On 23 June 2011 09:56, Martin Poulter <infob...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nor do I like the idea of viewing the charity application as being > adversarial, and no, the CC aren't out to get us. That wasn't what I was > trying to imply. However, it is a negotiation process, involving third > parties as well as us and the CC. There are different possible angles to > take - some productive; some counter-productive - and while those > discussions are definitely being had, it doesn't necessarily help for them > to be public discussions. I don't think it would be wise to publicly discuss > "snags", for example.
Sure, but you can keep the membership informed about what you are doing in general terms. You don't need to go into detail about what arguments you are or aren't using, you just need to tell us what's going on. Saying "it's a top priority, trust us" isn't particularly convincing when it's been over a year since we got the response from the charity commission to our initial application and it looks like very little has been done since then. (I'm aware that most of that year was on my watch, not yours, and that lots of things have been and are happening, but that hasn't been communicated to the membership.) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
