[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

[David Gerard]

On 26 July 2010 22:14, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I don't see anything
> threatening about Mr. Harris evaluating the issues,


As has been pointed out several times already, the presumption that
there is a case to answer. (#5 on the original board resolution.)

I note also that several board members initially voiced their support
for Jimbo's unilateral deletion of content from Commons, and only
backtracked when asked what on Earth they were basing their support
upon. That I have to bring this up again now is because asking board
members what they knew when - what they based their statements upon -
was answered with "the issue's over now, Jimbo quit, don't worry, be
happy." Unfortunately, the issue is not over with, because those same
board members, who are unwilling to state the basis on which they shot
their mouths off before, have commissioned this study and will be
deciding what to do with it.

If you're seeking issues of "cultural sensitivity" and "cultural
imposition", the previous top-down action - which can reasonably be
termed a Foundation action because the board backed Jimbo on his
actions - led to a pile of Commons admins resigning at the imposition.
After internal-l discussion, I got emails from lurkers (Chapter
people) worried about what the hell the Foundation thought it was
doing, and that they weren't comfortable to speak out about it on
internal-l. And I realise I just said "the lurkers support me in
email", but they actually did ... so when you have chapters people
talking about the possibility of a fork, and the thing precipitating
it being a top-down restriction imposed by the Foundation, there's a
reason this is a matter for serious concern, not something to be
dismissed and ignored.


- d.