Dear all,
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the Foundation which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's fundraiser.
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
Regards,
Chris Keating Chair, Wikimedia UK
On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the Foundation which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's fundraiser. http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
Right, so money->SF and so much for Gift Aid?
- d.
Yes, David, sounds like it.
The opening to this week's signpost article seems to sum it up the situation:
"In the second controversy to engulf Wikimedia UK in two months..."
Both controversies seemed to have damaged the relationship between the chapter and the editing communities, in particular on English Wikipedia. I think we need to get together a plan, if we haven't got one already, for how to engage better and build stronger links. After all, this is where most of the chapter's members, activists and income comes from.
Has any thought been put into this?
Andrew
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the
Foundation
which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's fundraiser.
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
Right, so money->SF and so much for Gift Aid?
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I am not going to say anything about the statement.
What I DO want to say is that whatever happens with the way we receive our funding the great work of the volunteers and staff must go on.
It would be very easy to be distracted to the detriment of everything else. We are doing great things. Have a look at our plans for 2012 and 2013, they are impressive and a great deal is happening. Let's all work together to make sure our chapter is really brilliant and that in a year's time all this fuss will be a distant memory.
Jon Davies.
On 28 September 2012 22:31, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.comwrote:
Yes, David, sounds like it.
The opening to this week's signpost article seems to sum it up the situation:
"In the second controversy to engulf Wikimedia UK in two months..."
Both controversies seemed to have damaged the relationship between the chapter and the editing communities, in particular on English Wikipedia. I think we need to get together a plan, if we haven't got one already, for how to engage better and build stronger links. After all, this is where most of the chapter's members, activists and income comes from.
Has any thought been put into this?
Andrew
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the
Foundation
which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's fundraiser.
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
Right, so money->SF and so much for Gift Aid?
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- 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@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Well, there goes my donation. On Sep 28, 2012 9:16 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the
Foundation
which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's fundraiser.
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
Right, so money->SF and so much for Gift Aid?
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there goes my donation.
The Foundation aren't reading here.
- d.
Am 29.09.2012 um 00:03 schrieb David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there goes my donation.
The Foundation aren't reading here.
Depends on who you think the Foundation is.
Alice.
On Sep 28, 2012 11:05 PM, "Alice Wiegand" me.lyzzy@gmail.com wrote:
Am 29.09.2012 um 00:03 schrieb David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there goes my donation.
The Foundation aren't reading here.
Depends on who you think the Foundation is.
The foundation is Sue. Everyone knows that.
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there goes my donation. On Sep 28, 2012 9:16 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the
Foundation
which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's fundraiser.
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
Right, so money->SF and so much for Gift Aid?
- d.
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
On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF
even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain
donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
What will happen is exactly the same as what happened in the countries where the foundation took over fundraising last year which was, indeed, los of people being very confused and not understanding who it was they had just given money to.
The foundation will need to be very clear about its messaging. I would recommend a prominent notice on the landing page that the WMF is not a registered charity in the UK, so that there can be no claims that they have misled donors.
On 28 September 2012 23:20, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than
WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain
donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
What will happen is exactly the same as what happened in the countries where the foundation took over fundraising last year which was, indeed, los of people being very confused and not understanding who it was they had just given money to.
The foundation will need to be very clear about its messaging. I would recommend a prominent notice on the landing page that the WMF is not a registered charity in the UK, so that there can be no claims that they have misled donors.
The main difference here is, I believe, that the UK donor base is much larger than the countries whose payment processing was taken over by WMF last year. And they speak English. Therefore the media outcry from the confusion is likely to be much louder.
From a regular reader-donor's point of view, being confused about where
their money went to is almost certainly worse than learning that some trustee is involved with a conflict of interest scandal, weirdly, between multiple projects all to do with Wikipedia.
There were plenty of large countries on that list, although media attention is likely to spread further when it originates in English, that's true.
On Sep 28, 2012 11:37 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 23:20, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than
WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain
donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
What will happen is exactly the same as what happened in the countries
where the foundation took over fundraising last year which was, indeed, los of people being very confused and not understanding who it was they had just given money to.
The foundation will need to be very clear about its messaging. I would
recommend a prominent notice on the landing page that the WMF is not a registered charity in the UK, so that there can be no claims that they have misled donors.
The main difference here is, I believe, that the UK donor base is much
larger than the countries whose payment processing was taken over by WMF last year. And they speak English. Therefore the media outcry from the confusion is likely to be much louder.
From a regular reader-donor's point of view, being confused about where
their money went to is almost certainly worse than learning that some trustee is involved with a conflict of interest scandal, weirdly, between multiple projects all to do with Wikipedia.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I have been encouraged to issue statements for the last week or so about the debate. I have resisted as I did not want to escalate what I saw as an unfortunate bit of publicity for Wikimedia UK and the Foundation. I'm very disappointed to see the latest press release I believe that the statement on my talk page on the English, Catalan and Simple Wikipedia supplies some background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victuallers
In retrospect we could all give the board and me better advice. I have tried to remain loyal to you, the mission, and the board. I have made less money working for "the mission" then I would have done elsewhere, and I think I have also shared in extending our reach. I've visited many countries and talked with five of six ministers from Gibraltar, Wales and the British Parliament about WMUK. You know I worked as an unpaid wikipedian in residence and you may have guessed that I turned down paid work last year to concentrate on leading the WMUK board during my last term. That was costing me too much money and so with the board's agreement I stood down so that Monmouthshire County Council could make the exceptional step of paying me. They did not do this lightly and they had to get special agreement from their elected members that in this case it was worth stepping outside their normal employment procedures to save Monmouthpedia. This is well documented.
As my statement shows both the board and the Foundation should have been aware of the public statements that were made. I have heard it claimed that the Foundation were unaware - but I resigned as chair of the UK chapter. Someone must have read the reason. I was very clear when you re-elected me as a board member that I had and would continue to have business interests like Monmouthshire County Council. (I have to eat). We may have been mistaken, but it was a joint and informed decision.
It seems a long time ago when I was in Haifa and we were told that the Foundation did not want WMUK to take part in last years fundraiser. But we did and that made us several hundreds of thousands of pounds. Our current exec can take a lot of credit for achieving that.
best regards Roger
On 28 September 2012 23:41, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
There were plenty of large countries on that list, although media attention is likely to spread further when it originates in English, that's true.
