For some reason there is no street view around their office on Google map. To prevent terrorist attacks?

For some reason there is no street view around their office on Google map. To prevent terrorist attacks?

Thomas Dalton states:

++++++++++

Kohs: "That's curious, considering they had 'outgrown' space in January 2009, such
that they needed to shuttle Ruth and Frank Stanton's money over to Wikia's
accounts receivable to expand their footprint."

That is an accusation of illicit dealings for personal gain. It
doesn't matter than you didn't explicitly accuse them, no reasonable
person could interpret that sentence (in the context of your previous
comments) as anything else.

++++++++++

Yes, I should hope that any "reasonable person" should be able to recognize a wired deal when presented with the factual parameters of one.

Any self-respecting and professional non-profit board of trustees should have nullified even the inclusion in a competitive set of bidders any privately-held company co-founded by a sitting board member. In the case of "Stanton dollars to Wikia, Inc.", it seems that the WMF Board was not notified of what Executive Director Sue Gardner had made as an executive decision. I maintained, and continue to maintain, that this was a poor decision that yielded minor situational benefits for a couple of code developers, at the cost of major reputational harms inflicted by the image of an Executive Director awarding a contract to the company launched by the Chairman Emeritus of the board of trustees responsible for her hire.

You say "illicit", which is defined as "unlawful" in most dictionaries. I never made that claim. I contend that the transaction was stupid, thoughtless, ill-conceived, unprofessional, and unethical -- but I'm not informed enough legally to say whether or not the transaction was "illicit". I'll remind you, many well-placed Wikimedia volunteers and holders of key community positions perceived this Stanton-to-Wikia transaction as ill-advised. Single me out, if that makes you feel better.

You may wish to review what constitutes a "competitive bidding process". Was it "competitive" when the WMF received numerous bids for rental space, but only offered to one bidder -- the one with favorable financial implications for a sitting board member -- the opportunity to reduce their proposed cost of rental?

Greg

It's strange, none of the list moderators has told me that this is impermissible speech, yet none of them has published it, either. That's a crafty mechanism of censorship, nonetheless, wouldn't you say?

As I said in my e-mail earlier, my travel plans this weekend may have
delayed the review of your posts. I apologize for the inconvenience.

The post you reference below has been reviewed and rejected.

Austin

Your request to the foundation-l mailing list

Posting of your message titled "Re: WMF seeking to sub-lease
office space?"

has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
following reason for rejecting your request:

"No reason given"

Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
at:

foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org

The face of Foundation-l censorship, a "freelance consultant" formerly employed by the University of Phoenix (a remote learning institution), and specializing in operating system kernels.

A "remote learning institution"? Isn't that what we "old fogeys" call a "diploma mill"?

Furthermore, I received this automated sort of reply:

I wouldn't say that about the University of Phoenix. It is one of the most reputable distance-learning authorities, in my humble opinion. It is enormous, too. However, it has not been without its controversy.

Meanwhile, Mr. Hair has explained his actions on Foundation-l.

I note he is saying you are wrong about something (I long ago lost the will to wade through the gubbins of illogic that is foundation-l). Presumably, he is suggesting that you are wrong to suggest that there is something unethical about the perfectly respectable and law abiding rigging of the bid.

A re-read of my modified post at Akahele is probably enough to clarify where I was "wrong".

I do maintain, though, that the point about the Stanton-money-to-Wikia-as-rent as being a "wired deal", is ultimately correct.

Greg

Ooops!

If American real estate is like business stuff over here, then most likely they are sub-letting because they have significant penalties for early termination. However, again if it is like over here, you then start getting into issues of liability for the sub-lessor (dilapidations and so on) so there are risks in sub-letting. It does sound a bit naive for a company that hasn't got a sense of what its office requirements are to get locked into long(?) tenancies.