[Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective

[Alec Conroy]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein <pronoein at gmail.com> wrote:

>> On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote:
>>> (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous hosting).  .
>>
>> In order to help us understand better the situation, can you refer
>> concrete examples of 1
>
> Indeed. (1) is a definite [citation needed].
>

Stu, I'm going to put this as civilly as possible, going out of my way to AGF.

Recently there have been some very substantial 'misunderstandings'
between some individual board members and the community.    For
example, one board member made a number of statements that,
unfortunately, led many in the community to believe that the
Foundation was ordering a substantial new policy.   This turned out
not to be true.

Earlier, there were similar misunderstandings over this same issue.
At one point, many in the community may have mistakenly come to
believe that there was a new legal opinion by the Foundation-- there
was not.

In light of all this, I think everyone needs to take a _very_ close
look at anything that board members say, to make sure no future
misunderstandings like this occur again.

In short--  yeah, if you want us to believe you, you're gonna need to
cite things.

Nothing against you personally-- I'm sure you're a trustworthy
individual. But "Just trust us" isn't gonna be very persuasive this
week.

Jimbo's trust is gone, and now the community is watching you guys,
trying to figure out whether the foundation is trustworthy still or
not.