On Sep 28, 2012 11:37 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 23:20, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than
WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with
certain donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
What will happen is exactly the same as what happened in the countries
where the foundation took over fundraising last year which was, indeed, los of people being very confused and not understanding who it was they had just given money to.
The foundation will need to be very clear about its messaging. I would
recommend a prominent notice on the landing page that the WMF is not a registered charity in the UK, so that there can be no claims that they have misled donors.
The main difference here is, I believe, that the UK donor base is much
larger than the countries whose payment processing was taken over by WMF last year. And they speak English. Therefore the media outcry from the confusion is likely to be much louder.
From a regular reader-donor's point of view, being confused about where
their money went to is almost certainly worse than learning that some trustee is involved with a conflict of interest scandal, weirdly, between multiple projects all to do with Wikipedia.
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
Roger,
I intend the following comments in the most constructive way. The bottom line for me is that you severely violated the ethics of your position - not maliciously, I hasten the say, but this does not make it acceptable or right.
If anything, your offers to resign demonstrate that you knew this, and the rest of the board are equally at fault for having blinders to the position you were entering into.
Your email today implies that this is still unclear to you - and comments from other board members give the same impression. So this email is my attempt to lay out exactly why the position you took was unethical, so problematic, and undermines the integrity of our entire board.
This is not an easy email to write, it is highly critical. Yet it must be said.
Before you also dismiss me as a troll, or an idiot, or whatever delightful word David can think up for me (I love you man! :)) please consider these comments deeply.
I have been encouraged to issue statements for the last week or so about
the debate. I have resisted as I did not want to escalate what I saw as an unfortunate bit of publicity for Wikimedia UK and the Foundation.
Perhaps this is a poor choice of word... but "unfortunate"? I appreciate this last week or so has been upsetting for you on a personal level, and I regret some of the vitriol that has been levelled at you. We (i.e. those of us criticising) failed too, in raising these issues in a way that transgressed personal sniping.
But "unfortunate" is a poor choice of word. I think it is important for you and the board to take ownership of this matter. I'm not saying that fault should be laid at individuals feet. However, I think the board in particular needs to reflect deeply on what they also did wrong - and I believe the latest statement reflects this.
Don't take it personally (as I got the impression it has been). As a public body *you will be subjected to harsh criticism*. Part of what makes a person a good board member is the ability to not defensively swing back at criticism, but to search for advice and ideas for improvement at every step.
I'm very disappointed to see the latest press release
Me too; that is disappointing. But, we may be able to make a positive out of it! Who knows. Fire can make a man.
In retrospect we could all give the board and me better advice. I have tried to remain loyal to you, the mission, and the board.
Yes. And I will agree wholheartedly that your underlying endeavour was to improve Wikipedia. But...
I have made less money working for "the mission" then I would have done elsewhere, and I think I have also shared in extending our reach. I've visited many countries and talked with five of six ministers from Gibraltar, Wales and the British Parliament about WMUK. You know I worked as an unpaid wikipedian in residence and you may have guessed that I turned down paid work last year to concentrate on leading the WMUK board during my last term.
Being a trustee of a charity can be an important and rewarding thing. But the point is that it is a sacrifice - you aren't donating money, but experience, skills, time and even connections. There should be no expectation of reward, obviously, in the same way as the person donating £10 to Wikipedia.
If you cannot afford that donation then it should not be given.
That was costing me too much money and so with the board's agreement I stood down so that Monmouthshire County Council could make the exceptional step of paying me. They did not do this lightly and they had to get special agreement from their elected members that in this case it was worth stepping outside their normal employment procedures to save Monmouthpedia. This is well documented.
That is a sticky matter, and most unfortunate that it happened. An extraordinary situation demonstrated a gap in the market to you, and you appear to have spotted this, moving on to Gibraltapedia with a commercial interest up front.
This is the core of the matter.
You cannot gain monetary benefit from your donation to a charity when in a position of such responsibility. It totally undermines your ability to make impartial judgements. Any number of small things might affect your commercial interests, tied closely to the charities aims and objectives. Even subconciously you may end up promoting your interests; and, yes, I have seen this happen in charities. First hand.
With Monmouthpedia you identified a critical problem and came up with a solution to fix it. A solution that was less-bad than the alternative. You resigned as chair, a correct decision and one I praise you and the board for. But after that the mistakes started.
I am unsure under what context you first offered to resign - but once the Gibraltarpedia project was underway it should have been clear to the board that your position was untenable. You have a commercial enterprise with the same goals as the charity. End of story.
As my statement shows both the board and the Foundation should have been
aware of the public statements that were made. I have heard it claimed that the Foundation were unaware - but I resigned as chair of the UK chapter. Someone must have read the reason.
Many things happend within the Wikimedia movement on a daily basis. I couldn't tell you half of them! This is a very bad excuse; entertain the possibility the Foundation was not aware. And then don't lay the blame with them, or you, but identify the problem and fix it.
This is a metaphor for the wider issue with WMUK.
I was very clear when you re-elected me as a board member that I had and
would continue to have business interests like Monmouthshire County Council.
No. I was at the AGM, and this sort of thing matters to me. It was NOT clear. In fact I still don't know the whole details of the Monmouth matter - we still have too much secrecy (or rather, assumption of knowledge)
(I have to eat).
Yes indeed.
I considered running in the last election. I decided against it for various reasons, but one thing I carefully calculated was if I could afford to spend *at least* one day a week on WMUK things. I calculated my loss of consultancy work (a day spare means, what, at least £2500/month less than I am used to) and figured out if that would affect me to the extent I couldn't continue.
This is one reason why charities are often run by older, retired, types who do not need to go out and earn a living.
If you undertook too much and found you could not survive without taking renumeration then that is obvously a serious issue - but the solution is not to use the charity to pay your wage. If you need to eat, that is for you to sort out.
We should be here to donate our time to the charity, we should not be using the charity to put food on our table.
Donating time in this way is not about us (this is directed at some members of the UK board also). It is not about egos. It is a matter that should be of deep importance to you as trustees. It should be a matter self-sacrifice and introspection.
Bottom line; you (as a board), we even, fucked up. Not maliciously, but very badly. You lost sight of the wider objective.
But it's not something to beat each other up over. Learn from it, make improvements, move on.
I am glad to see an independent auditor will be involved going forward, that may help draw perspective.
Tin
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there goes my donation. On Sep 28, 2012 9:16 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the
Foundation
which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's fundraiser.
