On 28/09/12 23:05, Alice Wiegand wrote:
Depends on who you think the Foundation is.
Alice.
Bunch of farmers?
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wi
I don't know why you've bothered making any statements here. You just keep
leveling accusations against the people that have complained about you
rather than actually trying to recognise and address their concerns.
When you accepted the contract with Monmouthshire council, you asked me for
my thou
Tom,
Neat, insightful, philosophical. Its tricky to decide how best to describe
your considered contribution maybe empathetic?
I can see with 20/20 hindsight see lots of things I did wrong or could do
better. The most recent was to offer some comments here. Apologies to those
who might have l
Since you still don't understand what you did wrong, I think you made the
right decision by resigning.
On Oct 2, 2012 7:58 PM, "Roger Bamkin" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've taken a while to respond for a number of reasons. As Tom M notes this
> is upsetting. The other reason is that I'm not reading all of
Hi,
I've taken a while to respond for a number of reasons. As Tom M notes this
is upsetting. The other reason is that I'm not reading all of this because
as Tom says its sticky. I'm sure that when he says " but the solution is
not to use the charity to pay your wage" he didnt mean that as I think
On 29 September 2012 22:57, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 September 2012 22:55, Thomas Morton
> wrote:
>
> >> review, to make sure we are doing enough to safeguard the reputation of
> not
> >> only ourselves as a charity but the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
>
> > Chis, I would hope it has nothin
On 29 September 2012 22:55, Thomas Morton wrote:
>> review, to make sure we are doing enough to safeguard the reputation of not
>> only ourselves as a charity but the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
> Chis, I would hope it has nothing to to with reputation! And everything to
> do with doing thing
As a general point on this matter; I think it is overkill.
There is nothing in all of this that I have seen which would indicate WMUK
is not capable of handling donations in the UK. There have been ethical
concerns with the board - but nothing that isn't public enough to make sure
everything is at
Roger,
I intend the following comments in the most constructive way. The bottom
line for me is that you severely violated the ethics of your position - not
maliciously, I hasten the say, but this does not make it acceptable or
right.
If anything, your offers to resign demonstrate that you knew th
Hi all,
I'm not going to repeat what's in the statement - it speaks for
itself. We'll pay very close attention indeed to the results of the
governance review, to make sure we are doing enough to safeguard the
reputation of not only ourselves as a charity but the Wikimedia movement as
a whole.
In
On Sep 29, 2012 9:58 PM, "James Farrar" wrote:
>
> Then the statement should have been more honest...
This is politics. It's how the game is played. You avoid a mutually harmful
fight by allowing the weaker party to save face by pretending it was their
decision.
On Sep 29, 2012 9:58 PM, "James Fa
jan-bart,
while i find the measures well thought out in most parts, i am missing
a clear separation of concerns.
the first concern are contributors of money. did we again forget them?
why a UK resident should be punished and not be able to give tax
exempted? i'd say the current proceeding clearly
On 29 September 2012 20:58, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> James, if you are accusing a charity of throwing away money could you be
> specific as to which charity you are accusing of throwing away money?
>
> I'm not aware of any of WMUK's financial decisions being disputed.
>
> By contrast the WMF by
Then the statement should have been more honest...
On Sep 29, 2012 9:41 PM, "Thomas Dalton" wrote:
> I think it is fairly obvious that this was a WMF decision.
> On Sep 29, 2012 9:33 PM, "James Farrar" wrote:
>
>> Whoever decided that UK donations to the fundraiser wouldn't be Gift Aid
>> eligib
As any fan of Yes Prime Minister knows, "irregular" means there's been a
crime but you can't prove it. ("Malpractice" means there's been a crime and
you can prove it.)
On Sep 29, 2012 9:21 PM, "Andrew Turvey"
wrote:
> Hi Jan-Bart,
>
> Don't worry, I understand, "irregular" is often used as a euph
I think it is fairly obvious that this was a WMF decision.
On Sep 29, 2012 9:33 PM, "James Farrar" wrote:
> Whoever decided that UK donations to the fundraiser wouldn't be Gift Aid
> eligible. According to the statement, that's both WMF and WMUK.
> On Sep 29, 2012 8:59 PM, "WereSpielChequers"
>
Whoever decided that UK donations to the fundraiser wouldn't be Gift Aid
eligible. According to the statement, that's both WMF and WMUK.
On Sep 29, 2012 8:59 PM, "WereSpielChequers"
wrote:
> James, if you are accusing a charity of throwing away money could you be
> specific as to which charity yo
Hi Jan-Bart,
Don't worry, I understand, "irregular" is often used as a euphemism for
improper but I guess that's something that a non-native speaker may not
necessarily be aware of.
At the same time I should have said I think the Foundation's actions are
understandable and reasonable in the circu
On 29 September 2012 20:58, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> James, if you are accusing a charity of throwing away money could you be
> specific as to which charity you are accusing of throwing away money?
WMF: by pulling fundraising in-house, they're throwing away the ~30%
[1] HM Government would be
"Irregular" in this context means closer to "against regulations" than
"unusual".
On Sep 29, 2012 8:18 PM, "Jan-Bart de Vreede"
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Thank you Andrew, although I must confess that I thought that my English
> was very good I apparently chose the wrong words. What I meant to convey
> was
Hi
Thank you Andrew, although I must confess that I thought that my English was
very good I apparently chose the wrong words. What I meant to convey was
"unusual" and unusual enough to warrant further review…
Jan-Bart
On 29 Sep 2012, at 21:09, Andrew Turvey wrote:
> Hi Jan-Bart and others,
Hi Jan-Bart and others,
I would hope we can wait until we hear the results of the review before
jumping to the conclusion that what has gone on is "highly irregular"
(which incidentally, clearly *is *an accusation of wrong doing). There are
certainly allegations that have been made that are of ser
I am not going to say anything about the statement.
