What is the timetable for the forthcoming "independent review"? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Minutes have been posted of a 9Oct12 meeting discussing the appointment of the independent reviewer: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes_9Oct12 Just out of interest, where it refers to "a preference to the ex-CC candidate", am I correct in assuming that CC stands for Charity Commission rather than Creative Commons? Andreas On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Jon Davies <jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk>wrote;wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

As with many other members I've been quite concerned with recent developments so I dialled into this public board meeting to hear for myself what was happening. I hope that showing an interest can be some help to the board in pulling together and repairing the damage. I was actually quite impressed with what I heard. Although trustees seem to be feeling bruised by it all, it was good to see the board starting to pull together and start focussing on what can be done in the future. The board seemed very well advised both from their lawyers Stone King and from Jon who are both playing a very positive role in all this. I would definitely recommend anyone else who is interested and available to dial in as well and hear for themselves. Regarding the terms of reference of the review, the minutes mention that they have been approved by WMUK. I got the impression that they still need to be signed off by the WMF and presumably the reviewer themselves may also have tweaks they want to make. When this is all done, would the board be prepared to publish the Terms of Reference so the community can see what's happening, see the timetable and can put their tu-p-orth in as they feel inclined? Given that the final report is going to be published (according to the blog post [1] that announced the review) and the report will clearly include a description of the terms of reference, I can't see to be any reason on the surface not to do this at this stage. Many thanks, [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundat… Andrew On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Jon Davies &lt;jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk&gt;wrote;wrote: -- Andrew Turvey -- 07403 216 991 @AndrewTurvey <https://twitter.com/#!/AndrewTurvey> http://www.facebook.com/andrew.turvey http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AndrewRT http://englishwikipedian.blogspot.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org