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
Right, so money->SF and so much for Gift Aid?
- d.
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
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
The split has always been a problem, ever since WMUK Version 1.0 in my own mind....
Gordo
On 29 September 2012 13:31, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
The split has always been a problem, ever since WMUK Version 1.0 in my own mind....
Did WMUK 1.0 ever take money? I don't recall we even managed to get a bank account ...
- d.
On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment processor?
If so, I would have thought that donating to WMUK, even with WMF acting as the payment processor, would presumably be entitled to Gift Aid.
Neil
On 29 September 2012 13:40, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member. This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money.
Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment processor? If so, I would have thought that donating to WMUK, even with WMF acting as the payment processor, would presumably be entitled to Gift Aid.
If they can manage that, that'll be *quite* a trick.
- d.
On Sep 29, 2012 1:40 PM, "Neil Harris" neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment processor?
If so, I would have thought that donating to WMUK, even with WMF acting
as the payment processor, would presumably be entitled to Gift Aid.
Don't be fooled by the WMF's political choices of language. We're not talking about payment processing, we're talking about who is actually fundraising.
Can someone here please explain this issue succinctly? Thanks. Doug
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 29, 2012 1:40 PM, "Neil Harris" neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment processor?
If so, I would have thought that donating to WMUK, even with WMF acting as the payment processor, would presumably be entitled to Gift Aid.
Don't be fooled by the WMF's political choices of language. We're not talking about payment processing, we're talking about who is actually fundraising.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
The WMF don't trust WMUK to raise funds.
Perhaps too succinct? ;)
(this email is not intended to express my opinion on the issue, because I've yet to form one) Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: Doug Weller dougweller@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 14:59 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation
Can someone here please explain this issue succinctly? Thanks. Doug
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 29, 2012 1:40 PM, "Neil Harris" neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment processor?
If so, I would have thought that donating to WMUK, even with WMF acting as the payment processor, would presumably be entitled to Gift Aid.
Don't be fooled by the WMF's political choices of language. We're not talking about payment processing, we're talking about who is actually fundraising.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
As best as I can tell, the WMF doesn't trust any chapter to raise funds, feeling threatened by any slight sign of independence that a chapter might exhibit.
This is a naked power-grab by the WMF as they have taken the opportunity to do what they've been wanting to do for months.
And I am confident that fundraising won't be coming back. Bureaucracies don't surrender power - ever. On Sep 29, 2012 3:07 PM, "HJ Mitchell" hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
The WMF don't trust WMUK to raise funds.
Perhaps too succinct? ;)
(this email is not intended to express my opinion on the issue, because I've yet to form one)
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
*From:* Doug Weller dougweller@gmail.com *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Saturday, 29 September 2012, 14:59 *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation
Can someone here please explain this issue succinctly? Thanks. Doug
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 29, 2012 1:40 PM, "Neil Harris" neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment processor?
If so, I would have thought that donating to WMUK, even with WMF acting
as
the payment processor, would presumably be entitled to Gift Aid.
Don't be fooled by the WMF's political choices of language. We're not talking about payment processing, we're talking about who is actually fundraising.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk
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
Thanks James. Doug
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 4:06 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As best as I can tell, the WMF doesn't trust any chapter to raise funds, feeling threatened by any slight sign of independence that a chapter might exhibit.
This is a naked power-grab by the WMF as they have taken the opportunity to do what they've been wanting to do for months.
And I am confident that fundraising won't be coming back. Bureaucracies don't surrender power - ever.
On Sep 29, 2012 3:07 PM, "HJ Mitchell" hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
The WMF don't trust WMUK to raise funds.
Perhaps too succinct? ;)
(this email is not intended to express my opinion on the issue, because I've yet to form one)
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
From: Doug Weller dougweller@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 14:59 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation
Can someone here please explain this issue succinctly? Thanks. Doug
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 29, 2012 1:40 PM, "Neil Harris" neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment processor?
If so, I would have thought that donating to WMUK, even with WMF acting as the payment processor, would presumably be entitled to Gift Aid.
Don't be fooled by the WMF's political choices of language. We're not talking about payment processing, we're talking about who is actually fundraising.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk
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
Hi James (and others)
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad faith on the part of the WMF. At this point everyone should be concerned about the fact that over the past months we have had several (highly) irregular activities within the UK chapter. It is important that we (as in the movement) conduct a thorough review to see what the complete facts are so that we can make sure that we can learn from this and draw proper conclusions.
In the meantime the fact that the UK will not payment process will allow them to focus on getting things in order. Please recall that payment processing has nothing to do with actual funds, the UK chapter will still apply to the FDC for funds (I am assuming)
Please don't make the foundation be the bad guy in this, this is not about a power grab, this is about finding out what really happened in a potentially very serious situation rather than simply moving on.
Jan-Bart de Vreede Vice Chair Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
On 29 sep. 2012, at 17:06, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As best as I can tell, the WMF doesn't trust any chapter to raise funds, feeling threatened by any slight sign of independence that a chapter might exhibit.
This is a naked power-grab by the WMF as they have taken the opportunity to do what they've been wanting to do for months.
And I am confident that fundraising won't be coming back. Bureaucracies don't surrender power - ever.
On Sep 29, 2012 3:07 PM, "HJ Mitchell" hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote: The WMF don't trust WMUK to raise funds.
Perhaps too succinct? ;)
(this email is not intended to express my opinion on the issue, because I've yet to form one)
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
From: Doug Weller dougweller@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 14:59 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation
Can someone here please explain this issue succinctly? Thanks. Doug
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 29, 2012 1:40 PM, "Neil Harris" neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment processor?
If so, I would have thought that donating to WMUK, even with WMF acting as the payment processor, would presumably be entitled to Gift Aid.
Don't be fooled by the WMF's political choices of language. We're not talking about payment processing, we're talking about who is actually fundraising.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk
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
On 29 September 2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad faith on the part of the WMF.
I find it puzzling that you assume that people aren't generally aware of the long and acrimonous discussions of payment processing over the past year, and quite surprised that you are puzzled that people put this in the context of that.
- d.
Hi David,
I do assume that people have been following the payment processing discussion but I also assumed that they would find these developments important enough to see that there is no way we can just move on from this point.
