I was going to say that I was somewhat surprised that WMUK elected someone who was at ArbCom at the time, but then looked it up and noticed there was a two week period between Fae's election and the opening of the case. 

It seems to me that Ashley was elected on the basis of competence, experience and professional skills offline, all qualities he presumably still has despite the findings of the Arbitration Committee about his behaviour on-wiki. That behaviour has been punished, I don't see why WMUK need be plunged into chaos if he's still doing a good job, though I don't work with him so I'm not qualified to judge.

If the issue is one of confidence, perhaps we should have a recall vote (as Fae was open to recall for admin rights), and Ashley can choose to resign or not from that - it would save a lot of legal hassle, at any rate. 

Sarah

-----------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dev920


On 25 July 2012 22:51, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25 July 2012 22:40, geni <geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
> On a purely technical level looking at the Articles of Association Fae
> can resign. Alternatively its possible that he could be removed by a
> general meeting (although it isn't entirely clear) Since the AGM is 10
> months away an EGM would be required. A final option is that the
> directors could remove him as a member which has the effect of
> removing him as a director. Takes 21 days mind.

The power of the members to remove a director by ordinary resolution
comes from the Companies Act 2006, rather than the Articles. The power
definitely exists, though. Calling an EGM would require either a board
resolution or 5% of members to request it.

Personally, I'm waiting to see what Fae and the board do before I
decide how to proceed with this situation.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org