Tom,

I've a lot of respect for you, and I usually agree with you. In fact, I mostly agree with you on this issue - I would like to see the report published sooner rather than later because even if it is absolutely damning, it is in the charity's best interests to publish it and be seen to be addressing the issues raised in it.

However, it is not your decision (or mine) to make, and there is more at stake here than a delay in the membership being able to hold the board to account. In the worst case scenario, potentially people's jobs, WMUK's chapter status, and the UK community's relations with the WMF and the wider movement are at risk. Thus, it is understandable that Jon and the board might want some time to work out what they're going to do about it before they are lambasted for the failings (to use your word) that are being reported on.

Taking that into account, please moderate your tone. This is a public mailing list and people don't want their inboxes filled with your diatribes, and directing those diatribes at members of staff who work very hard in the name of this charity and are limited in what they can say in response by standards of professionalism and decency is unlikely to achieve the result you desire and risks damaging the charity even further than the actions you are complaining about.

Harry Mitchell

http://enwp.org/User:HJ

Phone: 024 7698 0977

Skype: harry_j_mitchell

From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:35
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

On 6 February 2013 12:23, Stevie Benton <stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> Tom, I don't see where anyone is making excuses.

Try reading this email thread... To use the Wiktionary definition, an
excuse is "an explanation designed to avoid or alleviate guilt or
negative judgment".

In a statement of the form "We are (not) doing X because of Y" we call
Y an "excuse".

> As your previous email acknowledges, the review was co-commissioned by
> Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation. We are discussing the review with
> the Foundation and are in the process of preparing a response. This response
> needs to be co-ordinated on both sides, discussed, and consensus reached.
> This doesn't happen immediately. Please do be assured that we are in regular
> contact with the WMF on this issue, as they are with us.

As I have explained repeatedly, you do not need to discuss a response.
The response should simply say that we are now going to have an open
discussion with the community and decide where we go from here, and
you could have written that months ago. Or have you already decided
that you don't care what the community thinks and are just going to
make all the decisions about how to respond yourselves?

> One other important point I want to address from your email below, too. You
> say "co-commissioned a report into your own failings". This is inaccurate as
> there are plenty of things that we do well that the report will also look
> at.

Well, yes, I would hope you haven't failed at everything. The review
was commissioned to look at your failings, though. Obviously, to work
out what your failings are, it will have looked at things that turned
out to be fine. Trying to deny that this is about your failings is
disingenuous.

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