I repeat my statement which I made at Wikimania: I am very happy that the chapters are moving towards a Chapters Association which will hopefully play a very constructive role in situations like this. I am disappointed that the Association isn't farther along the road because that could have been very helpful at this point. The chapters are an essential part of the movement and if the foundation is forced into this kind of relationship with chapters all the time it will keep us achieving our goals and working together constructively.
Jan-Bart de Vreede
On 29 sep. 2012, at 17:57, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad faith on the part of the WMF.
I find it puzzling that you assume that people aren't generally aware of the long and acrimonous discussions of payment processing over the past year, and quite surprised that you are puzzled that people put this in the context of that.
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Jan-Bart,
The problems at Wikimedia UK, while certainly very concerning, haven't involved any misuse of funds, so it is very disappointing that the WMF has used this as an excuse to stop Wikimedia UK taking part in the fundraiser. This decision will cost the movement a lot in wasted time and money spent preparing for this fundraiser and in lost donations and gift-aid.
You could have waited for the independent report before making any decisions, since there is no reason to believe Wikimedia UK can't be trusted with funds (and their eligibility for the FDC hasn't been revoked, so clearly the WMF does trust them with funds). On Sep 29, 2012 5:09 PM, "Jan-bart de Vreede" jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi David,
I do assume that people have been following the payment processing discussion but I also assumed that they would find these developments important enough to see that there is no way we can just move on from this point.
I repeat my statement which I made at Wikimania: I am very happy that the chapters are moving towards a Chapters Association which will hopefully play a very constructive role in situations like this. I am disappointed that the Association isn't farther along the road because that could have been very helpful at this point. The chapters are an essential part of the movement and if the foundation is forced into this kind of relationship with chapters all the time it will keep us achieving our goals and working together constructively.
Jan-Bart de Vreede
On 29 sep. 2012, at 17:57, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
wrote:
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume
bad
faith on the part of the WMF.
I find it puzzling that you assume that people aren't generally aware of the long and acrimonous discussions of payment processing over the past year, and quite surprised that you are puzzled that people put this in the context of that.
- d.
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
I'm still not offering an opinion, merely playing devil's advocate, but it is possible that the WMF stripped WMUK of its fundraising rights (note fund*raising*, which is not quite the same thing as being trusted with funds) because they felt that donors might not want to donate to an organisation that has been subject to two unfortunately timed controversies which many people feel (and I make no comment on the legitimacy or otherwise of the sentiment) that the chapter has not handled well.
Not being privy to the thoughts of WMF/WMUK representatives nor to the discussions that took place around this, I don't know any more details than are contained in the blog post, but (and I'm no real fan of the WMF) I suspect the issue is a little more complicated than a "power grab". Harry Mitchell
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: Saturday, 29 September 2012, 17:20 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation
Jan-Bart, The problems at Wikimedia UK, while certainly very concerning, haven't involved any misuse of funds, so it is very disappointing that the WMF has used this as an excuse to stop Wikimedia UK taking part in the fundraiser. This decision will cost the movement a lot in wasted time and money spent preparing for this fundraiser and in lost donations and gift-aid. You could have waited for the independent report before making any decisions, since there is no reason to believe Wikimedia UK can't be trusted with funds (and their eligibility for the FDC hasn't been revoked, so clearly the WMF does trust them with funds). On Sep 29, 2012 5:09 PM, "Jan-bart de Vreede" jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi David,
I do assume that people have been following the payment processing discussion but I also assumed that they would find these developments important enough to see that there is no way we can just move on from this point.
I repeat my statement which I made at Wikimania: I am very happy that the chapters are moving towards a Chapters Association which will hopefully play a very constructive role in situations like this. I am disappointed that the Association isn't farther along the road because that could have been very helpful at this point. The chapters are an essential part of the movement and if the foundation is forced into this kind of relationship with chapters all the time it will keep us achieving our goals and working together constructively.
Jan-Bart de Vreede
On 29 sep. 2012, at 17:57, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad faith on the part of the WMF.
I find it puzzling that you assume that people aren't generally aware of the long and acrimonous discussions of payment processing over the past year, and quite surprised that you are puzzled that people put this in the context of that.
- d.
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
Bad faith isn't assumed, it's been earnt by your actions.
Throwing money away doesn't deserve good faith. On Sep 29, 2012 4:55 PM, "Jan-bart de Vreede" jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi James (and others)
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad faith on the part of the WMF. At this point everyone should be concerned about the fact that over the past months we have had several (highly) irregular activities within the UK chapter. It is important that we (as in the movement) conduct a thorough review to see what the complete facts are so that we can make sure that we can learn from this and draw proper conclusions.
In the meantime the fact that the UK will not payment process will allow them to focus on getting things in order. Please recall that payment processing has nothing to do with actual funds, the UK chapter will still apply to the FDC for funds (I am assuming)
Please don't make the foundation be the bad guy in this, this is not about a power grab, this is about finding out what really happened in a potentially very serious situation rather than simply moving on.
Jan-Bart de Vreede Vice Chair Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
On 29 sep. 2012, at 17:06, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As best as I can tell, the WMF doesn't trust any chapter to raise funds, feeling threatened by any slight sign of independence that a chapter might exhibit.
This is a naked power-grab by the WMF as they have taken the opportunity to do what they've been wanting to do for months.
And I am confident that fundraising won't be coming back. Bureaucracies don't surrender power - ever. On Sep 29, 2012 3:07 PM, "HJ Mitchell" hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
The WMF don't trust WMUK to raise funds.
Perhaps too succinct? ;)
(this email is not intended to express my opinion on the issue, because I've yet to form one)
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
*From:* Doug Weller dougweller@gmail.com *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Saturday, 29 September 2012, 14:59 *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation
Can someone here please explain this issue succinctly? Thanks. Doug
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 29, 2012 1:40 PM, "Neil Harris" neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is
voluntarily
throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment processor?
If so, I would have thought that donating to WMUK, even with WMF
acting as
the payment processor, would presumably be entitled to Gift Aid.
Don't be fooled by the WMF's political choices of language. We're not talking about payment processing, we're talking about who is actually fundraising.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk
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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 29/09/2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede wrote:
Hi James (and others)
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad faith on the part of the WMF. At this point everyone should be concerned about the fact that over the past months we have had several (highly) irregular activities within the UK chapter. It is important that we (as in the movement) conduct a thorough review to see what the complete facts are so that we can make sure that we can learn from this and draw proper conclusions.
Woah, hold it right there Jan-bart. What *I* find puzzling is how you (personally and WMF in general) assumes that Wikimedia UK has done wrong before this supposedly independent review has started never mind been completed.
