Hi Lodewijk, thanks for stepping in to rationalize Jimmy Wales' behaviour in the silence from WMF trustees or Jimmy.
Last week Kolbe summarized the situation in an email as: "Walking away rewards and encourages the strategy that Jimmy has consciously or unconsciously applied here: tell people that their questions are justified, setting up an expectation that their queries will be looked into, and then ignore any further questions. Give people something that sounds like a promise, to pacify them, and then hope that everyone forgets. .... If Jimmy is not forthcoming on the above by John Vandenberg, I suggest we start a public vote of no confidence for him, as we did for Arnnon. It has gone on long enough." Jimmy made a commitment to publish by Monday and effectively halted this discussion while we waited for Monday to come, and pass. It's nice to wrap things up with complements and pleasantries, however when this is tried the questions still end up being forgotten, taken on tangents or given strangely obfuscatory replies that never take the issue head on and cherry pick at parts of the question. None of this gives confidence in the self-governance or transparency commitments from our "appointed" WMF board of trustees. Fae On 22 March 2016 at 18:18, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote: > Let me rephrase that for you: > > Hey Jimmy, thanks for this commitment. I would definitely be interested. > Were you successful in getting clarity? > > If we all would spend a tiny bit more effort on how we ask things and > argue, the last would be more pleasant and people would probably be more > tempted to interact. > > Lodewijk > > Op dinsdag 22 maart 2016 heeft Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> het volgende > geschreven: > >> It's now Tuesday, so presumably Jimmy Wales' commitment to publish >> something by yesterday at the latest was met somewhere. >> >> Can anyone share a link to it? >> >> Thanks, >> Fae >> >> On 16 March 2016 at 17:58, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@wikia-inc.com >> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> > I think all will be clear by Monday. Maybe sooner, but I'm not >> > promising any sooner. >> > >> > On 3/10/16 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV <sarahsv.w...@gmail.com >> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com >> <javascript:;>> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to >> >>>> release an email? >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about >> >>> whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1] >> >> -- >> fae...@gmail.com <javascript:;> >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ 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>
