Sarah, thanks for the response -- but I find this puzzling. I don't want to get into too many details here, as I think the comment thread on the Signpost op-ed, or the poll on the letter's talk page, are more appropriate venues for that; but briefly:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:30 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Pete, it does seem that since Lila arrived a lot of the tension between the Foundation and community has gone. I've several times heard her talk of the need to respect the community because Wikipedia is nothing without it.
I am more interested in discussing actions than words.
You wrote above: "As I understand it, we are still very much in the 'Superprotect disaster' era -- one which began under the same Executive Director we have today."
Superprotect was implemented just after Lila arrived, but it was a decision of Erik's.
I'd say "citation needed," but in this case I am highly confident that no citation exists. We have had no formal statement whatsoever on which to base speculation. Beyond that, Lila was Erik's boss; and people closer to the situation than myself have actually (privately) asserted just the opposite, that Lila was the driving force.
The tensions behind it were very much a product of the pre-Lila
era, and had been growing for years.
I very much agree with this, yes.
It appeared that Lila quickly understood that it needed to go.
I do not agree with this. She did acknowledge that the software feature had been a problem, when she announced its removal. (Keep in mind, its implementation happened on a Sunday afternoon, and its removal took a year and a half -- so I'm not sure about "quickly.")
But more importantly, neither she nor the board have acknowledged, much less moved to address, non-technical aspects of the letter.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]