Do *you* have any evidence for that? On Oct 8, 2012 10:45 AM, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It is clear that the board protected Roger. It is not clear that they did so because of an overfamiliarity among the board. I think they probably thought they were just being supportive colleagues. On Oct 8, 2012 10:36 AM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard wrote:
On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett pigsotwing@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position. It appears that he was protected.
You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps it's time you shared that with us.
+1
Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you have something to say, say it.
- d.
Did the board reject Roger's resignations in the past?
Gordo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org