|
Delphine recently wrote:
> I thought the projects and their content were free? Can't any > organisation, based anywhere in the world, just take the content and > start anew? The content hosted by the Foundation is not an asset of the Foundation. In fact, the Foundation has (almost) no legal interests in it, and in fact almost anyone could pick it up and start using it. However, the Foundation nonetheless owns some very valuable properties: the names "Wikipedia" and (to a lesser degree) "Wikimedia", the wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org domain names, and the related service marks. It is these that the Foundation needs to do much more to both protect and exploit than it has to date. If someone sues the Foundation, and wins, it is these properties (along with the Foundation's server equipment, which is worth a pittance in comparison to what wikipedia.org is worth) that will end up sold at auction. The Foundation would be well-advised to restructure itself so as to put the brand "out of reach". The normal means of doing this is to have the brand owned by a separate entity (usually a trust) which then licenses them to the operating charity. This way, even if the charity goes out of business for any reason, the brands remain safe and secure in the hands of the trust, out of the reach of creditors. IRS regulations make it quite difficult to disburse property which has been dedicated to a charitable purpose to any organization that is not recognized by the IRS as a charitable organization. Thus, naming a Wikimedia chapter (other than the the non-existent US chapter) as a designated successor would require an IRS determination letter before any such dissolutionary transfer could take place. Both of these items would require specialized legal assistance to properly address, from attorneys skilled in US and Florida nonprofit and tax law. Random babbling from the community is unlikely to be helpful here. Kelly _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
Kelly Martin wrote:
> Delphine recently wrote: > >> I thought the projects and their content were free? Can't any >> organisation, based anywhere in the world, just take the content and >> start anew? > > The content hosted by the Foundation is not an asset of the > Foundation. In fact, the Foundation has (almost) no legal interests > in it, and in fact almost anyone could pick it up and start using it. > > However, the Foundation nonetheless owns some very valuable > properties: the names "Wikipedia" and (to a lesser degree) > "Wikimedia", the wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org domain names, and the > related service marks. It is these that the Foundation needs to do > much more to both protect and exploit than it has to date. > > If someone sues the Foundation, and wins, it is these properties > (along with the Foundation's server equipment, which is worth a > pittance in comparison to what wikipedia.org is worth) that will end > up sold at auction. The Foundation would be well-advised to > restructure itself so as to put the brand "out of reach". The normal > means of doing this is to have the brand owned by a separate entity > (usually a trust) which then licenses them to the operating charity. > This way, even if the charity goes out of business for any reason, the > brands remain safe and secure in the hands of the trust, out of the > reach of creditors. > > IRS regulations make it quite difficult to disburse property which has > been dedicated to a charitable purpose to any organization that is not > recognized by the IRS as a charitable organization. Thus, naming a > Wikimedia chapter (other than the the non-existent US chapter) as a > designated successor would require an IRS determination letter before > any such dissolutionary transfer could take place. > > Both of these items would require specialized legal assistance to > properly address, from attorneys skilled in US and Florida nonprofit > and tax law. Random babbling from the community is unlikely to be > helpful here. > > Kelly Yup. And this topic has actually already been raised by Michael. The conclusion was to wait till we hire a skilled lawyer. ant _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
On 4/18/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yup. And this topic has actually already been raised by Michael. The > conclusion was to wait till we hire a skilled lawyer. Small surprise that it was Michael who thought of this. Tell me, when will the Foundation be hiring this lawyer? Kelly _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
In reply to this post by Kelly Martin-3
On 4/19/07, Kelly Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> However, the Foundation nonetheless owns some very valuable > properties: the names "Wikipedia" and (to a lesser degree) > "Wikimedia", the wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org domain names, and the > related service marks. It is these that the Foundation needs to do > much more to both protect and exploit than it has to date. Yes - and no. Yes, we should explore the strategy of protecting the brands through a trust or by other reasonable means. (I do not agree with Danny that it should be "done immediately", as we also need to carefully investigate any associated risks.) I also agree that the domain name and brand has tremendous short term value. But for long term impact, the core contributors are going to make the difference. If the vast majority of these people _know_ that there is a project that follows the same principles, under a new name, which has been officially endorsed for exactly this purpose, they will go there. And the press will help with that (it's a nice story). The two strategies - of a trust for the brands, and a designated successor organization - are not necessarily distinct. They could be combined: In the event of failure of the mothership, the (presumably US-based) trust licenses the brands to the designated successor. -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
