Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Sent from my iPad > On 11 Mar 2016, at 9:24 AM, Leila Zia wrote: > > ​If you see that you don't have a healthy line of communication with Jimmy, > you may want to consider not communicating with him at all. Initiating > and/or participating in conversations about someone

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > ​... ​ > The truth is, I am genuinely > bewildered and finding it very hard to understand why James says things > that the entire rest of the board find contrary to fact. > > With one exception that I can think of,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Sent from my iPad > On 11 Mar 2016, at 6:11 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > ​Kevin, > > You've been touting your experience on Boards in giving advice, and I have > some experience there myself, so let's think of ​it in those Real World > terms: > > Regardless of what

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

The rights and wrongs of this dispute aside (and, crikey, I really have not idea who is in the right at this point), and putting aside the right/wrong of releasing the email (I tend to side with Erik): This is the form of language that e.g. men use to dismiss women as "emotional". It's vile and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

A few days ago I asked what it was that we as the community could do to enhance transparency within the Foundation. This was not what I had in mind. Why would Jimmy or anyone else in a position of authority at the WMF seek to engage with those making criticisms when they'll be subject to acts

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Hi Pete, On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > I carefully considered whether to publish this email > before doing so. I'm confident I'm on solid ethical ground (i.e., didn't > violate anyone's rights), and I'm pretty sure the impact on Wikimedia will >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Keegan, Jimmy has attacked James on a personal level in public multiple times, and sent frankly confusing private emails to multiple people off-list. There is no general 'legal shield of confidentiality' surrounding organizations in general. Sometimes employees are forbidden from making

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Kevin Gorman wrote: > Jimmy, given the fact that James has requested you release it combined with > the fact that it contains no confidential information, please release the > particular email James requested you release. You've said that you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Jimmy, given the fact that James has requested you release it combined with the fact that it contains no confidential information, please release the particular email James requested you release. You've said that you would release it when you received permission from the board, but it was a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Manipulative behavior thrives in an environment where a person can say different things to different audiences, and can speak freely with the expectation they will not be held accountable for their words. Erik, thank you for articulating your views. As for my own actions, you have either made

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 2:01 AM, jimmy wales wrote: > > > > Indeed George I agree with everything you have said about the internal > effects of lack of transparency and openness. Assuming I and other board > members who continue to press for full openness about the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

On Mar 10, 2016 07:19, "Erik Moeller" wrote: > > 2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth : > > > I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics > > surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed > > interest in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Jimmy, a lot of us are bewildered and are finding it very hard to understand, why you continue to spin and distract. I do understand that your current strategy is to pin a bunch of this on Damon. That is not going to fly. You are not accountable to anyone, Jimmy. That you can write things like

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

t; > > > Original message > > From: George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com> > > Date: 2016/03/10 9:49 AM (GMT+00:00) > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation? >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

rt <george.herb...@gmail.com> > Date: 2016/03/10  9:49 AM  (GMT+00:00) > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation? > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

erb...@gmail.com> > Date: 2016/03/10 9:49 AM (GMT+00:00) > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation? > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@wikia-inc.com> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

from my Samsung device Original message From: George Herbert <george.herb...@gmail.com> Date: 2016/03/10 9:49 AM (GMT+00:00) To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation? > On Mar 10, 2016, at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:25 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > ... > Those ideas never got traction > and never made it to the board level. ... I don't think you are lying or being deceptive, but it seems apparent in the various half-explanations that it did, to James, who

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

On 3/10/16 8:18 AM, Benjamin Lees wrote: > I was glad when I saw Jimbo indicate he was reaching out to James. At > the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, maybe Jimbo should send James > another email, this time extending a clearer olive branch. If we're > past the point of no return on that,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

2016-03-09 23:21 GMT-08:00 SarahSV : >> 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?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

I was glad when I saw Jimbo indicate he was reaching out to James. At the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, maybe Jimbo should send James another email, this time extending a clearer olive branch. If we're past the point of no return on that, then so be it, but I would be happy to know that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Erik Moeller 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:55 AM, SarahSV wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Keegan Peterzell > wrote: > > > But whatever, let's open up yet another thread for people to go after > each > > other. > > > > ​Keegan, we've been told since the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Hoi, He is (as far as I know) flying coach. It was his own project with his own money. So what is the point? Thanks, GerardM On 10 March 2016 at 07:19, Ruslan Takayev wrote: > Gerard, et al > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen < >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > But whatever, let's open up yet another thread for people to go after each > other. > > ​Keegan, we've been told since the end of December that Jimmy favours radical transparency regarding James's removal and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Gerard, et al On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > A few things are clear. Having a WMF project intended to compete with > Google is bonkers. I agree totally, but didn't Jimmy once have plans for a Google-killing machine with a view to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth : > I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics > surrounding James H.'s dismissal, and various people have expressed > interest in seeing it, so I'm forwarding it to the list. (For what it's > worth, I did

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Hoi, A few things are clear. Having a WMF project intended to compete with Google is bonkers. The mudslinging and power grabbing tone of many of these messages seriously turn me off. The only thing they accomplish is that people like myself are moving in their emotions from depressed to furious.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb. 29. > I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen > Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault > threats show up in my inbox. ​Me too. ​ > And this, /this/, is genuinely

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

There is not much one can say in response to an email such as that. During the last month many within the community have come to a similar conclusions as I did back in Oct following seeing the documents surrounding the Knight Foundation grant. The decision I had pushed for back in November has

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

I'm really not sure how this relates to this thread. If you're interested in discussing the decision in 06, there's another thread for that. On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:48 PM, David Emrany wrote: > Oliver > > I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Jimmy, if this is genuinely how you are comfortable behaving, intentionally, and if this is the standard that you wish to set, I would ask you to do it in a new community. Resign from the Board. Abrogate your status as a founder. Go create these standards somewhere new, with people who have signed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Oliver I have also been in the movement for over a decade, and I am sick of people on all sides distorting facts, gaming the system / manipulating the community. IMO, this came to a boil in Dec 2006 when WMF altered its structure and purpose and relocated followed by the "COO scandal" [1] and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

I've been in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade now. I've seen Wikimedia-l. I've seen internal-l. I've had death and sexual assault threats show up in my inbox. And this, /this/, is genuinely the most horrified I've ever been by any message I've seen yet. This email is not a good faith

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

Below is a message Jimmy Wales sent to James Heilman and myself on Feb. 29. I mentioned the existence of this message on the list on March 2: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082901.html I feel this message can provide important insight into the dynamics surrounding