Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
Thanks, Stevie. Andreas On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hello everyone, Just a couple of things here to tidy up from my side. Apologies for my lack of communication over the weekend but as it was my anniversary and working may have led to it being my last, I hope you'll forgive me. - Use of logos - the use of logos is covered by fair use. Publications using a logo to illustrate a story about an organisation is totally sensible and reasonable. - Dispute over QRpedia - the description isn't ideal, of course. However, to outsiders it's probably reasonable to think there is a dispute given the length of time it took to reach an agreement. - Sister charity - I have no problems with the description of WMF and WMUK as sister organisations really. It makes sense to the audience they are writing for. - Who got in touch with the publications? - I confirm that I contacted both Third Sector and Civil Society directly. It was nothing to do with Andreas, or anyone else for that matter. I liaised very closely with the team in San Francisco until very late on Wednesday to get this sorted. They suggested that we give a heads-up on the story to a publication or two that we've dealt with in the past. I didn't provide them any copy, simply advised that the announcement was due. The journalists had covered the story before. This is fairly standard practice. Sometimes, unfortunately, the press use over-dramatic language and we have to live with that. As our relationships with the press improve, and they have more positive stories to cover, the default narrative will become repositioned. This will take time. I hope this answers the questions from earlier in the thread. Please do let me know if there's anything I've missed and I'll do my best to provide any answers or clarity. Thanks and regards, Stevie On 9 February 2013 21:56, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 9 February 2013 21:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 February 2013 20:56, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity This also refers to an an intellectual property dispute over QRPedia, which is, of course, bunkum. Oh, look who else quotes this claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-11/In_the_media I wonder where they got it from. To clarify: User:Jayen466 is Andreas Kolbe, who is a Wikipedian in good standing. That article is a draft that may or may not be in the Signpost in Monday. Andreas is also an associate of Wikipediocracy, a website that hosts contributions by people I wouldn't willingly be seen dead with. On the other hand Andreas comes to some Cambridge meetups, and is welcome to do so, and I have been in the pub with him afterwards. DG seems to do the guilt for association thing to excess, whatever irritation events in 2012 have caused WMUK and its trustees. Steve Virgin and other Board members from 2010 do bear some collective responsibility for the subsequent governance, as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather see some humility from them. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton 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 is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
Hello everyone, Just a couple of things here to tidy up from my side. Apologies for my lack of communication over the weekend but as it was my anniversary and working may have led to it being my last, I hope you'll forgive me. - Use of logos - the use of logos is covered by fair use. Publications using a logo to illustrate a story about an organisation is totally sensible and reasonable. - Dispute over QRpedia - the description isn't ideal, of course. However, to outsiders it's probably reasonable to think there is a dispute given the length of time it took to reach an agreement. - Sister charity - I have no problems with the description of WMF and WMUK as sister organisations really. It makes sense to the audience they are writing for. - Who got in touch with the publications? - I confirm that I contacted both Third Sector and Civil Society directly. It was nothing to do with Andreas, or anyone else for that matter. I liaised very closely with the team in San Francisco until very late on Wednesday to get this sorted. They suggested that we give a heads-up on the story to a publication or two that we've dealt with in the past. I didn't provide them any copy, simply advised that the announcement was due. The journalists had covered the story before. This is fairly standard practice. Sometimes, unfortunately, the press use over-dramatic language and we have to live with that. As our relationships with the press improve, and they have more positive stories to cover, the default narrative will become repositioned. This will take time. I hope this answers the questions from earlier in the thread. Please do let me know if there's anything I've missed and I'll do my best to provide any answers or clarity. Thanks and regards, Stevie On 9 February 2013 21:56, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.comwrote: On 9 February 2013 21:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 February 2013 20:56, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity This also refers to an an intellectual property dispute over QRPedia, which is, of course, bunkum. Oh, look who else quotes this claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-11/In_the_media I wonder where they got it from. To clarify: User:Jayen466 is Andreas Kolbe, who is a Wikipedian in good standing. That article is a draft that may or may not be in the Signpost in Monday. Andreas is also an associate of Wikipediocracy, a website that hosts contributions by people I wouldn't willingly be seen dead with. On the other hand Andreas comes to some Cambridge meetups, and is welcome to do so, and I have been in the pub with him afterwards. DG seems to do the guilt for association thing to excess, whatever irritation events in 2012 have caused WMUK and its trustees. Steve Virgin and other Board members from 2010 do bear some collective responsibility for the subsequent governance, as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather see some humility from them. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton 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 is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 11 February 2013 11:30, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Dispute over QRpedia - the description isn't ideal, of course. However, to outsiders it's probably reasonable to think there is a dispute given the length of time it took to reach an agreement. It's not reasonable that the impression given is that there was a dispute over (ownership of) the intellectual property. This is untrue; and is unfair to Roger and Terence; and to all of those of us who have worked hard to ensure QRpedia's success. Your efforts to sure that the piece concerned is corrected would be appreciated, please. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
Do you have a term of wording you'd prefer, Andy? Stevie On 11 February 2013 12:41, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 11 February 2013 11:30, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Dispute over QRpedia - the description isn't ideal, of course. However, to outsiders it's probably reasonable to think there is a dispute given the length of time it took to reach an agreement. It's not reasonable that the impression given is that there was a dispute over (ownership of) the intellectual property. This is untrue; and is unfair to Roger and Terence; and to all of those of us who have worked hard to ensure QRpedia's success. Your efforts to sure that the piece concerned is corrected would be appreciated, please. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton 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 is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