KTC
Hi
It doesn't work like that, as I indicated there have been some (highly) irregular activities in the past months (which is not the same as what you state below). The timing is such that a decision on Payment Processing (which is indeed not the same as fundraising or applying to the FDC, but is actually quite separate) had to be made now. After what I know was a lot of consultation both ways this is the conclusion that we arrived at.
Please don't read more into this than that. Its not a power grab and its not an accusation of wrongdoing, its what we feel is the right thing to do under the difficult circumstances.
(oh and payment processing is actually work, it does not get done automatically)
Jan-Bart de Vreede Wikimedia Board of Trustees
On 29 Sep 2012, at 19:07, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On 29/09/2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede wrote:
Hi James (and others)
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad faith on the part of the WMF. At this point everyone should be concerned about the fact that over the past months we have had several (highly) irregular activities within the UK chapter. It is important that we (as in the movement) conduct a thorough review to see what the complete facts are so that we can make sure that we can learn from this and draw proper conclusions.
Woah, hold it right there Jan-bart. What *I* find puzzling is how you (personally and WMF in general) assumes that Wikimedia UK has done wrong before this supposedly independent review has started never mind been completed.
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Hi Jan-Bart and others,
I would hope we can wait until we hear the results of the review before jumping to the conclusion that what has gone on is "highly irregular" (which incidentally, clearly *is *an accusation of wrong doing). There are certainly allegations that have been made that are of serious concern but I would hope people are able to wait to see the evidence and the report before assuming they are well founded.
In the meantime, everyone involved is clearly going through a very difficult time so I hope we are able to pull together, work through this and we can come through a stronger chapter at the end.
Regards,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevreede@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi
It doesn't work like that, as I indicated there have been some (highly) irregular activities in the past months (which is not the same as what you state below). The timing is such that a decision on Payment Processing (which is indeed not the same as fundraising or applying to the FDC, but is actually quite separate) had to be made now. After what I know was a lot of consultation both ways this is the conclusion that we arrived at.
Please don't read more into this than that. Its not a power grab and its not an accusation of wrongdoing, its what we feel is the right thing to do under the difficult circumstances.
(oh and payment processing is actually work, it does not get done automatically)
Jan-Bart de Vreede Wikimedia Board of Trustees
On 29 Sep 2012, at 19:07, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On 29/09/2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede wrote:
Hi James (and others)
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad faith on the part of the WMF. At this point everyone should be concerned about the fact that over the past months we have had several (highly) irregular activities within the UK chapter. It is important that we (as in the movement) conduct a thorough review to see what the complete facts are so that we can make sure that we can learn from this and draw proper conclusions.
Woah, hold it right there Jan-bart. What *I* find puzzling is how you
(personally and WMF in general) assumes that Wikimedia UK has done wrong before this supposedly independent review has started never mind been completed.
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
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
Hi
Thank you Andrew, although I must confess that I thought that my English was very good I apparently chose the wrong words. What I meant to convey was "unusual" and unusual enough to warrant further review…
Jan-Bart
On 29 Sep 2012, at 21:09, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Jan-Bart and others,
I would hope we can wait until we hear the results of the review before jumping to the conclusion that what has gone on is "highly irregular" (which incidentally, clearly is an accusation of wrong doing). There are certainly allegations that have been made that are of serious concern but I would hope people are able to wait to see the evidence and the report before assuming they are well founded.
In the meantime, everyone involved is clearly going through a very difficult time so I hope we are able to pull together, work through this and we can come through a stronger chapter at the end.
Regards,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi
It doesn't work like that, as I indicated there have been some (highly) irregular activities in the past months (which is not the same as what you state below). The timing is such that a decision on Payment Processing (which is indeed not the same as fundraising or applying to the FDC, but is actually quite separate) had to be made now. After what I know was a lot of consultation both ways this is the conclusion that we arrived at.
Please don't read more into this than that. Its not a power grab and its not an accusation of wrongdoing, its what we feel is the right thing to do under the difficult circumstances.
(oh and payment processing is actually work, it does not get done automatically)
Jan-Bart de Vreede Wikimedia Board of Trustees
On 29 Sep 2012, at 19:07, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On 29/09/2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede wrote:
Hi James (and others)
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad faith on the part of the WMF. At this point everyone should be concerned about the fact that over the past months we have had several (highly) irregular activities within the UK chapter. It is important that we (as in the movement) conduct a thorough review to see what the complete facts are so that we can make sure that we can learn from this and draw proper conclusions.
Woah, hold it right there Jan-bart. What *I* find puzzling is how you (personally and WMF in general) assumes that Wikimedia UK has done wrong before this supposedly independent review has started never mind been completed.
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
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
-- Andrew Turvey -- 07403 216 991 @AndrewTurvey http://www.facebook.com/andrew.turvey http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AndrewRT http://englishwikipedian.blogspot.co.uk/
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
"Irregular" in this context means closer to "against regulations" than "unusual". On Sep 29, 2012 8:18 PM, "Jan-Bart de Vreede" jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi
Thank you Andrew, although I must confess that I thought that my English was very good I apparently chose the wrong words. What I meant to convey was "unusual" and unusual enough to warrant further review…
Jan-Bart
On 29 Sep 2012, at 21:09, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Jan-Bart and others,
I would hope we can wait until we hear the results of the review before jumping to the conclusion that what has gone on is "highly irregular" (which incidentally, clearly *is *an accusation of wrong doing). There are certainly allegations that have been made that are of serious concern but I would hope people are able to wait to see the evidence and the report before assuming they are well founded.
In the meantime, everyone involved is clearly going through a very difficult time so I hope we are able to pull together, work through this and we can come through a stronger chapter at the end.
Regards,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede < jdevreede@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi
It doesn't work like that, as I indicated there have been some (highly) irregular activities in the past months (which is not the same as what you state below). The timing is such that a decision on Payment Processing (which is indeed not the same as fundraising or applying to the FDC, but is actually quite separate) had to be made now. After what I know was a lot of consultation both ways this is the conclusion that we arrived at.
Please don't read more into this than that. Its not a power grab and its not an accusation of wrongdoing, its what we feel is the right thing to do under the difficult circumstances.
