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 <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Thomas Dalton >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> On 6 February 2013 18:49, steve virgin <[email protected]> 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 >>> [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 >> >> > > > -- > Damokos Bence > Wikimédia Magyarország > http://wikimedia.hu <http://wiki.media.hu/> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
