On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances. But this isn't how we should move forward.
Erik, what do you see as the alternative?
There is a pattern here. For example, when James was removed in December, Jimmy said he was not releasing information about it out of concern for James.
He wrote: "a man's reputation is at stake here." [1] "Our choice might have been to post something blunt and damaging to him ... Remember, a man's public reputation is at risk here." [2] And "Because a man's reputation is at stake here, I think it wise to take it slow here. I care more about James' future than I care about your foot stamping impatience." [3]
Those posts were troubling – on a par with someone on the Board making James feel that he ought to propose accepting the Knight grant, when in fact he was the one who objected to it. That James proposed it was then held up as evidence that he wasn't telling the truth about other issues. [4]
Is this the kind of Board we want? How are we to move forward if we're not allowed to talk about it?
Sarah
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=pr...