On 2/28/20 4:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:21:15 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
But there was little scrutiny and lots of speculation.
Speculation happens in a vacuum of information, and that's what we have.
Speculation happens when people _choose_ to speculate, it doesn't just pop up out of nowhere.
Principles could simply be that some might think the guy with the orange face living in a white house in Washington DC is a good idea and others do not.
The point being we do not know what happened, we have a request from one of the people involved to not speculate and not ask, and in a follow confirmed that matters are best kept private.
We should respect the desires of those involved and drop it.
It's difficult to drop
No it is not, Christian asked us, twice, not to do exactly what is happening. All the rest of us have to do is quit running our fingers over the keyborad concerning this topic, exercise a little restrained, and respect the desire of one of our valued members of the community. How hard is it really to _not_ make up some conspiracy theory and just say:
Thank you Christian for your effort, sorry to loose you as a board member. Very happy that you will continue with all the other stuff you already do.
Be done and move on. Respect, I think is written in our guiding principles somewhere. That includes respecting community members wishes about not starting speculation.
it when 40% of the board has resigned for what appear to be similar reasons. If there's a problem in the board, something needs to be done to correct that problem, and the membership can't do that when there's no information.
The membership's opportunity to get involved is in the next election. AFAIK there is no such thing that the membership can decide during any part of the term of a sitting board that all or some board members need to be evicted.