In reply to this post by Kelly Martin-3
In a message dated 4/18/2007 6:50:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email] writes: Yes - and no. Yes, we should explore the strategy of protecting the brands through a trust or by other reasonable means. (I do not agree with Danny that it should be "done immediately", as we also need to carefully investigate any associated risks.) I also agree that the domain name and brand has tremendous short term value. The problem is that this is not a new issue. It has been around for a while, and this just puts it back on the backburner. I can only wonder, why has nothing been done until now? Why has it not been investigated yet? ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
On 4/19/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The problem is that this is not a new issue. It has been around for a while, > and this just puts it back on the backburner. I can only wonder, why has > nothing been done until now? Why has it not been investigated yet? As you know, Legal Counsel and Interim ED were one and the same person from June 2006 - January 2007. Before then, the WMF did not employ a Legal Counsel _or_ an Executive Director. A lot of work _did_ get done in this time period, including but not limited to: - Bylaws reform and Board expansion - Mission & Vision statement of WMF developed - Largest fundraiser of WMF to date - Audited financial statements released - Hardware purchases and renegotiated contracts - Identifying a Search Committee to work with on the ED Search - Hiring several new key staff members - Progress on international chapter setup and trademark agreements Then there was the media crisis of the day, legal threats, conflicts between staff members, the usual stuff -- but it culminated in your and Brad's resignation for different reasons. I agree that investigating and implementing a risk management strategy is a very high priority. It is not necessarily the highest, and in my opinion will be the result of a process over several months that should involve chapter representatives and some of the best cyberlaw experts we can find. -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
In reply to this post by Kelly Martin-3
Sorry, but that just doesnt cut it. I know all these things, I know a lot got done, and I know how long it took to do it. In fact, I participated in many of them in one way or another. What it boils down to is that the primary responsibility of the Board is fiduciary. Risk management falls under that category. Saying "we were busy" does not release anyone from responsibility. I am reminded of the Board and Chapter meeting in Frankfurt this past autumn, especially when Mitch asked, "Who is willing to take responsibility?" No one raised their hands then, and no one seems to be raising their hands now. Danny In a message dated 4/18/2007 7:24:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email] writes: As you know, Legal Counsel and Interim ED were one and the same person from June 2006 - January 2007. Before then, the WMF did not employ a Legal Counsel _or_ an Executive Director. A lot of work _did_ get done in this time period, including but not limited to: - Bylaws reform and Board expansion - Mission & Vision statement of WMF developed - Largest fundraiser of WMF to date - Audited financial statements released - Hardware purchases and renegotiated contracts - Identifying a Search Committee to work with on the ED Search - Hiring several new key staff members - Progress on international chapter setup and trademark agreements Then there was the media crisis of the day, legal threats, conflicts between staff members, the usual stuff -- but it culminated in your and Brad's resignation for different reasons. I agree that investigating and implementing a risk management strategy is a very high priority. It is not necessarily the highest, and in my opinion will be the result of a process over several months that should involve chapter representatives and some of the best cyberlaw experts we can find. -- Peace & Love, Erik ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
On 4/19/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Sorry, but that just doesnt cut it. I know all these things, I know a lot > got done, and I know how long it took to do it. In fact, I participated in many > of them in one way or another. What it boils down to is that the primary > responsibility of the Board is fiduciary. Risk management falls under that > category. Saying "we were busy" does not release anyone from responsibility. Nobody speaks about release, only about timing, coordination, and priorities. Developing a comprehensive disaster plan (and implementing associated reorganization and/or asset transfers) will be under the responsibility of the new Legal Coordinator, and I expect that we will be able to achieve results within 6-12 months. -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 4/19/07, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: >> The problem is that this is not a new issue. It has been around for a while, >> and this just puts it back on the backburner. I can only wonder, why has >> nothing been done until now? Why has it not been investigated yet? > > As you know, Legal Counsel and Interim ED were one and the same person > from June 2006 - January 2007. Before then, the WMF did not employ a > Legal Counsel _or_ an Executive Director. A lot of work _did_ get done > in this time period, including but not limited to: > - Bylaws reform and Board expansion > - Mission & Vision statement of WMF developed > - Largest fundraiser of WMF to date > - Audited financial statements released > - Hardware purchases and