On 26 July 2010 22:14, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > I don't see anything > threatening about Mr. Harris evaluating the issues,
As has been pointed out several times already, the presumption that there is a case to answer. (#5 on the original board resolution.) I note also that several board members initially voiced their support for Jimbo's unilateral deletion of content from Commons, and only backtracked when asked what on Earth they were basing their support upon. That I have to bring this up again now is because asking board members what they knew when - what they based their statements upon - was answered with "the issue's over now, Jimbo quit, don't worry, be happy." Unfortunately, the issue is not over with, because those same board members, who are unwilling to state the basis on which they shot their mouths off before, have commissioned this study and will be deciding what to do with it. If you're seeking issues of "cultural sensitivity" and "cultural imposition", the previous top-down action - which can reasonably be termed a Foundation action because the board backed Jimbo on his actions - led to a pile of Commons admins resigning at the imposition. After internal-l discussion, I got emails from lurkers (Chapter people) worried about what the hell the Foundation thought it was doing, and that they weren't comfortable to speak out about it on internal-l. And I realise I just said "the lurkers support me in email", but they actually did ... so when you have chapters people talking about the possibility of a fork, and the thing precipitating it being a top-down restriction imposed by the Foundation, there's a reason this is a matter for serious concern, not something to be dismissed and ignored. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l