(oh and payment processing is actually work, it does not get done automatically)
Jan-Bart de Vreede Wikimedia Board of Trustees
On 29 Sep 2012, at 19:07, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On 29/09/2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede wrote:
Hi James (and others)
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad faith on the part of the WMF. At this point everyone should be concerned about the fact that over the past months we have had several (highly) irregular activities within the UK chapter. It is important that we (as in the movement) conduct a thorough review to see what the complete facts are so that we can make sure that we can learn from this and draw proper conclusions.
Woah, hold it right there Jan-bart. What *I* find puzzling is how you
(personally and WMF in general) assumes that Wikimedia UK has done wrong before this supposedly independent review has started never mind been completed.
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
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
-- 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@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
Hi Jan-Bart,
Don't worry, I understand, "irregular" is often used as a euphemism for improper but I guess that's something that a non-native speaker may not necessarily be aware of.
At the same time I should have said I think the Foundation's actions are understandable and reasonable in the circumstances, even if they are very disappointing. These are serious allegations after all.
Regards,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevreede@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi
Thank you Andrew, although I must confess that I thought that my English was very good I apparently chose the wrong words. What I meant to convey was "unusual" and unusual enough to warrant further review…
Jan-Bart
On 29 Sep 2012, at 21:09, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Jan-Bart and others,
I would hope we can wait until we hear the results of the review before jumping to the conclusion that what has gone on is "highly irregular" (which incidentally, clearly *is *an accusation of wrong doing). There are certainly allegations that have been made that are of serious concern but I would hope people are able to wait to see the evidence and the report before assuming they are well founded.
In the meantime, everyone involved is clearly going through a very difficult time so I hope we are able to pull together, work through this and we can come through a stronger chapter at the end.
Regards,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede < jdevreede@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi
It doesn't work like that, as I indicated there have been some (highly) irregular activities in the past months (which is not the same as what you state below). The timing is such that a decision on Payment Processing (which is indeed not the same as fundraising or applying to the FDC, but is actually quite separate) had to be made now. After what I know was a lot of consultation both ways this is the conclusion that we arrived at.
Please don't read more into this than that. Its not a power grab and its not an accusation of wrongdoing, its what we feel is the right thing to do under the difficult circumstances.
(oh and payment processing is actually work, it does not get done automatically)
Jan-Bart de Vreede Wikimedia Board of Trustees
On 29 Sep 2012, at 19:07, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On 29/09/2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede wrote:
Hi James (and others)
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad faith on the part of the WMF. At this point everyone should be concerned about the fact that over the past months we have had several (highly) irregular activities within the UK chapter. It is important that we (as in the movement) conduct a thorough review to see what the complete facts are so that we can make sure that we can learn from this and draw proper conclusions.
Woah, hold it right there Jan-bart. What *I* find puzzling is how you
(personally and WMF in general) assumes that Wikimedia UK has done wrong before this supposedly independent review has started never mind been completed.
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
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
-- 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@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
As any fan of Yes Prime Minister knows, "irregular" means there's been a crime but you can't prove it. ("Malpractice" means there's been a crime and you can prove it.) On Sep 29, 2012 9:21 PM, "Andrew Turvey" andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Jan-Bart,
Don't worry, I understand, "irregular" is often used as a euphemism for improper but I guess that's something that a non-native speaker may not necessarily be aware of.
At the same time I should have said I think the Foundation's actions are understandable and reasonable in the circumstances, even if they are very disappointing. These are serious allegations after all.
Regards,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede < jdevreede@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi
Thank you Andrew, although I must confess that I thought that my English was very good I apparently chose the wrong words. What I meant to convey was "unusual" and unusual enough to warrant further review…
Jan-Bart
On 29 Sep 2012, at 21:09, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Jan-Bart and others,
I would hope we can wait until we hear the results of the review before jumping to the conclusion that what has gone on is "highly irregular" (which incidentally, clearly *is *an accusation of wrong doing). There are certainly allegations that have been made that are of serious concern but I would hope people are able to wait to see the evidence and the report before assuming they are well founded.
In the meantime, everyone involved is clearly going through a very difficult time so I hope we are able to pull together, work through this and we can come through a stronger chapter at the end.
Regards,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede < jdevreede@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi
It doesn't work like that, as I indicated there have been some (highly) irregular activities in the past months (which is not the same as what you state below). The timing is such that a decision on Payment Processing (which is indeed not the same as fundraising or applying to the FDC, but is actually quite separate) had to be made now. After what I know was a lot of consultation both ways this is the conclusion that we arrived at.
Please don't read more into this than that. Its not a power grab and its not an accusation of wrongdoing, its what we feel is the right thing to do under the difficult circumstances.
(oh and payment processing is actually work, it does not get done automatically)
Jan-Bart de Vreede Wikimedia Board of Trustees
On 29 Sep 2012, at 19:07, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On 29/09/2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede wrote:
Hi James (and others)
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically
assume
bad faith on the part of the WMF. At this point everyone should be concerned about the fact that over the past months we have had several (highly) irregular activities within the UK chapter. It is important that we (as in the movement) conduct a thorough review to see what the complete facts are so that we can make sure that we can learn from
this
and draw proper conclusions.
Woah, hold it right there Jan-bart. What *I* find puzzling is how you
(personally and WMF in general) assumes that Wikimedia UK has done wrong before this supposedly independent review has started never mind been completed.
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
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
-- 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@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
-- 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@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
jan-bart,
while i find the measures well thought out in most parts, i am missing a clear separation of concerns.
the first concern are contributors of money. did we again forget them? why a UK resident should be punished and not be able to give tax exempted? i'd say the current proceeding clearly fails here.
the second concern are contributors of time, volunteers, editors, photographers. did we forget them? was the reaction of WMUK and WMF appropriate to retain editors? is it better to "allow and support a career path like the one of roger". for this concern i honestly do not know the answer. somebody Independent should have a look, and i hope to get an answer in a couple of months, from WMUK and WMF.
the third concern is WMUK. somebody independent should have a look as far as i understood. which seems acceptable. but is it necessary to paralyze WMUK with this unnecessary discussion about payment processing and measures which might be perceived overly strict and not at all targeted to the source? may it be perceived that WMF or somebody at WMF has a conflict of interest? i do not have a good answer. i'd find it helpful to get an answer rather earlier than later.
rupert
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi
Thank you Andrew, although I must confess that I thought that my English was very good I apparently chose the wrong words. What I meant to convey was "unusual" and unusual enough to warrant further review…
Jan-Bart
On 29 Sep 2012, at 21:09, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Jan-Bart and others,
I would hope we can wait until we hear the results of the review before jumping to the conclusion that what has gone on is "highly irregular" (which incidentally, clearly is an accusation of wrong doing). There are certainly allegations that have been made that are of serious concern but I would hope people are able to wait to see the evidence and the report before assuming they are well founded.