renegotiated contracts > - Identifying a Search Committee to work with on the ED Search > - Hiring several new key staff members > - Progress on international chapter setup and trademark agreements > > Then there was the media crisis of the day, legal threats, conflicts > between staff members, the usual stuff -- but it culminated in your > and Brad's resignation for different reasons. I agree that > investigating and implementing a risk management strategy is a very > high priority. It is not necessarily the highest, and in my opinion > will be the result of a process over several months that should > involve chapter representatives and some of the best cyberlaw experts > we can find. Agreed with everything said. I might add a couple more important works done - set up of the advisory board (which will participate to a board retreat just before Wikimania) - access to non public data policy (JUST approved) and licensing policy - hiring an ED-search company (with which Jan-Bart and/or I are in sub-daily contact) I note as well that a year ago, the WMF was hardly able to keep with the traffic growth from a technical point of view. Now, we cope well. Investigation of the trust is important. But that is certainly not what is on the backburner. Current backburner (next 3 months or so) - hiring several key staff members (in particular ED and legal counsel, but possibly as well CTO or tech leader) - changing governance model and setting up a clean situation for board and ED relationships - planification of the next fundraiser - Wikimania - switching accounting to analytical accounting - board skills and elections - setting up back up procedures in the office - etc... We can not do it all. We have to set a pace and accept that some things, however important they seem to be, have to wait till other things, more critical, are fixed. Going into Trust set up, without having a CEO and a legal counsel, just is not logical. Ant _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
In reply to this post by daniwo59
[hidden email] wrote:
> > Sorry, but that just doesnt cut it. I know all these things, I know a lot > got done, and I know how long it took to do it. In fact, I participated in many > of them in one way or another. What it boils down to is that the primary > responsibility of the Board is fiduciary. Risk management falls under that > category. Saying "we were busy" does not release anyone from responsibility. > > I am reminded of the Board and Chapter meeting in Frankfurt this past > autumn, especially when Mitch asked, "Who is willing to take responsibility?" No > one raised their hands then, and no one seems to be raising their hands now. > > Danny I am willing to take responsability. But taking responsability does not mean we suddenly transform in a cyborg. Let us be practical. Here is a list of the 10 basic responsabilities of the board Ten Basic Responsibilities of Nonprofit Boards 1. DETERMINE THE ORGANIZATIONS MISSION AND PURPOSE A statement of mission and purpose should articulate the organization’s goals, means, and pri- mary constituents served. It is the board’s responsibility to create the mission statement and review it periodically for accuracy and validity. Each individual board member should fully understand and support it. ----> It was just done. All set. 2. SELECT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE Boards must reach consensus on the chief executive’s job description and undertake a careful search process to find the most qualified individual for the position. ----> This is on its way. I have bugged and bugged over and over so that this process moves on. We hired a company to help. We are currently working with them on this, as well as looking for an interim person. Frankly, we may not be very efficient, but it would be quite wrong to say we do not take on this responsability. 3. SUPPORT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND REVIEW HIS OR HER PERFORMANCE The board should ensure that the chief executive has the moral and professional support he or she needs to further the goals of the organization. The chief executive, in partnership with the entire board, should decide upon a periodic evaluation of his or her performance. ----> I reviewed my chief executive performance. 4. ENSURE EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PLANNING As stewards of an organization, boards must actively participate with the staff in an overall planning process and assist in implementing the plan’s goals. ----> In my view, it should be both with staff and community. Which means this is what we are basically doing right now. I suddenly wonder if the CEO of Amazon participate with their staff in the planning process :-) 5. ENSURE ADEQUATE RESOURCES One of the board’s foremost responsibilities is to provide adequate resources for the organiza- tion to fulfill its mission. The board should work in partnership with the chief executive and development staff, if any, to raise funds from the community. ----> Frankly, this is what I do every day right now for Wikimania. 6. MANAGE RESOURCES EFFECTIVELY The board, in order to remain accountable to its donors, the public, and to safeguard its tax- exempt status, must assist in developing the annual budget and ensuring that proper financial controls are in place. ----> I wish I could. To assist does not mean to develop the budget. I think I asked the budget enough times. But right, still much to do on this one :-) 7. DETERMINE,MONITOR,AND STRENGTHEN THE ORGANIZATION’S PROGRAMS AND SERVICES The board’s role in this area is to determine which programs are the most consistent with an organization’s mission and to monitor their effectiveness. ----> See emails of the previous days. See as well my 4 wishes at the beginning of the year. I also requested analytical accounting to help monitoring. 