Philippe -

Well - one of the things is - from all public indication from the BoT - it
doesn't appear that it's their current inclination to do something like
commission an outside review of the situation by a consultancy familiar
with Florida NPO governance.  I definitely don't want to pronounce early
judgement, but both public and private conversations have made me think
that this situation is worth a formal investigation, and allegations of
potentially intentionally withholding relevant documents from sitting
trustees just make me think even more than an outside review is
appropriate.  I hate wasting $20 or $40k of movement money on such a
review, but since, if substantiated and not resolved, thes allegations
could be so damaging to Wikimedia, I unfortunately think it's necessary
unless James speaks out against the idea.

Best,
KG

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Philippe Beaudette <phili...@beaudette.me>
wrote:

> again, i disagree with little (if any) of what you say that.  I don’t
> agree with the characterization, prior to any sort of investigation, that
> something was absolutely wrong.  We don’t KNOW what’s gone on, is my point.
>
> So let’s not speculate until and unless an investigation is completed -
> and probably not then either.
>
> pb
>
>
> > On Jan 2, 2016, at 9:54 PM, Comet styles <cometsty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm quite aware of what James was trying to achieve
> > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Foundation) and I'm
> > fully in support of his ideas so if whatever he did was related to one
> > of those he mentions on the link, then its quite understandable why
> > right now I'm on his side  and not on the the other side...5 of whom
> > the community did not appoint (or trusts) and one who is there by
> > 'default'
> >
> > The issue is not what James did, it was the drastic step taken and
> > above all the silence in relation to this from the 'BoT' which has
> > become quite deafening..When you fire someone and them make a
> > statement regarding it and why, we all would have accepted it  and
> > possibly fought it if we had found it unjustified..but when you fire
> > someone and then run back into the hole...what are we to assume?..Its
> > too early to start an investigation since no one is forthcoming...so
> > speculation and allegations are the only things left... I'm not angry,
> > I personally don't care but I have seen too much nonsense by the
> > hierarchy over the last 5 years to allow another one to be swept under
> > the rug under the veil of "privacy" ...
> >
> > --
> > Cometstyles
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to