[Foundation-l] Will the Board accept the election result?

[Dan Rosenthal]

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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l