It seems to me that ...included a delay in accepting the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... is more accurate; or perhaps ..included a dispute among trustees over whether to accept the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... (note corrected capitalisation of QRpedia also) On 11 February 2013 12:43, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Do you have a term of wording you'd prefer, Andy? Stevie On 11 February 2013 12:41, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 11 February 2013 11:30, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Dispute over QRpedia - the description isn't ideal, of course. However, to outsiders it's probably reasonable to think there is a dispute given the length of time it took to reach an agreement. It's not reasonable that the impression given is that there was a dispute over (ownership of) the intellectual property. This is untrue; and is unfair to Roger and Terence; and to all of those of us who have worked hard to ensure QRpedia's success. Your efforts to sure that the piece concerned is corrected would be appreciated, please. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton 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 is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 11 February 2013 14:01, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: It seems to me that ...included a delay in accepting the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... is more accurate; or perhaps ..included a dispute among trustees over whether to accept the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... The actual problem is that intellectual property dispute generally means a dispute over who owns it, and that was never disputed. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 11 February 2013 14:18, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: On 11 Feb 2013, at 14:01, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: It seems to me that ...included a delay in accepting the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... is more accurate; or perhaps ..included a dispute among trustees over whether to accept the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... (note corrected capitalisation of QRpedia also) Neither of those statements would be at all accurate. That's how the Compass report reads to me, but of course you have the advantage of involvement in those discussions. 'Protracted negotiation about the donation of QRpedia' might be a better way of phrasing it. Better, I suppose, but might that still seem to reflect unfairly in Roger and Terence? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 11 February 2013 15:20, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 11 February 2013 14:18, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: On 11 Feb 2013, at 14:01, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: It seems to me that ...included a delay in accepting the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... is more accurate; or perhaps ..included a dispute among trustees over whether to accept the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... (note corrected capitalisation of QRpedia also) Neither of those statements would be at all accurate. That's how the Compass report reads to me, but of course you have the advantage of involvement in those discussions. So, Andy, you don't have first-hand knowledge here? Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
It is so easy to think this was simple and why did it take so long. It just did. From October 1st 2011, through two legal drafts, the involvement of staff and trustees over two continents, countless meetings, phone calls and emails, it all took time. Let's be happy we got there and toast the success. But please let's move on and make QRpedia work. Jon On 11 February 2013 15:20, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 11 February 2013 14:18, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: On 11 Feb 2013, at 14:01, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: It seems to me that ...included a delay in accepting the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... is more accurate; or perhaps ..included a dispute among trustees over whether to accept the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... (note corrected capitalisation of QRpedia also) Neither of those statements would be at all accurate. That's how the Compass report reads to me, but of course you have the advantage of involvement in those discussions. 'Protracted negotiation about the donation of QRpedia' might be a better way of phrasing it. Better, I suppose, but might that still seem to reflect unfairly in Roger and Terence? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies 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 is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On Feb 11, 2013 3:25 PM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: It is so easy to think this was simple and why did it take so long. It just did. From October 1st 2011, through two legal drafts, the involvement of staff and trustees over two continents, countless meetings, phone calls and emails, it all took time. Let's be happy we got there and toast the success. But please let's move on and make QRpedia work. You're the chief executive, it's your job to review what has happened, work out why it went wrong and work out how to do things better in future. It just did is totally unacceptable. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
Hi all, Er . . . actually it went right. I think Jon has made it clear that despite appearances it wasn't simple. Any problems arose from people's expectations that it would be simple. Tom, you have correctly, in my view, raised the problem having an over-ambitious activity plan. I would have hoped that you realised that many issues become more complex in practice and accept this as a case in point all the best Fabian Message: 5 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:38:04 + From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review Message-ID: CALTQcccZekXv1znq00RrxY3y4eqwr6jZUdoWd=ttrs6rh1h...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On Feb 11, 2013 3:25 PM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: It is so easy to think this was simple and why did it take so long. It just did. From October 1st 2011, through two legal drafts, the involvement of staff and trustees over two continents, countless meetings, phone calls and emails, it all took time. Let's be happy we got there and toast the success. But please let's move on and make QRpedia work. You're the chief executive, it's your job to review what has happened, work out why it went wrong and work out how to do things better in future. It just did is totally unacceptable. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/attachments/20130211/0ddabf3b/attachment.html -- ___ Wikimediauk-l mailing list Wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l End of Wikimediauk-l Digest, Vol 91, Issue 37 * ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
I think you are mistaking me for someone with the power of a Stalin. This is a community movement with staff , trustees and volunteers all of which have played roles in this and it is only the staff over whom I have authority. I also think your email style is horrible and to quote yourself 'totally unacceptable'. My mum would have given me a good telling off for such rudeness. Can't you find ways to express yourself that make you r point without seeming angry and arrogant? Jon On 11 February 2013 15:38, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 11, 2013 3:25 PM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: It is so easy to think this was simple and why did it take so long. It just did. From October 1st 2011, through two legal drafts, the involvement of staff and trustees over two continents, countless meetings, phone calls and emails, it all took time. Let's be happy we got there and toast the success. But please let's move on and make QRpedia work. You're the chief executive, it's your job to review what has happened, work out why it went wrong and work out how to do things better in future. It just did is totally unacceptable. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies 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 is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 11 February 2013 15:49, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I think you are mistaking me for someone with the power of a Stalin. This is a community movement with staff , trustees and volunteers all of which have played roles in this and it is only the staff over whom I have authority. I'm not blaming you for it taking so long. I'm saying it is unacceptable for you to dismiss the problem with it just did. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 11 February 2013 15:23, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 11 February 2013 15:20, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 11 February 2013 14:18, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: On 11 Feb 2013, at 14:01, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: It seems to me that ...included a delay in accepting the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... is more accurate; or perhaps ..included a dispute among trustees over whether to accept the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... (note corrected capitalisation of QRpedia also) Neither of those statements would be at all accurate. That's how the Compass report reads to me, but of course you have the advantage of involvement in those discussions. So, Andy, you don't have first-hand knowledge here? Unremarkably, I have first-hand knowledge of some things, and not of others. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
