On 8 October 2012 11:43, James Farrar <james.farrar@gmail.com> wrote:

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-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

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