On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The bizarre part of this is that the charity you are currently chairman of, does not do any meaningful checks on members when they join (for five quid).
The fact remains that only one person is excluded from membership, voting or taking part in advisory committees, and as a previous chairman of the charity, you would think I would be more trustworthy with charity owned equipment than people who may well be using fake names or temporary addresses.
The real-politic is that you chose to spend a large amount of donated funds on legal advice to censor me from asking the last CEO any relevant questions about the financial control of the charity. Considering how costly and embarrassing the lack of adequate trustee oversight of finances has worked out to be, I would hope you might realise that my concern for the charity were valid. You might even find a way to let me positively help you again with the organization you are responsible for.
Hopefully this will be a part of your excellent, if significantly delayed, volunteer consultation.
Fae
Fae - why do you think you alone, of all people and despite your history of contributions, have been excluded from membership, moderated on the list, barred from voting, etc.? Is it merely because you pointed out hard truths? If that's the case, then certainly excluding you must be unjust. But under the assumption that the leaders and members of WMUK are generally reasonable people, it's hard to imagine there aren't other factors.
In any case, it might be helpful if your personal issues with WMUK didn't derail all other public discussions (on wikimedia-l or elsewhere) about the charity itself.