I'm not sure why you've attached your top-posted comment to my post; but to be clear; my purpose is not to apportion blame, nor to make criticisms I'm interested in correcting a false impression that has been given in the media of a dispute which did not occur. I'm delighted - and relieved - that agreement to transfer ownership of QRpedia has been reached, and have been calling for that for sometime. However, I don't wish to move on until reasonable efforts have been made to correct the aforesaid false impression.Your support in this endeavour would be welcome. On 11 February 2013 15:24, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: It is so easy to think this was simple and why did it take so long. It just did. From October 1st 2011, through two legal drafts, the involvement of staff and trustees over two continents, countless meetings, phone calls and emails, it all took time. Let's be happy we got there and toast the success. But please let's move on and make QRpedia work. Jon On 11 February 2013 15:20, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 11 February 2013 14:18, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: On 11 Feb 2013, at 14:01, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: It seems to me that ...included a delay in accepting the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... is more accurate; or perhaps ..included a dispute among trustees over whether to accept the donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia... (note corrected capitalisation of QRpedia also) Neither of those statements would be at all accurate. That's how the Compass report reads to me, but of course you have the advantage of involvement in those discussions. 'Protracted negotiation about the donation of QRpedia' might be a better way of phrasing it. Better, I suppose, but might that still seem to reflect unfairly in Roger and Terence? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies 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 is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 11 February 2013 17:02, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: I'm not sure why you've attached your top-posted comment to my post; but to be clear; my purpose is not to apportion blame, nor to make criticisms I'm interested in correcting a false impression that has been given in the media of a dispute which did not occur. I'm delighted - and relieved - that agreement to transfer ownership of QRpedia has been reached, and have been calling for that for sometime. However, I don't wish to move on until reasonable efforts have been made to correct the aforesaid false impression.Your support in this endeavour would be welcome. I think we've established that your view that a false impression has been given is that of someone with a partial view of the proceedings, and that the WMUK Secretary, who has a fuller view to go on, doesn't see things the same way. Move next business. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
The wmuk Secretary said nothing of the sort... On Feb 11, 2013 5:07 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 11 February 2013 17:02, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: I'm not sure why you've attached your top-posted comment to my post; but to be clear; my purpose is not to apportion blame, nor to make criticisms I'm interested in correcting a false impression that has been given in the media of a dispute which did not occur. I'm delighted - and relieved - that agreement to transfer ownership of QRpedia has been reached, and have been calling for that for sometime. However, I don't wish to move on until reasonable efforts have been made to correct the aforesaid false impression.Your support in this endeavour would be welcome. I think we've established that your view that a false impression has been given is that of someone with a partial view of the proceedings, and that the WMUK Secretary, who has a fuller view to go on, doesn't see things the same way. Move next business. Charles ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 11 February 2013 17:11, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: The wmuk Secretary said nothing of the sort... Mike said that neither of Andy's statements would be at all accurate. He doesn't see things the same way. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
Yes, but he didn't say the description in the media is accurate, so he hasn't contradicted the main point Andy is making. On Feb 11, 2013 5:17 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 11 February 2013 17:11, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: The wmuk Secretary said nothing of the sort... Mike said that neither of Andy's statements would be at all accurate. He doesn't see things the same way. Charles ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 11 February 2013 17:20, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but he didn't say the description in the media is accurate, so he hasn't contradicted the main point Andy is making. But I didn't say that he had. Look, please out the axe away: further random hair-splitting is unlikely to add to the free content WMUK is supposed to be generating. Andy has a partisan view, which is not to say that the views of others are entirely neutral, and media coverage rarely satisfies completely those very close to the topic. Let's get over it - all of it. Will you take my point now, that the important matter is that the membership sees that the Board will implement the review? Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On Feb 11, 2013 5:07 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 11 February 2013 17:02, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: I'm not sure why you've attached your top-posted comment to my post; but to be clear; my purpose is not to apportion blame, nor to make criticisms I'm interested in correcting a false impression that has been given in the media of a dispute which did not occur. I'm delighted - and relieved - that agreement to transfer ownership of QRpedia has been reached, and have been calling for that for sometime. However, I don't wish to move on until reasonable efforts have been made to correct the aforesaid false impression.Your support in this endeavour would be welcome. I think we've established that your view that a false impression has been given is that of someone with a partial view of the proceedings, and that the WMUK Secretary, who has a fuller view to go on, doesn't see things the same way. Move next business. You're free to think that, of course, regardless of the facts of the matter. -- Andy Mabbett ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 11 February 2013 17:29, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Let's get over it - all of it. Will you take my point now, that the important matter is that the membership sees that the Board will implement the review? Surely you can do better than the but X is worse! fallacy. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 11/02/13 16:51, Andy Mabbett wrote: Unremarkably, I have first-hand knowledge of some things, and not of others. Welcome to the human race. Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
Press coverage: http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Governance/article/1170282/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/ http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