In the meantime, everyone involved is clearly going through a very difficult time so I hope we are able to pull together, work through this and we can come through a stronger chapter at the end.
Regards,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi
It doesn't work like that, as I indicated there have been some (highly) irregular activities in the past months (which is not the same as what you state below). The timing is such that a decision on Payment Processing (which is indeed not the same as fundraising or applying to the FDC, but is actually quite separate) had to be made now. After what I know was a lot of consultation both ways this is the conclusion that we arrived at.
Please don't read more into this than that. Its not a power grab and its not an accusation of wrongdoing, its what we feel is the right thing to do under the difficult circumstances.
(oh and payment processing is actually work, it does not get done automatically)
Jan-Bart de Vreede Wikimedia Board of Trustees
On 29 Sep 2012, at 19:07, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On 29/09/2012 16:28, Jan-bart de Vreede wrote:
Hi James (and others)
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad faith on the part of the WMF. At this point everyone should be concerned about the fact that over the past months we have had several (highly) irregular activities within the UK chapter. It is important that we (as in the movement) conduct a thorough review to see what the complete facts are so that we can make sure that we can learn from this and draw proper conclusions.
Woah, hold it right there Jan-bart. What *I* find puzzling is how you (personally and WMF in general) assumes that Wikimedia UK has done wrong before this supposedly independent review has started never mind been completed.
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
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
-- Andrew Turvey -- 07403 216 991 @AndrewTurvey http://www.facebook.com/andrew.turvey http://en.wikipedia.org/User:AndrewRT http://englishwikipedian.blogspot.co.uk/
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
Also, "payment processing" should be a trivial, automatic matter that shouldn't detract from whatever else the charity is doing. On Sep 29, 2012 4:55 PM, "Jan-bart de Vreede" jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi James (and others)
What I find puzzling in your reasoning is that you automatically assume bad faith on the part of the WMF. At this point everyone should be concerned about the fact that over the past months we have had several (highly) irregular activities within the UK chapter. It is important that we (as in the movement) conduct a thorough review to see what the complete facts are so that we can make sure that we can learn from this and draw proper conclusions.
In the meantime the fact that the UK will not payment process will allow them to focus on getting things in order. Please recall that payment processing has nothing to do with actual funds, the UK chapter will still apply to the FDC for funds (I am assuming)
Please don't make the foundation be the bad guy in this, this is not about a power grab, this is about finding out what really happened in a potentially very serious situation rather than simply moving on.
Jan-Bart de Vreede Vice Chair Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
On 29 sep. 2012, at 17:06, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As best as I can tell, the WMF doesn't trust any chapter to raise funds, feeling threatened by any slight sign of independence that a chapter might exhibit.
This is a naked power-grab by the WMF as they have taken the opportunity to do what they've been wanting to do for months.
And I am confident that fundraising won't be coming back. Bureaucracies don't surrender power - ever. On Sep 29, 2012 3:07 PM, "HJ Mitchell" hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
The WMF don't trust WMUK to raise funds.
Perhaps too succinct? ;)
(this email is not intended to express my opinion on the issue, because I've yet to form one)
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
*From:* Doug Weller dougweller@gmail.com *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Saturday, 29 September 2012, 14:59 *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation
Can someone here please explain this issue succinctly? Thanks. Doug
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 29, 2012 1:40 PM, "Neil Harris" neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is
voluntarily
throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment processor?
If so, I would have thought that donating to WMUK, even with WMF
acting as
the payment processor, would presumably be entitled to Gift Aid.
Don't be fooled by the WMF's political choices of language. We're not talking about payment processing, we're talking about who is actually fundraising.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk
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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Hi all,
I'm not going to repeat what's in the statement - it speaks for itself. We'll pay very close attention indeed to the results of the governance review, to make sure we are doing enough to safeguard the reputation of not only ourselves as a charity but the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
In the meantime, as Jon has pointed out, we have a job to do and we have to keep on doing it. We will still be submitting our FDC bid (as we would have done, payment processing or no payment processing) and our work as an organisation, which so many of you contribute to in so many ways, continues.
And on the point about 2013 - no-one has made any decisions about the 2013 or future fundraisers and this is not a "power grab" that will permanently exclude us. I'm glad Jan-Bart is participating in this thread, and I think his posts are very helpful, please take them in good faith.
Regards,
Chris Wikimedia UK Chair
As a general point on this matter; I think it is overkill.
There is nothing in all of this that I have seen which would indicate WMUK is not capable of handling donations in the UK. There have been ethical concerns with the board - but nothing that isn't public enough to make sure everything is at least legal (i.e. no villas in the carribean!).
From muy understanding, this won't affect WMUK's funds for 2013, as that
decision lies with the FDC.
On the other hand, allowing WMUK to handle donations means that the movement would obtain extra free money from the UK government, in gift aid.
So, this is a ridiculous decision with no merit.
I'm not going to repeat what's in the statement - it speaks for
itself. We'll pay very close attention indeed to the results of the governance review, to make sure we are doing enough to safeguard the reputation of not only ourselves as a charity but the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
Chis, I would hope it has nothing to to with reputation! And everything to do with doing things properly and with correct ethics.
Reputation won't be a concern in those circumstances!
Tom
On 29 September 2012 22:55, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
review, to make sure we are doing enough to safeguard the reputation of not only ourselves as a charity but the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
Chis, I would hope it has nothing to to with reputation! And everything to do with doing things properly and with correct ethics. Reputation won't be a concern in those circumstances!
The decision appears to be everything to do with reputation.
- d.
On 29 September 2012 22:57, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2012 22:55, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
review, to make sure we are doing enough to safeguard the reputation of
not
only ourselves as a charity but the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
Chis, I would hope it has nothing to to with reputation! And everything
to
do with doing things properly and with correct ethics. Reputation won't be a concern in those circumstances!
The decision appears to be everything to do with reputation.
Yes. My point precisely.
