I know you probably realize this pb, but I just want to emphasize that the
verbiage that certainly something untoward has taken place wasn't coming
from me, and would like to stress that to the rest of the list. It's just
such a serious matter, that I believe outside investigation is almost
certainly warranted, unless James agrees that there was no such withholding
and additionally agrees that the degree of transparency with which his
removal took place is in line with both the law and the values of the
movement. On the extreme end, under california NPO governance, there are
certain situations where such intentional document withholding could
actually risk eliminating the normal shield trustees enjoy for most of
their actions and making them personally liable, so it's a situation that's
weird enough that clearing it up with transparency and speed is in the best
interests of the Wikimedia movement.
Best,
KG
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Philippe Beaudette <philippe(a)beaudette.me>
wrote:
Kevin,
I disagree with nothing you’ve said here. What I disagreed with was the
characterization that “certainly” something untoward had taken place.
pb
On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Kevin Gorman
<kgorman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Philippe -
I totally agree with you that none of my experiences with WMF suggest
that
such a thing is likely to happen. Organizations
and people change over
time, though - similarly, this is the first time a sitting trustee has
been
dismissed. Given the unusuality of the
situation, in my opinion at
least,
given the *drastic* seriousness that something
like deliberately
withholding documents in such a manner under California state law (I
can't
speak with familiarity about Florida NPO
governance,) and the fact that
both the BoT and James could pretty easily give flat out answers to the
question of whether or not they think it occurred, I think it's worth
asking for those answers.
If James and the BoT agree that such withholding took place, I think it
demands an outside review of WMF governance. If James thinks it did, but
the rest of the BoT disagrees.. given the general respect held for James'
and the seriousness of the charge, I think an outside review of WMF
governance is *still* probably reasonably necessary. If neither thinks
such withholding took place, then it settles a serious charge quite
simply.
Best,
KG
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 7:01 PM, <philippe(a)beaudette.me> wrote:
> I don't believe that's "very clear" at all. You yourself said
"If what
> Ben said is true...." I think it's very possible - to the extent that
Ben
> cautioned against it himself - that this may
be a misunderstanding.
>
> In my nearly seven years at the WMF I never once saw corruption of the
> sort you suggest. Not once. And I think it's safe to say I was well
> connected.
>
> --
> Philippe Beaudette
> philippe.beaudette(a)icloud.com
>
>> On Jan 2, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Comet styles <cometstyles(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
We should probably start with our high and mighty leader, Jimbo, just
like everyone else, He should now be 'elected' into the BoT, no more
free seats..Wikimedia has now grown to an extent where we may no
longer need him to run the foundation or to hold a deciding vote on
issues where he has his own interests in..This problem of lacking
transparency has leaked down to the lower levels of wikimedia as well,
is that the example they are going to set? .. As I said before, the
longer this drags on, the more likelihood of a 'manufactured' truth
coming out..
People who do wrong need time to come up with a good lie....everyone
knows this..James spoke the moment he was "fired" for which he was
reprimanded by the same authority that 'fired' him...If what Ben
Creasy said is true, then its definitely not James on the wrong here
and I'd be really effing pissed if he was made a 'scapegoat' by the
powers that be to save their own useless hide..Its very clear that
there is corruption at the highest order at WMF....the question is..
How deep does it go? ..
--
Cometstyles
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>