[Foundation-l] My resignation

[Pedro Sanchez]

On 3/22/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You and I aren't entitled to demand an explanation and to know every
> > small detail. It's between Danny and the Foundation.
>
> It is, however, unreasonable not to expect there to be curiosity and
> no small degree of consternation when two longtime key employees
> announce their departures over a couple of days.
>
> It's one thing to say (correctly) that Danny, Brad, and the Board have
> a right to keep the respective personel matter details private.
>
> However, if there are substantiative policy disagreements at stake, I
> for one remain rather confused as to what they are and their nature,
> and we are all entitled to an explanation of those types of matters.
>
> I don't know if there is any substantiative policy disagreement, or if
> it's just personalities, or individual choice.  If it is a
> substantiative policy issue, we don't need to find out RIGHT NOW, but
> it would be fair to ask if there is such a thing, and over what
> timeframe the parties will feel comfortable talking about it.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Yes, it's reasonable to have curiosity. It's not reasonable to demand
and believe we're entitled to know every single detail. They did
acknowledge such curiosity would arise on their letters, they both
said they'd not comment further upon it.

So,
1. They know there's curiosity.
2. They've explicitly stated their wish to keep their reasons private
for a while
3. Therefore, we demand they explain us, we deny that right to them,
we will force them to explain right now.

Is that how it is?