[Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action

Sun May 9 06:30:21 UTC 2010

I'll respond to a few related comments and questions at once:

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's board members directly asserting control over content. Of
> course it's a major issue.

Perish the thought.  The Board is not controlling content - I would
oppose any Board action that did so.

Phoebe writes:
> I'm not sure that's how I'd frame it. The board statement
> seemed pretty clear; reaffirming existing policy. I guess it
> depends a bit on what capacity you think Jimmy was acting in;

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote;
> I find it shocking that the board has chosen to explicitly support
> this 'wild west' approach.

The Board does not support this - although individuals may -  it is
not the role of the Board or the Foundation to get involved with
project policy or content discussions.  Jimmy represents himself when
he contributes to the projects.

I don't find a 'wild west' approach helpful.  However some community
members have in the past; and Jimmy's founder role stems from the
deference of the community, not a blessing from the Board.

---

Millosh asked about the Board perspective on the Jimmy's last actions
on Commons, so here is mine:

Jimmy started a discussion on Commons, about a subject he cares deeply
about.   It began well.  As Adam and others have said, by Friday
morning there was an active community discussion led by Commons
administrators, and steady progress on fleshing out a sexual content
policy.  That was largely attributable to Jimmy's help facilitating a
community discussion around a concrete proposal.   I engaged in the
discussion myself, but my comments there -- as those of any Trustee --
represent only my input as a member of the community.

Since Friday afternoon, this has been derailed.  Jimmy acted boldly
and unilaterally, changed the developing draft significantly and then
acted on it, reverted opposition without comment, and threatened
desysopping.  Work on the proposal died.

Boldness is useful - I am a fan of WP:BRD - but I am concerned about
the last point.  From Jimmy's talk page today: "I am fully willing to
change the policies for adminship... removing adminship in case of
wheel warring on this issue" -- this Sword of Damocles is problematic.
 It is difficult to reach meaningful consensus in an atmosphere of
fear.

I hope that noone in the Commons community feels threatened or unable
to speak their mind (or to exercise their administrative abilities in
carrying out their work).

As to a way forward -- it is (as ever) up to the Commons community to
work out what its policies are to be, with Jimmy if they are willing.
I encourage those who feel strongly about these issues to engage
directly in discussions there.

SJ