Tom,
I've a lot of respect for you, and I usually agree with you. In fact, I mostly agree
with you on this issue - I would like to see the report published sooner rather than later
because even if it is absolutely damning, it is in the charity's best interests to
publish it and be seen to be addressing the issues raised in it.
However, it is not your decision (or mine) to make, and there is more at stake here than a
delay in the membership being able to hold the board to account. In the worst case
scenario, potentially people's jobs, WMUK's chapter status, and the UK
community's relations with the WMF and the wider movement are at risk. Thus, it is
understandable that Jon and the board might want some time to work out what they're
going to do about it before they are lambasted for the failings (to use your word) that
are being reported on.
Taking that into account, please moderate your tone. This is a public mailing list and
people don't want their inboxes filled with your diatribes, and directing those
diatribes at members of staff who work very hard in the name of this charity and are
limited in what they can say in response by standards of professionalism and decency is
unlikely to achieve the result you desire and risks damaging the charity even further than
the actions you are complaining about.
Harry Mitchell
http://enwp.org/User:HJ
Phone: 024 7698 0977
Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________
From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:35
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 6 February 2013 12:23, Stevie Benton <stevie.benton(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Tom, I don't see where anyone is making excuses.
Try reading this email thread... To use the Wiktionary definition, an
excuse is "an explanation designed to avoid or alleviate guilt or
negative judgment".
In a statement of the form "We are (not) doing X because of Y" we call
Y an "excuse".
As your previous email acknowledges, the review was
co-commissioned by
Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation. We are discussing the review with
the Foundation and are in the process of preparing a response. This response
needs to be co-ordinated on both sides, discussed, and consensus reached.
This doesn't happen immediately. Please do be assured that we are in regular
contact with the WMF on this issue, as they are with us.
As I have explained repeatedly, you do not need to discuss a response.
The response should simply say that we are now going to have an open
discussion with the community and decide where we go from here, and
you could have written that months ago. Or have you already decided
that you don't care what the community thinks and are just going to
make all the decisions about how to respond yourselves?
One other important point I want to address from your
email below, too. You
say "co-commissioned a report into your own failings". This is inaccurate as
there are plenty of things that we do well that the report will also look
at.
Well, yes, I would hope you haven't failed at everything. The review
was commissioned to look at your failings, though. Obviously, to work
out what your failings are, it will have looked at things that turned
out to be fine. Trying to deny that this is about your failings is
disingenuous.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org