What I DO want to say is that whatever happens with the way we receive our
funding the great work of the volunteers and staff must go on.
It would be very easy to be distracted to the detriment of everything else.
We are doing great things. Ha
Hi
It doesn't work like that, as I indicated there have been some (highly)
irregular activities in the past months (which is not the same as what you
state below). The timing is such that a decision on Payment Processing (which
is indeed not the same as fundraising or applying to the FDC, but i
e, because
>> I've yet to form one)
>>
>> Harry Mitchell
>> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
>> Phone: 024 7698 0977
>> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Doug Weller
>> *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list
&g
On 29/09/2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede wrote:
Hi James (and others)
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume
bad faith on the part of the WMF. At this point everyone should be
concerned about the fact that over the past months we have had several
(highly) irregula
x27;ve yet to form one)
>>
>> Harry Mitchell
>> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
>> Phone: 024 7698 0977
>> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Doug Weller
>> *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list
>> *Sent:* Sa
8 0977
Skype: harry_j_mitchell
From: Thomas Dalton
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 17:20
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation
Jan-Bart,
The problems at Wikimedia UK, while certainly very concerning, haven't i
Jan-Bart,
The problems at Wikimedia UK, while certainly very concerning, haven't
involved any misuse of funds, so it is very disappointing that the WMF has
used this as an excuse to stop Wikimedia UK taking part in the fundraiser.
This decision will cost the movement a lot in wasted time and money
Hi David,
I do assume that people have been following the payment processing discussion
but I also assumed that they would find these developments important enough to
see that there is no way we can just move on from this point.
I repeat my statement which I made at Wikimania: I am very happy t
On 29 September 2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede wrote:
> What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad
> faith on the part of the WMF.
I find it puzzling that you assume that people aren't generally aware
of the long and acrimonous discussions of payment processing
; yet to form one)
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> Phone: 024 7698 0977
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> From: Doug Weller
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 14:59
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Founda
t; Phone: 024 7698 0977
>> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>>
>> --------------
>> *From:* Doug Weller
>> *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list
>> *Sent:* Saturday, 29 September 2012, 14:59
>> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Found
t; Phone: 024 7698 0977
>> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>>
>> ____________
>> From: Doug Weller
>> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
>> Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 14:59
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation
>
ess my opinion on the issue, because
> I've yet to form one)
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> Phone: 024 7698 0977
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> --
> *From:* Doug Weller
> *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list
> *Sent:* Satu
I'm sure John's right about Gift aID.
And yep, too succinct. I got that bit but not the reason.
Doug
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM, John Byrne wrote:
> On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
>> Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
>>
>> This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity
On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
> Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
>
> This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily
> throwing away money.
> On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" wrote:
>
>
Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment process
From: Doug Weller
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 14:59
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation
Can someone here please explain this issue succinctly?
Thanks.
Doug
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> On Sep
Can someone here please explain this issue succinctly?
Thanks.
Doug
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2012 1:40 PM, "Neil Harris" wrote:
>>
>> On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
>>>
>>> This is subject to findi
On Sep 29, 2012 1:40 PM, "Neil Harris" wrote:
>
> On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
>>
>> This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily
>> throwing away money.
>> On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" wrote:
>>
>>
>
> D
On 29 September 2012 13:40, Neil Harris wrote:
> On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
>> Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
>> This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily
>> throwing away money.
> Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment process
On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily
throwing away money.
On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" wrote:
Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment processor?
If
On 29 September 2012 13:31, Gordon Joly wrote:
>> What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain
>> donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where
>> the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will
>> be very very confu
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain
donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's
where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning
donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid
their donation
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily
throwing away money.
On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" wrote:
> There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF
> even if WMUK isn't the default payment
I have been encouraged to issue statements for the last week or so about
the debate. I have resisted as I did not want to escalate what I saw as an
unfortunate bit of publicity for Wikimedia UK and the Foundation. I'm very
disappointed to see the latest press release I believe that the statement
o
There were plenty of large countries on that list, although media attention
is likely to spread further when it originates in English, that's true.
On Sep 28, 2012 11:37 PM, "Deryck Chan" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 28 September 2012 23:20, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan
On 28 September 2012 23:20, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" wrote:
> >
> > There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than
> WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
> >
> > What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fu
On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" wrote:
>
> There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF
even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
>
> What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain
donors staying with WMUK and others swit
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF
even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain
donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where
the default landing p
On Sep 28, 2012 11:05 PM, "Alice Wiegand" wrote:
>
>
> Am 29.09.2012 um 00:03 schrieb David Gerard :
>
> > On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar wrote:
> >
> >> Well, there goes my donation.
> >
> >
> > The Foundation aren't reading here.
> >
>
> Depends on who you think the Foundation is.
Th
Am 29.09.2012 um 00:03 schrieb David Gerard :
> On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar wrote:
>
>> Well, there goes my donation.
>
>
> The Foundation aren't reading here.
>
Depends on who you think the Foundation is.
Alice.
___
Wikimedia UK ma
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar wrote:
> Well, there goes my donation.
The Foundation aren't reading here.
- d.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http:/
Well, there goes my donation.
On Sep 28, 2012 9:16 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
> On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating
> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the
> Foundation
> > which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog
> > reg
Yes, David, sounds like it.
The opening to this week's signpost article seems to sum it up the
situation:
"In the second controversy to engulf Wikimedia UK in two months..."
Both controversies seemed to have damaged the relationship between the
chapter and the editing communities, in particular
On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating wrote:
> I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the Foundation
> which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog
> regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's
> fundraiser.
> http://blog.
Dear all,
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the Foundation
which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog
regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's
fundraiser.
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wik
57 matches
Mail list logo
