Hi,

I've taken a while to respond for a number of reasons. As Tom M notes this is upsetting. The other reason is that I'm not reading all of this because as Tom says its sticky. I'm sure that when he says " but the solution is not to use the charity to pay your wage" he didnt mean that as I think he already knows that is not true. However its lines like that that make the newspapers and the courts.... which Is one reason why words like "unfortunate" and other underestimations can be useful. As it is I think that some have used words that overestimate the problems and I'm having difficulty in thinking thats this is not accidental.

I don't intend to defend my statement line by line. It isnt meant to be a vindification. Its meant to be informative to those people who are interested in my understanding of what went on. I don't mention that I gave so much free time to get a tear but to avoid some people thinking that this was a plan driven by money. (If it is then its a poor plan)

One can always blame poor communication but we (WMUK) were trying our best to be transparent and as far as I can see all information that is being discovered was always available. You can always argue that it wasnt well advertised but I'm not sure that we could have done more (in some cases) than issue a press release about me standing down as chair because I was working for MCC or that the Government of Gibraltar was funding Gibraltarpedia with Roger and John as assistants. WMUK were being informed and they were reacting to these events to try and ensure that the situation was understood and properly managed.

So for example wrt imperfect communication I didn't read Tom's breakdown until now, and for that I apologise. If someone wants a particular point addressing then do feel free to email me direct.

Roger

On 29 September 2012 22:58, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 29 September 2012 22:57, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:

On 29 September 2012 22:55, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:

>> review, to make sure we are doing enough to safeguard the reputation of not
>> only ourselves as a charity but the Wikimedia movement as a whole.

> Chis, I would hope it has nothing to to with reputation! And everything to
> do with doing things properly and with correct ethics.
> Reputation won't be a concern in those circumstances!

The decision appears to be everything to do with reputation.

Yes. My point precisely.

Tom 

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

--

Roger Bamkin
Victuallers Ltd

01332 702993
0758 2020815
Google+:Victuallers

Skype:Victuallers1
Flickr:Victuallers2

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