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

[Dan Rosenthal]

Heh, no offense Gerard but I wouldn't be surprised if you and Danny  
are not on speaking terms. Given that it's not likely to have been  
denied, affirmed, or even acknowledged.

-Dan
On Jul 7, 2007, at 5:09 PM, GerardM wrote:

> Hoi,
> There are details in these e-mails that I am not able and willing  
> to make
> public.
>
> It should suffice that this has never been denied by Danny and it  
> should
> suffice that several board members have been informed when Danny  
> was still
> employed.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Gerard: I'm asking you to provide it, not them.
>>
>> -Dan
>> On Jul 7, 2007, at 4:58 PM, GerardM wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> After several attempts to get Danny's attention I have gone to the
>>> people
>>> who were organisationally in a senior position to Danny. I have
>>> skyped and
>>> e-mailed about this issue. There is a sufficient paper trail. This
>>> paper
>>> trail should be available within the WMF itself. That should
>>> suffice as
>>> "evidence".
>>> Thanks,
>>>      Gerard
>>>
>>> On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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