And I'm sure that if we do anything in the tiniest way different from your interpretation of them you won't hesitate to let us know in your inimitable helpful and friendly fashion. On 12 Apr 2013 17:12, "Thomas Dalton" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 April 2013 16:24, James Farrar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Really, you're looking for problems where none exists. > > > > If we end up in a situation where nothing defines the number of > directors, > > that's a problem that needs rectifying before an election process can > begin. > > > > But in any other situation we know how stuff is supposed to work even if > the > > language can be claimed to be ambiguous. > > > > I tend to operate on the assumption that members of the charity will > behave > > like adults. > > These are legal documents. You can't just interpret them however you > like. You have to do what they actually say. There is nothing > ambiguous. It is all very clear, it just isn't what was intended. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
