Do *you* have any evidence for that? On Oct 8, 2012 10:45 AM, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is clear that the board protected Roger. It is not clear that they did > so because of an overfamiliarity among the board. I think they probably > thought they were just being supportive colleagues. > On Oct 8, 2012 10:36 AM, "Gordon Joly" <gordon.j...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard wrote: >> >>> On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett <pigsotw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly" <gordon.j...@pobox.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an >>>>> individual, >>>>> when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his >>>>> position. >>>>> It appears that he was protected. >>>>> >>>> You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. >>>> Perhaps >>>> it's time you shared that with us. >>>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you >>> have something to say, say it. >>> >>> >>> - d. >>> >> >> Did the board reject Roger's resignations in the past? >> >> >> Gordo >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l<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 > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