Thanks Andreas for that. A few comments in-line for some corrections - Stevie can you contact them? On 8 February 2013 17:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Press coverage: http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Governance/article/1170282/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/ 1) Using the WMF logo instead of Wikimedia UK one (do we allow use of logos for press purposes?) 2) The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK and its sister charity in the US, theWikimedia Foundation http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home, - the WMF and WMUK are independent organisations, is sister charity appropriate? http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity 1) This logo is cropped at the bottom slightly - again do we allow use of logos for press purposes, and should they be full logos? 2) or editing of the UK Wikipedia site. - I believe this should be English Wikipedia? 3) The article links to http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/directory/company/3377/wikimedia_foundation which gives the WMUK logo and address, but the Foundation's name and website (see the Description tab too) -- Thehelpfulone http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 09/02/2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone wrote: 1) Using the WMF logo instead of Wikimedia UK one (do we allow use of logos for press purposes?) Fair use and or fair dealing ? KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: [not speaking for anyone but myself] 1) Using the WMF logo instead of Wikimedia UK one (do we allow use of logos for press purposes?) WMF used to explicitly say on the press page that use of the logos in press articles about Wikimedia sites was fair use anyway (we kept getting calls asking explicit permission), though I can't find such a statement right this moment. In any case, I'd say using the logo in a press article about WMF or WMUK is pretty clearly fair use. 2) The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK and its sister charity in the US, theWikimedia Foundation, - the WMF and WMUK are independent organisations, is sister charity appropriate? Strikes me as a reasonable descriptor. How would you describe it from the outside view? It's also in a paper about the charity sector, whose readers could reasonably be expected to understand a structure with a parent organisation in one country that owns the names and organisations in other countries that are independent charities, but obviously are going to work together quite closely on pretty much the same sort of goals. 2) or editing of the UK Wikipedia site. - I believe this should be English Wikipedia? That's a correction that needs making. 3) The article links to http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/directory/company/3377/wikimedia_foundation which gives the WMUK logo and address, but the Foundation's name and website (see the Description tab too) And that. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
I got revison 5. Can we see 1 thru 4? Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity This also refers to an an intellectual property dispute over QRPedia, which is, of course, bunkum. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 9 February 2013 20:56, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity This also refers to an an intellectual property dispute over QRPedia, which is, of course, bunkum. Oh, look who else quotes this claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-11/In_the_media I wonder where they got it from. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
Not from me, if that is what you are implying. I have not been in touch with either publication. As for the Signpost piece, it is a fair summary of what they wrote, which is the Signpost's job to deliver. Andreas On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 9:01 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 February 2013 20:56, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity This also refers to an an intellectual property dispute over QRPedia, which is, of course, bunkum. Oh, look who else quotes this claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-11/In_the_media I wonder where they got it from. - d. ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
Dispute may be putting it a bit strongly but obviously there was a disagreement or it wouldn't have taken this long to reach an agreement. Dispute does suggest a dispute over who owns it, which was never true. Any dispute was over the future, not the past. On Feb 9, 2013 8:57 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity This also refers to an an intellectual property dispute over QRPedia, which is, of course, bunkum. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 February 2013 00:58, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't take two working days to prepare a short response saying that the charity is now reviewing the report. In fact, that could have been prepared in advance, since it is the same regardless of the contents. It is extremely premature to be commenting on the contents to the press before we've had any discussion about it. Publish the report now. You've had plenty of time. You're supposed to be running an organisation that prides itself on being transparent. On Jan 31, 2013 11:15 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report - this is expected by the end of this week and will be published 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 result from it. As I say, we will be prompt about it, and I also want to make sure there is a chance for the community to review the findings before our board meeting on the 9th. Someone from Compass Partnership will be attending that meeting, so if there are any questions or clarifications from the community, we can ask them then. Hope this make sense, Chris ___ 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 -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies 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 is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 a response excuse to delay publishing something you ended up publishing it without any response anyway and nothing bad happened, so your good faith is very much in doubt. On Feb 6, 2013 9:16 AM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: 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 February 2013 00:58, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't take two working days to prepare a short response saying that the charity is now reviewing the report. In fact, that could have been prepared in advance, since it is the same regardless of the contents. It is extremely premature to be commenting on the contents to the press before we've had any discussion about it. Publish the report now. You've had plenty of time. You're supposed to be running an organisation that prides itself on being transparent. On Jan 31, 2013 11:15 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report - this is expected by the end of this week and will be published 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 result from it. As I say, we will be prompt about it, and I also want to make sure there is a chance for the community to review the findings before our board meeting on the 9th. Someone from Compass Partnership will be attending that meeting, so if there are any questions or clarifications from the community, we can ask them then. Hope this make sense, Chris ___ 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 -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies 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 is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 could have written that months ago. Last time you used the we need to prepare a response excuse to delay publishing something you ended up publishing it without any response anyway and nothing bad happened, so your good faith is very much in doubt. Tom, cut it out. In the bigger picture it is going to be much more important that WMUK members hold the Board to implementation of the report. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 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 a response excuse to delay publishing something you ended up publishing it without any response anyway and nothing bad happened, so your good faith is very much in doubt. Tom, cut it out. In the bigger picture it is going to be much more important that WMUK members hold the Board to implementation of the report. It's rather hard to know if it will be important to implement the report without having read it... I have no idea what the recommendations are. When you are forced to co-commission a report into your own failings, making excuses not to publish it doesn't reflect well on you. