[Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

[Milos Rancic]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hello Milos,
>
> At first to the two points you pointed out:
> * No, I didn't mention that sexually explicit content should be deleted
> and I still think the criteria should not be if something is sexually
> explicit. The criteria should be if it has educational value. This is
> what I said in my statement and this is what I think is correct. This is
> also what is in the statement of the board. And as far as I can say,
> this is what Jimmy's intention when he started the action. It is
> certainly possible that Jimmy in doing his work had made some false
> decisions. We all know that he do make failures. Maybe he didn't
> researched the context of a particular image, maybe in some cases his
> criteria was too narrow. One can discuss those on the case basis. But
> just because as we all know that Jimmy make failures it does not prevent
> me to give him my full support in doing things.
> * Yes, I still think that this feature is correct. There are discussions
> inside of the board and different opinions about what such a feature
> should look like and if it is appropriate. The statement I made during
> the elections is my opinion, it does not necessarily reflect the opinion
> of all board members.
>
> To answer your question: We had scheduled for our April meeting the
> topic about project scope and community health / movement role.
> Unfortunately because of troubles caused by Eyjafjallajökull most of the
> trustees didn't managed to the meeting location. We had to held our
> meeting via phone and Skype and we had to reduce our schedule due to the
> inconvinience of the communication channel. We had dropped this topic
> because all trustees think that this is a topic that should be talked
> about at best face to face because all of us thought that we should give
> this topic the most possible attention we need.
>
> As far as I can say, especially the event pushed into movement by Larry
> Sanger [2] created the impression at least by some of the trustees that
> the matter is urgent and we need to take action as soon as possible.
> This is as said above from my perspective the reason for the action.
>
> Now the reason why I support this quick action: I personally would have
> preferred to have more time to work out a real guidance from the board
> to the community as to take such a quick action. As you know, I never
> think I am better than anyone else and I am always aware that my
> personal view is just a very narrow view. In this special case I cannot
> judge how urgent or serious the Larry Sanger accusation really is and
> what a threat it poses against the Foundation. I must trust my member
> trustees in the US that they can make that judgement. There are at least
> two trustees, one of them Jimmy, whom I know that they are normally more
> for a steady and consistant development, and whom I know that they have
> a very good sense for the community, who had put the issue as urgent.
> This is the reason why I think it is urgent.
>
> The rest I have already informed you. Jimmy informed the board that he
> want to do something and asked the board for support. I gave him my
> support because of what I said above.

Ting, thanks for reply. This one has much more sense than your and Jan
Bart's initial supports of Jimmy's action.

By my opinion, the only urgency which WMF should do is to support Erik
to fill a lawsuit against Larry Sanger ASAP. Also, if it is not
possible to sue Fox and Larry Sanger on the basis of spreading lies
about WMF in United States, I am sure that it is fully possible to sue
them in Germany or France.

John Vandenberg proposed a good solution, involving Internet Content
Rating Association [1] methods. It is in relation to your proposal.
Please, consider it.

BTW, as mentioned before, Jimmy didn't make "some false decisions",
but he made a small amount of right decisions and destroyed work of
many volunteers. (There are complex problems related to recovering
categorizations.)

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Content_Rating_Association