On 07/01/16 06:44, Denny Vrandecic wrote:
-- James was not removed from the Board because he was
demanding more
transparency.
I'm inclined to believe James at this point, since he is the only one
giving a credible explanation of causes. If he was not dismissed for
this, then why was he dismissed?
That he lost the confidence of the board is obvious, a truism.
As I saw it, James acted out of process, ignored
advice and caused
disruption.
Which process? What advice? What disruption?
Are you afraid he will sue you for libel? Tell the truth: I believe
that is a defence in US law, as is fair comment on a matter of public
interest. I will donate to your legal costs if he does sue you.
People willing to talk to the public get to influence public opinion.
That is an appropriate reward for transparency.
But I wonder what kind of changes would
be required to avoid a situation like this - if the rest of the Board loses
the trust in one of its members, how should we handle this?
By putting personal sensitivities aside and acting in the common good.
I support the power of the board to act quickly and decisively to
protect the mission, but not without public review. To act in such a
way without public review is contrary to the Guiding Principles.
-- Tim Starling