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 both sides, discussed, and consensus reached. This doesn't happen immediately. Please do be assured that we are in regular contact with the WMF on this issue, as they are with us. One other important point I want to address from your email below, too. You say co-commissioned a report into your own failings. This is inaccurate as there are plenty of things that we do well that the report will also look at. Stevie On 6 February 2013 12:09, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 a response excuse to delay publishing something you ended up publishing it without any response anyway and nothing bad happened, so your good faith is very much in doubt. Tom, cut it out. In the bigger picture it is going to be much more important that WMUK members hold the Board to implementation of the report. It's rather hard to know if it will be important to implement the report without having read it... I have no idea what the recommendations are. When you are forced to co-commission a report into your own failings, making excuses not to publish it doesn't reflect well on you. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton 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 is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 of the form We are (not) doing X because of Y we call Y an excuse. 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 both sides, discussed, and consensus reached. This doesn't happen immediately. Please do be assured that we are in regular contact with the WMF on this issue, as they are with us. As I have explained repeatedly, you do not need to discuss a response. The response should simply say that we are now going to have an open discussion with the community and decide where we go from here, and you could have written that months ago. Or have you already decided that you don't care what the community thinks and are just going to make all the decisions about how to respond yourselves? One other important point I want to address from your email below, too. You say co-commissioned a report into your own failings. This is inaccurate as there are plenty of things that we do well that the report will also look at. Well, yes, I would hope you haven't failed at everything. The review was commissioned to look at your failings, though. Obviously, to work out what your failings are, it will have looked at things that turned out to be fine. Trying to deny that this is about your failings is disingenuous. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review (Thomas Dalton)
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 membership, the board and the staff, i.e. the firm as a whole) to raise our standards. Often what you propose is quite practicable, if it wasn't for the other activities the organisation is doing. It is Jon's job to organise those priorities. You may disagree with how he goes about that, as no doubt we all shall from time to time. However, I am not sure how helpful it is to question his good faith, short of supplying pretty clear evidence to support what your saying. You have drawn certain conclusions from previous experience, but I do not think that is anyway indicative of any lack of good faith. From my own experience of dealing with the office - and indeed as reflected on the list - one problem seems to be we have all been over-ambitious about what we want to achieve. This has lead to the office becoming very hectic, with a certain amount of over work. With current plans to recruit more staff, this should lead a situation when WMUK (the firm) can more closely realise the sort of standards which you advocate. Please don't hold back from raising these issues and advocating more exacting standards - just be a bit more understanding if they are not always met. all the best Fabian (User:Leutha) Message: 5 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:30:17 + From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review Message-ID: caltqccdx7o8geapatsvt+vn3jblukboehkjkimwe3grkvwh...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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 a response excuse to delay publishing something you ended up publishing it without any response anyway and nothing bad happened, so your good faith is very much in doubt. On Feb 6, 2013 9:16 AM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: 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 February 2013 00:58, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't take two working days to prepare a short response saying that the charity is now reviewing the report. In fact, that could have been prepared in advance, since it is the same regardless of the contents. It is extremely premature to be commenting on the contents to the press before we've had any discussion about it. Publish the report now. You've had plenty of time. You're supposed to be running an organisation that prides itself on being transparent. On Jan 31, 2013 11:15 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report - this is expected by the end of this week and will be published 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 result from it. As I say, we will be prompt about it, and I also want to make sure there is a chance for the community to review the findings before our board meeting on the 9th. Someone from Compass Partnership will be attending that meeting, so if there are any questions or clarifications from the community, we can ask them then. Hope this make sense, Chris ___ 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 -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies 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 is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990. Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review (Thomas Dalton)
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 (the membership, the board and the staff, i.e. the firm as a whole) to raise our standards. Often what you propose is quite practicable, if it wasn't for the other activities the organisation is doing. It is Jon's job to organise those priorities. You may disagree with how he goes about that, as no doubt we all shall from time to time. However, I am not sure how helpful it is to question his good faith, short of supplying pretty clear evidence to support what your saying. To be clear, I was using the plural you. I suspect it is more the board rather than Jon that are stalling. You have drawn certain conclusions from previous experience, but I do not think that is anyway indicative of any lack of good faith. From my own experience of dealing with the office - and indeed as reflected on the list - one problem seems to be we have all been over-ambitious about what we want to achieve. This has lead to the office becoming very hectic, with a certain amount of over work. With current plans to recruit more staff, this should lead a situation when WMUK (the firm) can more closely realise the sort of standards which you advocate. Being overambitious is certainly a problem, but given that I wrote a long blog post explaining why the chapter needed to cut down its plan for this year so there would be time to give all the governance problems the time they need, I'm not going to accept that as an excuse for anything. They should have taken my advice and it is their fault they didn't. I don't think that is relevant to this, however. Publishing the report will take about 2 minutes. Please don't hold back from raising these issues and advocating more exacting standards - just be a bit more understanding if they are not always met. If mistakes are made despite everyone trying very hard to do things right, then I am very understanding. Not publishing the report isn't a mistake, though. It is a concious decision, and an incorrect one. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review (Thomas Dalton)