8. ENHANCE THE ORGANIZATION’S PUBLIC STANDING An organization’s primary link to the community, including constituents, the public, and the media, is the board. Clearly articulating the organization’s mission, accomplishments, and goals to the public, and garnering support from important members of the community, are important elements of a comprehensive public relations strategy. ----> We even hired someone to help us here ! My emails in the past few days also try to precisely do that 9. ENSURE LEGAL AND ETHICAL INTEGRITY AND MAINTAIN ACCOUNTABILITY The board is ultimately responsible for ensuring adherence to legal standards and ethical norms. Solid personnel policies, grievance procedures, and a clear delegation to the chief executive of hiring and managing employees will help ensure proper decorum in this area. The board must establish pertinent policies, and adhere to provisions of the organization’s bylaws and articles of incorporation. ----> This is were we suffered the most in teh past months, and this is exactly why I am proposing a change of governance model. No one can claim we are doing nothing on this front. 10. RECRUIT AND ORIENT NEW BOARD MEMBERS AND ASSESS BOARD PERFORMANCE All boards have a responsibility to articulate and make known their needs in terms of member experience, skills, and many other considerations that define a “balanced” board composition. Boards must also orient new board members to their responsibilities and the organization’s history, needs, and challenges. By evaluating its performance in fulfilling its responsibilities, the board can recognize its achievements and reach consensus on which areas need to be improved. ----> We recruited 3 new members in nov/dec and plan a renewal of three members. Afaik, I made a lot of efforts to orient new members (you can not judge that of course, this is internal board business). Skills have been discussed quite a bit in the past few months, and for the elections, I plan to explain which needs we have. As for evaluating performance, what is it exactly that I have been doing in the past few days ???? In short, claiming that we are not taking responsability, Danny, is plain bullshit. I would like as well to insist on one point. When Mitch asked that question last october, I was not chair. As chair, without claiming to be perfect (far from it), I have bugged my co-board members quite a lot, and we have been working on all the topics mentionned above. The fact we are not perfect is an evidence, but I do not agree AT ALL to read we are not taking responsability. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On 4/18/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Nobody speaks about release, only about timing, coordination, and > priorities. Developing a comprehensive disaster plan (and implementing > associated reorganization and/or asset transfers) will be under the > responsibility of the new Legal Coordinator, and I expect that we will > be able to achieve results within 6-12 months. Absurd. The Board should simply hire counsel to deal with this specific issue and get it underway. These are totally different issues than the usual matters the legal coordinator would deal with (I know, I read the legal coordinator job description). This is a matter for the corporation counsel (oh, wait, not only do you not have a corporation counsel, but I suspect none of you except Michael even know what one is), not for your day to day legal affairs manager. For Wikimedia to think it only needs one lawyer is absurd. Kelly _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
On 4/19/07, Kelly Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> For Wikimedia to think it only needs one lawyer is absurd. The foundation only has the funds for one lawyer. I understand there have been some efforts to obtian pro bono help but I don't know how they have gone. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
In reply to this post by Kelly Martin-3
On 4/19/07, Kelly Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Absurd. The Board should simply hire counsel to deal with this > specific issue and get it underway. These are totally different > issues than the usual matters the legal coordinator would deal with (I > know, I read the legal coordinator job description). Then you have not understood it. The WMF enjoys tremendous international goodwill; as a consequence, there is a very large potential for pro bono help from cyberlaw experts at institutions like the Berkman Center. The very first responsibility listed for the LC is: "Coordinate pro bono help, international legal services, legal interns, assistance from the project communities, and outside counsel as necessary" This is exactly where the task of developing a risk management strategy belongs - in a large, international team of legal experts. And I see no reason why this process should not be managed by the person we hire for the LC position. I respect your opinion, but your brain seems to be pretty well programmed for fear and aggression. That's not a good basis for risk assessment. -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
On 4/18/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Then you have not understood it. The WMF enjoys tremendous > international goodwill; as a consequence, there is a very large > potential for pro bono help from cyberlaw experts at institutions like > the Berkman Center. This is not a cyberlaw issue. It's a basic, garden variety trust, tax, and corporate law issue. Exactly NOT the sort of thing you should be going to your friends at the Berkman Center for. > This is exactly where the task of developing a risk management > strategy belongs - in a large, international team of legal experts. > And I see no reason why this process should not be managed by the > person we hire for the LC position. I respect your opinion, but your > brain seems to be pretty well programmed for fear and aggression. > That's not a good basis for risk assessment. Pot. Kettle. Black. I hope, for your sake, that the lawyers looking for an excuse to sue you wait until you hire this "large, international team of legal experts". I know I wouldn't be. Kelly _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
