. Very few people have been unsysoped in the past years. When such a decision was taken, it was really because of a very serious misdeed. And never on several projects at a time. I read carefully the emails of the past few days. I read three criticisms. The first is that we should have talked to him privately only. The second is that he was right to do that. The third you just raise is that he might have reasons to behave this way which are confidential. I will try to answer to these three reasons. I know Danny is bold, bolder than I could ever be. I understand fully he was under pressure and I can understand why he did so. That's okay. But I do not agree. Could I have told him privately I did not agree ? Certainly so. But the fact is that everything Danny does in the name of the Foundation is perceived as being approved by the Foundation. On the english wikipedia, Danny is largely the hand and the voice of the Foundation. I do not wish that editors feel that the Foundation can simply ban forever and desysop on all projects someone just for making a point. And if I simply told Danny that I disagree with this in private, publicly, the Foundation would appear as supportive. Well, I let others their opinion, but I *request* that it is respected that *I* am an adult and *I* have the right to have an opinion. If I say nothing, it appears I support something I object to in reality. Collective does not mean stopping to have an opinion. It does not mean keeping one's opinion for oneself and nodding obediently to what the boss or to what the employee says. My freedom of speech have been reduced considerably since I was elected on the board. There should be a limit. Second, boldness. Some of you consider what Danny did is fine. You are perfectly entitled to think so. That's fine with me. I just have a different opinion. Third, confidentiality. I will make it short. In this precise case, I feel I know enough of the situation to understand why Danny did this. And as I already said above, the action on the page was perfectly fine with me. Now, if there are confidential reasons why he blocked and desysoped Erik as the voice of the Foundation, I feel I should know them and I should agree with them. The alternative is simply resignation from the board. ant

sannse wrote: Of course, it is hard to guess what is confidential until one knows it exists... unless one is prescient, which I am not. I think... trust is not something which can be commanded. It exists or it does not exist. I take my lesson on this and I take a break to digest. I recommand you digest as well. There is a lesson for everyone here. Florence (<---- not Anthere)