On 21 March 2014 08:20, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote: ...

Just after talking about "stomping down with its hobnail boots on Wikimedia UK", huh? :-) I'm sorry to have offended your delicate...

I apologise for the "hobnail boots" comment, it was unnecessarily dramatic.

This is a slight tangent, but for the sake of good governance and transparency worth a minor clarification for those that do not appreciate the history and what we have learned as a community: I believe it is fair to say that the WMF directed the UK chapter to take immediate corrective action in response to poor press coverage of the UK chapter. As a trustee at the time who reviewed all correspondence and had personal face to face conversations with all the relevant WMF senior management, my understanding (I am not speaking for Wikimedia UK charity) is that the UK board of trustees at that time were faced with a Hobson's choice of precisely complying with the WMF's specified actions, or ceasing to exist. It is unfair on the WMF to for me to describe this as "hobnail boots".

The commitment of the Wikimedia Foundation to good governance practice and its uncompromising management style was effective in this regard, certainly the UK Chapter did need to improve, and it now is well on its path to improvement. I have no doubt that the WMF board of trustees intends to enforce the exactly same high standards of governance over its own operations to assure the reputation of Wikimedia is not put at unnecessary risk.

Thank you. Fae