On 4/19/07, Kelly Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This is not a cyberlaw issue. It's a basic, garden variety trust, > tax, and corporate law issue. Exactly NOT the sort of thing you > should be going to your friends at the Berkman Center for. You are operating under the assumption that we already know what our key threat scenario is. That is not so; you have simply proposed one with your usual apodictic certainty. Understanding the magnitude and nature of the threats is the first step. Then we can develop different strategies for dealing with them. -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
On 4/18/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 4/19/07, Kelly Martin <[hidden email]> wrote: > > This is not a cyberlaw issue. It's a basic, garden variety trust, > > tax, and corporate law issue. Exactly NOT the sort of thing you > > should be going to your friends at the Berkman Center for. > > You are operating under the assumption that we already know what our > key threat scenario is. That is not so; you have simply proposed one > with your usual apodictic certainty. Understanding the magnitude and > nature of the threats is the first step. Then we can develop different > strategies for dealing with them. Right. A board and executives who are so reactive that they immediately try to chase down every glitch in the organizational framework, risk structure, etc. that they can't look at the big picture and prioritize aren't doing a good job. This was an issue I hadn't been aware of, and I am glad to hear that it's on the Board's to-do list. Maybe it should be a higher priority, but I don't see it jumping to the front of the line. Maybe it should jump to the front of the line, but the case that it's more important to get this one going than any of the other open issues needs to be made more strongly. Is this higher risk than not having key full time employees? Than a hurricane hitting St Petersburg? Than WMF not dedicating enough effort to fundraising? If it really is a garden-variety corporate attorney thing, which someone could do pro-bono, who can identify a resource to do that, and track them down and get them to do it, and verify that it's the right solution? Is there anyone qualified enough right now to drive that process, or are there still too many info gaps? -- -george william herbert [hidden email] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On 4/18/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You are operating under the assumption that we already know what our > key threat scenario is. Indeed. And with good cause: this Board has amply demonstrated that it wouldn't recognize a threat if it was standing in front of them with a subpoena. I have no reason to believe that any of you -- except Michael and perhaps Kat -- have any competency at all in judging threats. I've watched the various members of this Board run around like chickens reacting to the events of the day. You can't even decide how to hold your meetings or how to present a unified face; it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that you've no idea what the threats to the organization are. In short, I have no confidence in this Board. I would vote all of you -- excepting Michael and Kat, who I think are actually capable and intelligent people, and Jan-Bart, who seems competent but whom I have insufficient experience to judge -- out of the Board, for abject failure to perform your duties in a timely and conscientious fashion. Kelly Kelly _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On 4/18/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > "Coordinate pro bono help, international legal services, legal > interns, assistance from the project communities, and outside counsel > as necessary" *pro bono, *let me translate that in English, *"plead guilty"* _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
In reply to this post by Kelly Martin-3
On 19/04/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In short, claiming that we are not taking responsability, Danny, is > plain bullshit. On 19/04/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote: > I respect your opinion, but your > brain seems to be pretty well programmed for fear and aggression. These are not appropriate ways for members of the Board of Trustees to react to criticism in public. I suggest you peruse WP:CIVIL, which will help you to respond more appropriately for a person holding your office. ~Mark Ryan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
|
I do agree with you, but you must recall that everyone was speaking that way
and you are taking it out of context. Cbrown1023 -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mark Ryan Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:08 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] What are the assets of the Foundation, anyway? On 19/04/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote: > In short, claiming that we are not taking responsability, Danny, is > plain bullshit. On 19/04/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote: > I respect your opinion, but your > brain seems to be pretty well programmed for fear and aggression. These are not appropriate ways for members of the Board of Trustees to react to criticism in public. I suggest you peruse WP:CIVIL, which will help you to respond more appropriately for a person holding your office. ~Mark Ryan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
| Powered by Nabble | Edit this page |
