I'm still not offering an opinion, merely playing devil's advocate, but it is
possible that the WMF stripped WMUK of its fundraising rights (note
fund*raising*, which is not quite the same thing as being trusted with funds)
because they felt that donors might not want to donate to an organisation that
has been subject to two unfortunately timed controversies which many people
feel (and I make no comment on the legitimacy or otherwise of the sentiment)
that the chapter has not handled well.
Not being privy to the thoughts of WMF/WMUK representatives nor to the
discussions that took place around this, I don't know any more details than are
contained in the blog post, but (and I'm no real fan of the WMF) I suspect the
issue is a little more complicated than a "power grab".
Harry Mitchell
http://enwp.org/User:HJ
Phone: 024 7698 0977
Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________
From: Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 17:20
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation
Jan-Bart,
The problems at Wikimedia UK, while certainly very concerning, haven't involved
any misuse of funds, so it is very disappointing that the WMF has used this as
an excuse to stop Wikimedia UK taking part in the fundraiser. This decision
will cost the movement a lot in wasted time and money spent preparing for this
fundraiser and in lost donations and gift-aid.
You could have waited for the independent report before making any decisions,
since there is no reason to believe Wikimedia UK can't be trusted with funds
(and their eligibility for the FDC hasn't been revoked, so clearly the WMF does
trust them with funds).
On Sep 29, 2012 5:09 PM, "Jan-bart de Vreede" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi David,
>
>I do assume that people have been following the payment processing discussion
>but I also assumed that they would find these developments important enough to
>see that there is no way we can just move on from this point.
>
>I repeat my statement which I made at Wikimania: I am very happy that the
>chapters are moving towards a Chapters Association which will hopefully play a
>very constructive role in situations like this. I am disappointed that the
>Association isn't farther along the road because that could have been very
>helpful at this point. The chapters are an essential part of the movement and
>if the foundation is forced into this kind of relationship with chapters all
>the time it will keep us achieving our goals and working together
>constructively.
>
>Jan-Bart de Vreede
>
>
>
>On 29 sep. 2012, at 17:57, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 29 September 2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad
>>> faith on the part of the WMF.
>>
>>
>> I find it puzzling that you assume that people aren't generally aware
>> of the long and acrimonous discussions of payment processing over the
>> past year, and quite surprised that you are puzzled that people put
>> this in the context of that.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikimedia UK mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
