Hoi,
After several attempts to get Danny's attention I have gone to the
people
who were organisationally in a senior position to Danny. I have
skyped and
e-mailed about this issue. There is a sufficient paper trail. This
paper
trail should be available within the WMF itself. That should
suffice as
"evidence".
Thanks,
Gerard
On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As I stated in my prior email, Gerard, I was pointing out
to...cbrown
I believe it is, what the comments were about and where they likely
came from.
Gerard: I used these comments from your blog:
"So I agree with our "drama queen"; the board can repudiate results
it does not like. I am known to be of the opinion that Danny should
not be a candidate in the first place as his behaviour makes it
quite
clear to me that he his hostility towards other board members. Also
given the statutes of the WMF when Danny were to be elected, he can
be removed when my misgivings about him prove to be correct."
Danny does not have to answer your question. Certainly because
he did
not answer your question, is not grounds for him to be repudiated.
It's grounds for you and possibly others not to vote for him.
You asked "Why does Danny stand for election." I think it to be
obviously answered multiple times: He believes he can make a change
(my words, not his). You've spent all this time demanding that
he not
stand....on the "questions" page no less (and in the edit you
did not
even ask a single question, only made demands). That, combined with
your blog posting that the board may repudiate any results that
they
don't like (which I likewise, along with you, agree with Kelly
Martin
about), implies very strongly that you believe that were he to be
elected he should be barred from the board.
So Gerard, I challenge your statement that you have asked him many
times: I think he has given many answers: he is campaigning for
fiduciary responsibility, he believes he can make changes, etc.
(again, my words not his).
Gerard, you say he's made unfounded accusations against several
board
members. What about your accusation here?:
"I have had dealings with Danny about possible potential
donations to
the Wikimedia Foundation. These
donations did not happen because Danny did not bother to do his
job.
He did
not even contact me when he was told to do so."
Where is the evidence about that?
I agree with you, I think it's bad form for a candidate to speak
against standing board members in the way that Danny did. I also
think it's just as bad for a non-candidate to do the same thing to
that candidate.
-Dan
On Jul 7, 2007, at 2:23 AM, GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> Please read what I wrote, I asked Danny Wool to finally answer the
> question
> that the refuses to face, the question is and was: Why do you
> think
> that it
> is appropriate for you to stand.
>
> I also wrote that I agreed with a point made by Kelly Martin, that
> it is the
> board that accepts the election results.
>
> There is nothing new here and it certainly does not say that the
> board
> should or will repudiate the election.
>
> With the process of the election changed as a result of the
> action of
> Gregory Maxwell, there is ROOM to ask Danny AGAIN why he does
> stand. There
> are great arguments why he should not stand. The best arguments
> are
> the ones
> that he provides himself, his opinions indicate that he is not
> likely to be
> a cooperative member when elected. When he resigned from his
> position as an
> employee, he did not provide any reasons.
>
> So to recapitulate:
>
> - Kelly Martin originally suggested that the board has the
> option to
> use the results as it likes, she is correct
> - Danny Wool has been invited several times to answer the
> question why
> it is a good thing for him to stand, a question that he refuses
> to answer
> - Given that the process of the election has changed, there is
> again
> room to ask this question
> - Please read carefully because you assume that I wrote
> something that
> I did not.
>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/07/election-drama-
> continues.html
>
> On 7/7/07, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No. It's likely based on GerardM's comments on his blog, here:
>> http://
>>
ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-cares-about-
>> process.html in
>> which he suggests that the board should repudiate the results if
>> Danny is elected.
>>
>> -Dan
>> On Jul 6, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
>>
>>> I'm hoping that was a joke.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
>>> David Gerard
>>> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 11:28 PM
>>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>>> Subject: [Foundation-l] Will the Board accept the election
>>> result?
>>>
>>> What are the chances of the Board ignoring the election result
>>> if it
>>> doesn't like it?
>>>
>>>
>>> - d.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org