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
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 prepare
On 6 February 2013 09:30, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 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
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/attachments/20130206/bcf207b4/attachment-0001.html
--
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:15:31 +
From: Jon Davies jon.dav
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
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
On 6 February 2013 09:32, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 6 February 2013 09:30, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 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
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
On 6 February 2013 12:23, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk 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
/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/attachments/20130206/0c6829a1/attachment.html
On 6 February 2013 13:11, fab...@unpopular.org.uk 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
attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/attachments/20130206/0c6829a1/attachment.html
--
___
Wikimediauk-l mailing list
Wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https
/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/attachments/20130206/0c6829a1/attachment.html
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
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM, HJ Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com 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
On 6 February 2013 16:56, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 6 February 2013 18:49, steve virgin st...@mediafocusuk.com 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
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
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 damokos.be...@wikimedia.hu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:55
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
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
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
On 6 February 2013 21:07, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com 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
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
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
On 6 February 2013 23:08, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com 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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
