Stu, Thank you for telling us your views. You have admitted that the way this was dealt with was "messy". That such an approach would be messy should have been obvious to everyone involved, so do you think it would have been better to take a less messy approach? Perhaps the Board could have issued a statement saying that the current situation was unacceptable, explaining why, and that they would have to intervene to fix it if the community didn't sort it out by a certain deadline.
Unfortunately, this looks to me like the board couldn't really agree on what to do so made a vague enough statement that those board members that didn't feel it was right to go in a delete everything wouldn't oppose it but that Jimmy could claim supported his view and legitimised him doing whatever the hell he pleased. The board needs to be stronger - when Jimmy does things like this it reflects badly on all of you, so you need to keep him under control. If you can't agree on what to do, you need to either defer to the community or come up with a genuine compromise rather than political manoeuvring to avoid being responsible for what happens. Also, it would help us choose board members if you were more public about your disagreements. You don't have to all present a united front behind Jimmy. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l