I would suggest that real-world discussions like this do not benefit *at all* from quoting *editing* principles like Assume Good Faith. It's weird and cultish. Besides, it is irrelevant. Good faith has nothing to do with accuracy of judgment, or objective morality. Andreas On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM, 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 (the membership, the board and the staff, i.e. the firm as a whole) to raise our standards. Often what you propose is quite practicable, if it wasn't for the other activities the organisation is doing. It is Jon's job to organise those priorities. You may disagree with how he goes about that, as no doubt we all shall from time to time. However, I am not sure how helpful it is to question his good faith, short of supplying pretty clear evidence to support what your saying. You have drawn certain conclusions from previous experience, but I do not think that is anyway indicative of any lack of good faith. From my own experience of dealing with the office - and indeed as reflected on the list - one problem seems to be we have all been over-ambitious about what we want to achieve. This has lead to the office becoming very hectic, with a certain amount of over work. With current plans to recruit more staff, this should lead a situation when WMUK (the firm) can more closely realise the sort of standards which you advocate. Please don't hold back from raising these issues and advocating more exacting standards - just be a bit more understanding if they are not always met. all the best Fabian (User:Leutha) Message: 5 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:30:17 + From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review Message-ID: caltqccdx7o8geapatsvt+vn3jblukboehkjkimwe3grkvwh...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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 a response excuse to delay publishing something you ended up publishing it without any response anyway and nothing bad happened, so your good faith is very much in doubt. On Feb 6, 2013 9:16 AM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: 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 February 2013 00:58, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't take two working days to prepare a short response saying that the charity is now reviewing the report. In fact, that could have been prepared in advance, since it is the same regardless of the contents. It is extremely premature to be commenting on the contents to the press before we've had any discussion about it. Publish the report now. You've had plenty of time. You're supposed to be running an organisation that prides itself on being transparent. On Jan 31, 2013 11:15 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report - this is expected by the end of this week and will be published 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 result from it. As I say, we will be prompt about it, and I also want to make sure there is a chance for the community to review the findings before our board meeting on the 9th. Someone from Compass Partnership will be attending that meeting, so if there are any questions or clarifications from the community, we can ask them then. Hope this make sense, Chris ___ 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 -- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169 tweet @jonatreesdavies Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review (Thomas Dalton)
We can assume you decision was arrived at in good faith without agreeing with it. Keeping the report secret while a secret comittee reviews it and prepares a response is, I believe, the wrong decision. I hope you will publish the report now so that the response can take account of comments by the WMF and WMUK communities Joe On Feb 6, 2013 1:28 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: I would suggest that real-world discussions like this do not benefit *at all* from quoting *editing* principles like Assume Good Faith. It's weird and cultish. Besides, it is irrelevant. Good faith has nothing to do with accuracy of judgment, or objective morality. Andreas On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM, 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 (the membership, the board and the staff, i.e. the firm as a whole) to raise our standards. Often what you propose is quite practicable, if it wasn't for the other activities the organisation is doing. It is Jon's job to organise those priorities. You may disagree with how he goes about that, as no doubt we all shall from time to time. However, I am not sure how helpful it is to question his good faith, short of supplying pretty clear evidence to support what your saying. You have drawn certain conclusions from previous experience, but I do not think that is anyway indicative of any lack of good faith. From my own experience of dealing with the office - and indeed as reflected on the list - one problem seems to be we have all been over-ambitious about what we want to achieve. This has lead to the office becoming very hectic, with a certain amount of over work. With current plans to recruit more staff, this should lead a situation when WMUK (the firm) can more closely realise the sort of standards which you advocate. Please don't hold back from raising these issues and advocating more exacting standards - just be a bit more understanding if they are not always met. all the best Fabian (User:Leutha) Message: 5 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:30:17 + From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review Message-ID: caltqccdx7o8geapatsvt+vn3jblukboehkjkimwe3grkvwh...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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 a response excuse to delay publishing something you ended up publishing it without any response anyway and nothing bad happened, so your good faith is very much in doubt. On Feb 6, 2013 9:16 AM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: 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 February 2013 00:58, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't take two working days to prepare a short response saying that the charity is now reviewing the report. In fact, that could have been prepared in advance, since it is the same regardless of the contents. It is extremely premature to be commenting on the contents to the press before we've had any discussion about it. Publish the report now. You've had plenty of time. You're supposed to be running an organisation that prides itself on being transparent. On Jan 31, 2013 11:15 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report - this is expected by the end of this week and will be published 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 result from it. As I say, we will be prompt about it, and I also want to make sure there is a chance for the community to review the findings before our board meeting on the 9th. Someone from Compass Partnership will be attending that meeting, so if there are any questions or clarifications from the community, we can ask them then. Hope this make sense, Chris ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 addressing the issues raised in it. However, it is not your decision (or mine) to make, and there is more at stake here than a delay in the membership being able to hold the board to account. In the worst case scenario, potentially people's jobs, WMUK's chapter status, and the UK community's relations with the WMF and the wider movement are at risk. Thus, it is understandable that Jon and the board might want some time to work out what they're going to do about it before they are lambasted for the failings (to use your word) that are being reported on. Taking that into account, please moderate your tone. This is a public mailing list and people don't want their inboxes filled with your diatribes, and directing those diatribes at members of staff who work very hard in the name of this charity and are limited in what they can say in response by standards of professionalism and decency is unlikely to achieve the result you desire and risks damaging the charity even further than the actions you are complaining about. Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:35 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review 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 of the form We are (not) doing X because of Y we call Y an excuse. 