Nathan wrote: >In any case, its irritating to see people providing cover for the Board's >lack of transparency or failure to be forthcoming in a timely manner.
The removal resolution was approved on December 28, 2015, according to wikimediafoundation.org. Unlike most Board resolutions, it was publicly posted the same day. The posted Board resolution was accompanied by two separate e-mails to this public mailing list (one from James, one from Patricio) on the same day. What kind of transparency and timeliness are you looking for, exactly? What level of explanation would be satisfactory? >Why not let them make their own excuses? Excuses for what, exactly? The Chair of the Board announced the decision and other remaining Board members have chosen not to publicly discuss the issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at least in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be able to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or without cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to simple numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to provide a fuller explanation of the removal. It seems most prudent to wait for that. While this will sound trite, perhaps we could extend a little good faith to the members of the Board, most of whom are long-time trusted and respected Wikimedians and all of whom take their role seriously. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
