Because the blog post response to The Daily Telegraph article wrote that &quot;“The Board is united in the view that this decision does not affect his role as a Trustee of the charity.&quot;<br><br>Then again my conclusion was only an inference based on a sequence of events. I take it you still stand by that comment?<br>
<br>WH.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 6 August 2012 05:10, Michael Peel <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk" target="_blank">michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div class="im"><br><div><div>On 5 Aug 2012, at 18:34, WilliamH wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">I find it odd that Ashley grasped the incompatibility of his position before the rest of the board did, and more to the point, that they only did grasp it <i>after</i> he stepped down.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div>{{citation needed}}. I&#39;m curious to know why you think this?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Mike</div><div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>

Wikimedia UK mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org">wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l" target="_blank">http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l</a><br>
WMUK: <a href="http://uk.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">http://uk.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>