I should add here that a fair bit of our committee teleconference last weekend involved discussion of this particular item, so it's definitely not off of the agenda, nor has it slipped between the cracks. It will be approved or rejected on its merits, not based on the personalities involved.
Just to be absolutely clear in stark terms: This request for funds has not been approved. I did not tell anyone that it was approved. Even if I wanted to, I could not approve it without the support of the majority of the committee. Neither have we rejected it, it is still awaiting a decision and we have been actively discussing it as recently as last Sunday Cheers, Craig On 4 December 2012 12:44, Craig Franklin <[email protected]> wrote: > I assume here that I am the committee member that Laura is speaking about > (obviously, we do not have "board members"). I never stated that the > funding was locked in, only that I personally was supportive of the project > and would probably vote in favour of it if I got satisfactory answers to > some questions that I asked. I can only assume that Bidgee or Laura > misunderstood something that I said, because obviously as a single member > of the committee it's not within my power to single-handedly approve a > major funding request even if I wanted to. > > The proposal is interesting and while it's a major chunk of cash, it was > in my opinion worth having a go. However, with the recent election where > most of the proposers were running against incumbent committee members, it > would clearly not have been appropriate for us to make a decision. Now > that we have two new committee members, they are being brought up to speed > on this and other items before the committee, which again will take time. > > I'd like it if the proposal were posted on the public wiki, because I'm > generally not a big fan of secret proposals and plans, and I don't see > anything in what I have been given that would be potentially controversial > or need to remain confidential. Letting everyone have a look is not only a > good thing for transparency, but obviously gives more people the > opportunity to engage with the project and make suggestions or improvements > to it. > > Cheers, > Craig > > > > > On 4 December 2012 01:12, Laura Hale <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I appreciate the current committee's new energy. We have a grant request >> dating to early October that Craig told us we had that we told the >> foundation about how great wm-au's support of the Paralympics has been. >> >> We're still waiting on this. It is really important because we believed >> the board member who told us we had it and acted accordingly in terms of >> spending. Did I mention, we've currently done almost everything we said we >> would do for that grant by now? >> >> Hopefully, the new board can be more responsive than the previous ones. >> If the board has contacted me about this in the past four weeks , I have >> not received the email. Please continue to follow up with me until you get >> a response as I said in a precious email a board member sent me about this >> before the elections, I have not received them. This is really, really >> important. >> >> Sincerely, >> Laura Hale >> >> >> >> -- >> mobile: 0412183663 >> twitter: purplepopple >> blog: ozziesport.com >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
