Is it just me ...?
... or did anyone else notice that the announcement omits the word "resign"? Is there any meaning behind that, or was it an inadvertent omission?
On reflection: only two things seem unusual about the announcement. One is the missing word "resign" and the second is the characteristic verbosity that Greg Kohs mentioned.
We really should take this statement at face value: "We’re not aware of any significant differences of opinion between Mike and the Wikimedia Foundation, in terms of values, principles, ethics, future plans, or anything like that."
There really could be any number of legitimately confidential reasons to part company without "egregious" misconduct. The range goes all the way from a family illness to a personality clash or sheer boredom. At the extremes of fantasy, it could even be a salary dispute (as Kohs suggested) or intimidation by a security agency in the manner of A Very British Coup (TV version). No one is likely to ever tell us if my wild guesses are remotely true.
One thing it couldn't have been: surfing explicit material at work, as that is a necessary part of the job ( viz meta:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content ).
I'd expect Godwin could be tough to work with if we want to go down the speculation/conspiracy route. Myself, in conversation with Godwin:
"I am concerned that someone who makes a living by argueing [Sic] could not establish these facts from this conversation..."
"Perhaps you should read my comments and figure out what this whole discussion is all about. I can only hope it is sheer laziness that prevents you from reading/understanding the discussion, because otherwise you are incompetent to the point of being unable to do your job - which does not match what I have heard of your ability, which I am told is quite high - or a liar."
I stand by those comments. It was not a difficult conversation to understand to someone of the intelligence required of the former EFF and then WMF counsel.
Ironically, that same conversation makes me doubt massive argument. If he's walking because of that, surely he'd blow some public steam? After all, to make him quit he'd have to be fairly damn convinced a) he was right b) the differences of opinion were major. I'd expect that to result in some kind of public identification of a problem.
All in all, I'm not so sure there's anything sinister. As always, I stand to be convinced but I am not expecting evidence to the contrary. Also, let's please remember that while he may have breached meta:DICK, he may very well have quit for personal reasons as mentioned above. Thus, and I say this preemptively rather than in response to any comments here so far, we should not whip up any kind of frenzy without good reason.