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 both sides, discussed, and consensus reached. This doesn't happen immediately. Please do be assured that we are in regular contact with the WMF on this issue, as they are with us. As I have explained repeatedly, you do not need to discuss a response. The response should simply say that we are now going to have an open discussion with the community and decide where we go from here, and you could have written that months ago. Or have you already decided that you don't care what the community thinks and are just going to make all the decisions about how to respond yourselves? One other important point I want to address from your email below, too. You say co-commissioned a report into your own failings. This is inaccurate as there are plenty of things that we do well that the report will also look at. Well, yes, I would hope you haven't failed at everything. The review was commissioned to look at your failings, though. Obviously, to work out what your failings are, it will have looked at things that turned out to be fine. Trying to deny that this is about your failings is disingenuous. ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 damning, it is in the charity's best interests to publish it and be seen to be addressing the issues raised in it. However, it is not your decision (or mine) to make, and there is more at stake here than a delay in the membership being able to hold the board to account. In the worst case scenario, potentially people's jobs, WMUK's chapter status, and the UK community's relations with the WMF and the wider movement are at risk. Thus, it is understandable that Jon and the board might want some time to work out what they're going to do about it before they are lambasted for the failings (to use your word) that are being reported on. Taking that into account, please moderate your tone. This is a public mailing list and people don't want their inboxes filled with your diatribes, and directing those diatribes at members of staff who work very hard in the name of this charity and are limited in what they can say in response by standards of professionalism and decency is unlikely to achieve the result you desire and risks damaging the charity even further than the actions you are complaining about. Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell 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. Regards, Andreas -- *From:* Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:35 *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review 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 of the form We are (not) doing X because of Y we call Y an excuse. 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 both sides, discussed, and consensus reached. This doesn't happen immediately. Please do be assured that we are in regular contact with the WMF on this issue, as they are with us. As I have explained repeatedly, you do not need to discuss a response. The response should simply say that we are now going to have an open discussion with the community and decide where we go from here, and you could have written that months ago. Or have you already decided that you don't care what the community thinks and are just going to make all the decisions about how to respond yourselves? One other important point I want to address from your email below, too. You say co-commissioned a report into your own failings. This is inaccurate as there are plenty of things that we do well that the report will also look at. Well, yes, I would hope you haven't failed at everything. The review was commissioned to look at your failings, though. Obviously, to work out what your failings are, it will have looked at things that turned out to be fine. Trying to deny that this is about your failings is disingenuous. ___ 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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 just fine. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 longer than that I’ll complain too, jointly with you. The board meeting is in less than 3 days - Chris has said he wants the community to have a chance to review it before the board meeting, so they need to publish in the next 24 hours or so to meet his target. What do you think the guys in London should be doing over the next 3-4 days? As I've said repeatedly, and no-one has attempted to counter, it doesn't make sense to prepare a response beyond we're starting a discussion before the discussion has taken place. Why can't we all be reviewing the report at the same time? While I am - as an outsider - also very interested in the report, I think the example of publishing the Board's WCA letter shows that it might be helpful to give a bit of time for the subjects of the report to consider some responses for the most likely questions and comments that will start immediately after publication and not responding quickly enough could potentially lead to incorrect facts entering general knowledge (like the fact that the WCA will cost $500k a year). Best regards, Bence ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 'OK, we agree' - and that is happening in less than 72 hours. I am sure the first action the Board will want when it meets will be 'put it online' and 'let the discussion start' -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 06 February 2013 18:55 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review 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 longer than that I’ll complain too, jointly with you. The board meeting is in less than 3 days - Chris has said he wants the community to have a chance to review it before the board meeting, so they need to publish in the next 24 hours or so to meet his target. What do you think the guys in London should be doing over the next 3-4 days? As I've said repeatedly, and no-one has attempted to counter, it doesn't make sense to prepare a response beyond we're starting a discussion before the discussion has taken place. Why can't we all be reviewing the report at the same time? ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 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 longer than that I’ll complain too, jointly with you. The board meeting is in less than 3 days - Chris has said he wants the community to have a chance to review it before the board meeting, so they need to publish in the next 24 hours or so to meet his target. What do you think the guys in London should be doing over the next 3-4 days? As I've said repeatedly, and no-one has attempted to counter, it doesn't make sense to prepare a response beyond we're starting a discussion before the discussion has taken place. Why can't we all be reviewing the report at the same time? While I am - as an outsider - also very interested in the report, I think the example of publishing the Board's WCA letter shows that it might be helpful to give a bit of time for the subjects of the report to consider some responses for the most likely questions and comments that will start immediately after publication and not responding quickly enough could potentially lead to incorrect facts entering general knowledge (like the fact that the WCA will cost $500k a year). Best regards, Bence ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 possible errors in the assumptions made by the commenters... Best regards, Bence On Feb 6, 2013 7:00 PM, Damokos Bence damokos.be...@wikimedia.hu wrote: 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 longer than that I’ll complain too, jointly with you. The board meeting is in less than 3 days - Chris has said he wants the community to have a chance to review it before the board meeting, so they need to publish in the next 24 hours or so to meet his target. What do you think the guys in London should be doing over the next 3-4 days? As I've said repeatedly, and no-one has attempted to counter, it doesn't make sense to prepare a response beyond we're starting a discussion before the discussion has taken place. Why can't we all be reviewing the report at the same time? While I am - as an outsider - also very interested in the report, I think the example of publishing the Board's WCA letter shows that it might be helpful to give a bit of time for the subjects of the report to consider some responses for the most likely questions and comments that will start immediately after publication and not responding quickly enough could potentially lead to incorrect facts entering general knowledge (like the fact that the WCA will cost $500k a year). Best regards, Bence ___ 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 -- Damokos Bence Wikimédia Magyarország http://wikimedia.hu http://wiki.media.hu/ ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
