On 21 May 2014 16:18, rexx <rexx@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

There has been no movement in Sue Gardner's anti-chapter position for the past three years. In 2012 I challenged Gardner to outline the steps needed for WMUK to take in order to have fund-processing restored, and she ignored the question. At the time, I said that no matter what WMUK did to address the concerns that were being raised, there would be no return of fund processing, because that was the sole item on her agenda. Those so-called concerns were just an excuse to remove fund-processing and I'm sorry to have been proven right on each count.

Historical analogy: the WMF stopped adding sister projects after Wikispecies. Then there was a pause. Then Wikidata and Wikivoyage came along, with two different and good arguments for being in the "portfolio".

This is a type of management that is comprehensible, even for those who don't agree with the conclusions. And its application is not down to Sue alone, you can be sure about that.

I actually predicted something like the FDC, in correspondence with a future trustee, also in the first quarter of 2011. (I have no idea why, now. Not my field of expertise at all. Just must have made sense in context.) The WMUK Board at that point thought being legalistic about the position was the right ploy, and it totally wasn't. I thought something drastic was needed, actually: an immediate EGM.

Here's an argument on your side of the case, though: the feedback from the fundraiser, particularly from old dears who have sent a cheque "because Wikipedia is the best thing on the Internet", is motivating like little else.

Of course it would be an improvement if WMUK did payment processing, but, as I must have said before (on the wiki), not going to happen simply by playing the "autonomy" card, because that has been done.

Charles