I regret that Fae has thought it necessary to bring his personal grievance against the UK chapter and one specific individual over to the Wikimedia-l mailing list now that he is unable to make such comments on the Wikimedia-UK list or the WMUK website. I would hope that the moderators will consider whether providing a platform for this type of attack is conducive to the health of the Wikimedia movement.
Best regards
Michael
____________ Michael Maggs Chair, Wikimedia UK
Fæ mailto:faewik@gmail.com 5 December 2014 14:30
No, I and another trustee made that exceedingly clear.
Though I was a trustee, I was excluded by the then Chairman from the vote on how we proceeded. It was a truly nasty way to conduct the matter. A procedurally and legally recorded vote of the board was never held, something that I strongly complained about at the time. This was never corrected nor was there ever a personal apology. I would hope that the current board behaves differently with trustees who might oppose the "party line", though as that same trustee is still on the board, I guess meaningful governance reform has yet to happen. Every indication shows that politics and PR are still considered more important than public transparency and honesty to the community.
I have raised this before, but I think it's too "non-positive" a "non-success" to get anywhere with the way the charity that I helped to create works today. My reward for being concerned about the organization, is that I am no longer allowed to be a voting member of the UK charity.
Fae Fæ mailto:faewik@gmail.com 5 December 2014 10:56
Actually, under Sue Gardner, the offer was that if the chapter did change its ways, it would become a payment processor again. As a trustee at that time, who was sent all the correspondence, this was exactly what was put in writing.
Presumably the WMF still have serious concerns about WMUK, otherwise this would have happened in 2014. Perhaps a current trustee could confirm the situation openly and transparently?
Fae