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 a matter of common sense and courtesy that we agree the release of the report and an accompanying statement with the Foundation, and also keep other people who have been involved in this process up-to-date before publishing * Comments from the community will, as usual, be important for the Board in deciding how to approach the recommendations - which is why I am keen to get it published in decent before Saturday's board meeting. * Some of the recommendations will be on matters which the Board is not empowered to decide itself, and will need to be considered by the whole membership. I hope this makes sense, and thanks for your patience. Chris On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Damokos Bence damokos.be...@wikimedia.huwrote: 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 possible errors in the assumptions made by the commenters... Best regards, Bence On Feb 6, 2013 7:00 PM, Damokos Bence damokos.be...@wikimedia.hu wrote: 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 longer than that I’ll complain too, jointly with you. The board meeting is in less than 3 days - Chris has said he wants the community to have a chance to review it before the board meeting, so they need to publish in the next 24 hours or so to meet his target. What do you think the guys in London should be doing over the next 3-4 days? As I've said repeatedly, and no-one has attempted to counter, it doesn't make sense to prepare a response beyond we're starting a discussion before the discussion has taken place. Why can't we all be reviewing the report at the same time? While I am - as an outsider - also very interested in the report, I think the example of publishing the Board's WCA letter shows that it might be helpful to give a bit of time for the subjects of the report to consider some responses for the most likely questions and comments that will start immediately after publication and not responding quickly enough could potentially lead to incorrect facts entering general knowledge (like the fact that the WCA will cost $500k a year). Best regards, Bence ___ 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 -- Damokos Bence Wikimédia Magyarország http://wikimedia.hu http://wiki.media.hu/ ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
It doesn't take two working days to prepare a short response saying that the charity is now reviewing the report. In fact, that could have been prepared in advance, since it is the same regardless of the contents. It is extremely premature to be commenting on the contents to the press before we've had any discussion about it. Publish the report now. You've had plenty of time. You're supposed to be running an organisation that prides itself on being transparent. On Jan 31, 2013 11:15 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report - this is expected by the end of this week and will be published 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 result from it. As I say, we will be prompt about it, and I also want to make sure there is a chance for the community to review the findings before our board meeting on the 9th. Someone from Compass Partnership will be attending that meeting, so if there are any questions or clarifications from the community, we can ask them then. Hope this make sense, Chris ___ 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
[Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
The terms of reference of the governance review can be found here: http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_UK_independent_review_Terms_of_Reference.pdf Section 9 gives the dates when various reports should be provided: 1 November 2012 - Proposed methodology and project plan 1 December 2012 - Description and Chronology 1 January 2013 - Interim report 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report The first three of those should therefore be available now. Can someone please tell me where I can find them, or explain why they are not yet available? Jon said on the wiki on 9 January 2013 that the Interim report was expected to be published any day now... ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
What about the first two deliverables on the TOR? On Jan 30, 2013 1:47 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: The first three of those should therefore be available now. Can someone please tell me where I can find them, or explain why they are not yet available? Hi Tom, The final report is expected to be finished this week, and should be published shortly thereafter. We will be discussing it at the Board meeting on Saturday 9th and Sunday 10th Feb, and I expect we will be taking action on it there and then. The interim report was a draft circulated in private to allow for corrections of fact (in fact, one draft of the chronology, one of the conclusions recommendations) and will not be published. Chris ___ 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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
1 November 2012 - Proposed methodology and project plan - this was received and agreed, hasn't been published. 1 December 2012 - Description and Chronology - a draft of this was received on time and circulated internally to interested parties for comment. The final version is expected by the end of this week. 1 January 2013 - Interim report - this was received a little late, and is a draft which was circulated to the Board for comment 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report - this is expected by the end of this week and will be published promptly (not necessarily immediately) when we get it. Thanks, Chris On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: What about the first two deliverables on the TOR? On Jan 30, 2013 1:47 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: The first three of those should therefore be available now. Can someone please tell me where I can find them, or explain why they are not yet available? Hi Tom, The final report is expected to be finished this week, and should be published shortly thereafter. We will be discussing it at the Board meeting on Saturday 9th and Sunday 10th Feb, and I expect we will be taking action on it there and then. The interim report was a draft circulated in private to allow for corrections of fact (in fact, one draft of the chronology, one of the conclusions recommendations) and will not be published. Chris ___ 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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 30 January 2013 15:21, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: 1 November 2012 - Proposed methodology and project plan - this was received and agreed, hasn't been published. 1 December 2012 - Description and Chronology - a draft of this was received on time and circulated internally to interested parties for comment. The final version is expected by the end of this week. 1 January 2013 - Interim report - this was received a little late, and is a draft which was circulated to the Board for comment 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report - this is expected by the end of this week and will be published promptly (not necessarily immediately) when we get it. Why won't you publish it immeadiately? ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] Governance review - call for comments
Dear all, As you may know, earlier in the Autumn Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation appointed Compass Partnership to conduct an independent review of our governance. The review is well under way now and Mike Hudson and Keith Smith, the governance experts conducting the review, have already started conducting interviews with key people. As well as identifying people to interview, there is an open call for comments by members of the community for the review to consider. This call for comments has just been published on our blog: http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/11/community-consultation-on-wikimedia-uk-governance/ If you would like to take part, please read the questions posed by the Compass Partnership in their blog post and send your answers to w...@compassnet.co.uk.- this is a dedicated address set up to receive comments. Yours sincerely, Chris Keating Chair, Wikimedia UK ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
