I put discussing the WCA on this weekend's board meeting agenda a while back.
However, the context has obviously changed a lot now. I've just added an agenda
item about the current situation, which will hopefully be accepted by the rest
of the board. Fæ's already agreed to provide an update at t
On 6 February 2013 23:08, Andrew Turvey wrote:
> That's an interesting way of putting it! However, now that the WMF has come
> out against, is there any way that the WCA can fulfill its stated aims?
> Furthermore, if WMUK continues to support the WCA, will this damage the
> chapter's relationship
That's an interesting way of putting it! However, now that the WMF has come
out against, is there any way that the WCA can fulfill its stated aims?
Furthermore, if WMUK continues to support the WCA, will this damage the
chapter's relationship with the Foundation?
On Feb 6, 2013 9:12 PM, "Thomas Dal
Just to reply to some of the points raised;
* We've actually only this evening received the final version of the report
chronology (and there is a fairly technical procedural i that needs dotting
before that is published, which ought to be completed before too long into
tomorrow)
* In my view it's
On 6 February 2013 21:07, Andrew Turvey wrote:
> I see the Foundation has withdrawn their support for the Wikimedia Chapters
> Association, the cross-chapters partnership that WMUK backed.
To be honest, it never really offered any support in the first
place... they said they liked the idea, but t
I see the Foundation has withdrawn their support for the Wikimedia Chapters
Association, the cross-chapters partnership that WMUK backed. Their
statement included some significant criticisms about the way the WCA has
been implemented, something that individual Foundation board members
expanded on i
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The chapter and wmf were provided with a draft of the report a couple of
> weeks ago, so there shouldn't be any need to immediately counter factual
> errors. They should have already been fixed.
>
I was referring to possible errors in the assu
The chapter and wmf were provided with a draft of the report a couple of
weeks ago, so there shouldn't be any need to immediately counter factual
errors. They should have already been fixed.
On Feb 6, 2013 7:00 PM, "Damokos Bence" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote
So go along to the Board meeting and ask directly - I've no doubt they'll hand
you a copy after they've done whatever is still left to do. Then the discussion
can begin in earnest. Perhaps it is nothing more sinister than getting 5 Board
members in a room to listen to a couple of things say 'O
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 6 February 2013 18:49, steve virgin wrote:
> > Tango
> >
> >
> >
> > I’ve always said you have a heart of gold Tom. Give the guys in London
> 3-4
> > more days and we’ll all see it I am sure. If it is longer than that I’ll
> > complain to
On 6 February 2013 18:49, steve virgin wrote:
> Tango
>
>
>
> I’ve always said you have a heart of gold Tom. Give the guys in London 3-4
> more days and we’ll all see it I am sure. If it is longer than that I’ll
> complain too, jointly with you.
The board meeting is in less than 3 days - Chris h
Tango
I’ve always said you have a heart of gold Tom. Give the guys in London 3-4 more
days and we’ll all see it I am sure. If it is longer than that I’ll complain
too, jointly with you.
Steve
From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimed
Yes, but he's trolling and complimenting me, so we must make allowances!
On Feb 6, 2013 5:35 PM, "steve virgin" wrote:
>
> +1
>
> He most certainly is
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Beha
We're talking about when the report is published, not whether it is
published, so I fail to see what people losing their jobs or Wikimedia UK
losing its chapter status has to do with anything... If the report is so
damning that those are going to be the outcomes, then that is going to be
as much th
+1
He most certainly is
-Original Message-
From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: 06 February 2013 17:02
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 6 Febru
On 6 February 2013 16:56, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Speaking just for myself, I was actually enjoying Thomas' posts, rather than
> resenting them filling up my inbox.
> Yours, on the other hand, I did resent: for its glib pomposity.
Considering you are in fact here to troll, that's just fine.
-
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, HJ Mitchell wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I've a lot of respect for you, and I usually agree with you. In fact, I
> mostly agree with you on this issue - I would like to see the report
> published sooner rather than later because even if it is absolutely
> damning, it is in th
Tom,
I've a lot of respect for you, and I usually agree with you. In fact, I mostly
agree with you on this issue - I would like to see the report published sooner
rather than later because even if it is absolutely damning, it is in the
charity's best interests to publish it and be seen to be ad
;>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> >>>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> >>>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> >>>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >
_
> >>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> >>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> >>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> >>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
On 6 February 2013 13:11, wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> I think it is more a matter of what standards "we" (as the membership)
> should expect from a) the board and b) WMUK the firm (which is undoubtedly
> what it is).
>
> I value you your contributions because you are always pushing "us" (the
> membershi
gt;
>> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
>> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
>> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
>> 4LT.
>> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK
On 6 February 2013 12:23, Stevie Benton wrote:
> Tom, I don't see where anyone is making excuses.
Try reading this email thread... To use the Wiktionary definition, an
excuse is "an explanation designed to avoid or alleviate guilt or
negative judgment".
In a statement of the form "We are (not) d
Tom, I don't see where anyone is making excuses.
As your previous email acknowledges, the review was co-commissioned by
Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation. We are discussing the review
with the Foundation and are in the process of preparing a response. This
response needs to be co-ordinated
On 6 February 2013 09:32, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> On 6 February 2013 09:30, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> I don't want background. I want you to publish the report now. You don't
>> need any more response than "we're looking at it and are beginning
>> discussions with the community, we'll have a full
On 05/02/13 13:48, John Byrne wrote:
Saad of course is "semi-elected" as he is the runner-up in the last
election with the highest votes who still wants to be on the board.
I have taken up a position in the same way, a year after an election (it
was 2009). Hence, in a three year term, I ser
On 06/02/13 09:15, Jon Davies wrote:
Phone me if you want more background.
Jon
Not sure how that would add to transparency
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk
shed
> >> promptly
> >> > (not necessarily immediately) when we get it.
> >>
> >> Why won't you publish it immeadiately?
> >>
> >>
> > So that we have a chance to prepare responses for any media inquiries
> that
> > might re
On 6 February 2013 09:30, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I don't want background. I want you to publish the report now. You don't
> need any more response than "we're looking at it and are beginning
> discussions with the community, we'll have a fuller response in a few
> weeks". You could have written th
I don't want background. I want you to publish the report now. You don't
need any more response than "we're looking at it and are beginning
discussions with the community, we'll have a fuller response in a few
weeks". You could have written that months ago.
Last time you used the "we need to prepa
Tom, It might be sensible to check with us directly before posting. We *have
* been preparing but need to get a lot of consensus even for a 'short
response'. I think your email was unfair to Chris and a little rude.
Please assume good faith.
Phone me if you want more background.
Jon
On 6 Februa
31 matches
Mail list logo