Erik Möller has posted some comments on Wikimedia-l:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-September/122066.html
---o0o---
Roger's been providing a couple of responses on the UK mailing list (which is publicly archived): http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009235.htm...
He also updated his declaration of interest on Wikimedia UK's website to assert that his contract with Gibraltar does not include paid editing:https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_Interest#Roger_Bamkin
But (personal opinions only):
- IMO the video shown at Wikimania didn't make the distinction of roles sufficiently clear, and the confused media reporting should have been in Wikimedia UK's interest to correct (much like it has been in WMF's interest to correct journalists who confuse WMF/Wikia). Were attempts made to do so?
- The self-promotional aspect here (the degree to which MonmouthpediA is clearly used by Roger has a way to advance his personal career) is real and somewhat unsavory. Serving on a board of a non-profit ought to be done first and foremost to serve that organization's objectives, not to promote separate business goals.
Yes, it's possible to try very hard to keep these things separate (and it appears that Roger's followed the guidelines the chapter's come up with, and previously stepped down as chair to address this), but it still creates a perception that for-profit and non-profit interests are in contention, especially when projects like GibraltarpediA which are conceived as part of an individual's business activities are considered for the chapter's programmatic portfolio, and when that individual is publicly identified with that organization's brand and mission throughout.
Beyond obvious financial relationships, the intangible associations ("I am a trustee of Wikimedia UK") matter when conflicts of interest are considered.
- My understanding is that qrpedia.org is still under individual control, rather than chapter control. Is that correct? If so this is a bit problematic, and it would be good to secure control of it (I'm not offering that WMF would host it; I don't think the value/impact case for QR codes is sufficiently strong for that, but it would be good for at least a chapter to take responsibility for it for now).
It would be good to get some more clarity from the UK chapter on its official position on these issues. I don't think this is a big "scandal", it's the normal kind of confusion of roles and responsibilities that occurs often in small and growing, volunteer-led organizations. Everyone involved is clearly first and foremost motivated by contributing to Wikimedia's mission. But if this is not fully and thoroughly addressed there's a risk that it will continue to reflect poorly on Wikimedia.
Erik