Fae,
The connection would appear to be that your communications were perceived
as hostile, threatening, and passive-aggressive and that Wikimedia UK lost
a potential partnership as a result - a recurring theme with your
involvement within Wikimedia UK. And now you're discussing using similar
Though if you do happen to dig it out, it would not be appropriate to
discuss the contents on a public list.
On 28 Jul 2017 22:08, "Chris Keating" wrote:
> You might refer to, inter alia, my email to you of 8.39pm on 21 May 2013.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri,
Hi Chris,
I don't see the connection between my membership of the charity and
these claims being made publicly now, by a past employee, about
critical feedback from the IWM.
No I don't know what was said in those meetings, and it would be a
surprise if as a fellow trustee you knew about this
apologies, strike the "forwarding private correspondence" bit. My
point stands, nonetheless...
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Chris Keating
wrote:
> Oh god really Fae?
>
> The Board finally agreed to accept your membership application, no
> doubt persuaded water had
Oh god really Fae?
The Board finally agreed to accept your membership application, no
doubt persuaded water had passed under the bridge, and bygones were
now bygones.
Then within weeks you are forwarding private correspondence to this
list and "demanding answers" about things that happened in
This is hilarious. As someone who was around at the time, all I can do is
shake my head and laugh at the inevitability of this kind of conversation.
WMUK would be ill-advised to allow a partnership of this importance to be
frittered away in this manner.
Que sera, sera. I write with no hat on
Could WMUK do a little research on this please?
If this feedback on my correspondence with the Imperial War Museum was
received from the IWM during meetings with employees of the charity in
January 2013, this happened when I was a trustee on the board. I do
not recall feedback like this getting