Tom
Hi,
I've taken a while to respond for a number of reasons. As Tom M notes this is upsetting. The other reason is that I'm not reading all of this because as Tom says its sticky. I'm sure that when he says " but the solution is not to use the charity to pay your wage" he didnt mean that as I think he already knows that is not true. However its lines like that that make the newspapers and the courts.... which Is one reason why words like "unfortunate" and other underestimations can be useful. As it is I think that some have used words that overestimate the problems and I'm having difficulty in thinking thats this is not accidental.
I don't intend to defend my statement line by line. It isnt meant to be a vindification. Its meant to be informative to those people who are interested in my understanding of what went on. I don't mention that I gave so much free time to get a tear but to avoid some people thinking that this was a plan driven by money. (If it is then its a poor plan)
One can always blame poor communication but we (WMUK) were trying our best to be transparent and as far as I can see all information that is being discovered was always available. You can always argue that it wasnt well advertised but I'm not sure that we could have done more (in some cases) than issue a press release about me standing down as chair because I was working for MCC or that the Government of Gibraltar was funding Gibraltarpedia with Roger and John as assistants. WMUK were being informed and they were reacting to these events to try and ensure that the situation was understood and properly managed.
So for example wrt imperfect communication I didn't read Tom's breakdown until now, and for that I apologise. If someone wants a particular point addressing then do feel free to email me direct.
Roger
On 29 September 2012 22:58, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
On 29 September 2012 22:57, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2012 22:55, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
review, to make sure we are doing enough to safeguard the reputation
of not
only ourselves as a charity but the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
Chis, I would hope it has nothing to to with reputation! And everything
to
do with doing things properly and with correct ethics. Reputation won't be a concern in those circumstances!
The decision appears to be everything to do with reputation.
Yes. My point precisely.
Tom
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Since you still don't understand what you did wrong, I think you made the right decision by resigning. On Oct 2, 2012 7:58 PM, "Roger Bamkin" victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I've taken a while to respond for a number of reasons. As Tom M notes this is upsetting. The other reason is that I'm not reading all of this because as Tom says its sticky. I'm sure that when he says " but the solution is not to use the charity to pay your wage" he didnt mean that as I think he already knows that is not true. However its lines like that that make the newspapers and the courts.... which Is one reason why words like "unfortunate" and other underestimations can be useful. As it is I think that some have used words that overestimate the problems and I'm having difficulty in thinking thats this is not accidental.
I don't intend to defend my statement line by line. It isnt meant to be a vindification. Its meant to be informative to those people who are interested in my understanding of what went on. I don't mention that I gave so much free time to get a tear but to avoid some people thinking that this was a plan driven by money. (If it is then its a poor plan)
One can always blame poor communication but we (WMUK) were trying our best to be transparent and as far as I can see all information that is being discovered was always available. You can always argue that it wasnt well advertised but I'm not sure that we could have done more (in some cases) than issue a press release about me standing down as chair because I was working for MCC or that the Government of Gibraltar was funding Gibraltarpedia with Roger and John as assistants. WMUK were being informed and they were reacting to these events to try and ensure that the situation was understood and properly managed.
So for example wrt imperfect communication I didn't read Tom's breakdown until now, and for that I apologise. If someone wants a particular point addressing then do feel free to email me direct.
Roger
On 29 September 2012 22:58, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
On 29 September 2012 22:57, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2012 22:55, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
review, to make sure we are doing enough to safeguard the reputation
of not
only ourselves as a charity but the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
Chis, I would hope it has nothing to to with reputation! And
everything to
do with doing things properly and with correct ethics. Reputation won't be a concern in those circumstances!
The decision appears to be everything to do with reputation.
Yes. My point precisely.
Tom
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Roger Bamkin Victuallers Ltd 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Tom,
Neat, insightful, philosophical. Its tricky to decide how best to describe your considered contribution.... maybe empathetic?
I can see with 20/20 hindsight see lots of things I did wrong or could do better. The most recent was to offer some comments here. Apologies to those who might have liked a longer discussion.
R
On 2 October 2012 20:14, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Since you still don't understand what you did wrong, I think you made the right decision by resigning. On Oct 2, 2012 7:58 PM, "Roger Bamkin" victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I've taken a while to respond for a number of reasons. As Tom M notes this is upsetting. The other reason is that I'm not reading all of this because as Tom says its sticky. I'm sure that when he says " but the solution is not to use the charity to pay your wage" he didnt mean that as I think he already knows that is not true. However its lines like that that make the newspapers and the courts.... which Is one reason why words like "unfortunate" and other underestimations can be useful. As it is I think that some have used words that overestimate the problems and I'm having difficulty in thinking thats this is not accidental.
I don't intend to defend my statement line by line. It isnt meant to be a vindification. Its meant to be informative to those people who are interested in my understanding of what went on. I don't mention that I gave so much free time to get a tear but to avoid some people thinking that this was a plan driven by money. (If it is then its a poor plan)
One can always blame poor communication but we (WMUK) were trying our best to be transparent and as far as I can see all information that is being discovered was always available. You can always argue that it wasnt well advertised but I'm not sure that we could have done more (in some cases) than issue a press release about me standing down as chair because I was working for MCC or that the Government of Gibraltar was funding Gibraltarpedia with Roger and John as assistants. WMUK were being informed and they were reacting to these events to try and ensure that the situation was understood and properly managed.
So for example wrt imperfect communication I didn't read Tom's breakdown until now, and for that I apologise. If someone wants a particular point addressing then do feel free to email me direct.
Roger
On 29 September 2012 22:58, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
On 29 September 2012 22:57, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2012 22:55, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
review, to make sure we are doing enough to safeguard the reputation
of not
only ourselves as a charity but the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
Chis, I would hope it has nothing to to with reputation! And
everything to
do with doing things properly and with correct ethics. Reputation won't be a concern in those circumstances!
The decision appears to be everything to do with reputation.
Yes. My point precisely.
Tom
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Roger Bamkin Victuallers Ltd 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2
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
I don't know why you've bothered making any statements here. You just keep leveling accusations against the people that have complained about you rather than actually trying to recognise and address their concerns.
When you accepted the contract with Monmouthshire council, you asked me for my thoughts and I said I thought it would be fine for you to do that kind of work while serving as a trustee, but you have consistently shown a complete lack of understanding of how such a conflict of interest needs to be managed and you continue to do so. Had I realised you lacked that understanding, I would have counseled you differently. On Oct 2, 2012 8:30 PM, "Roger Bamkin" victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
Tom,
Neat, insightful, philosophical. Its tricky to decide how best to describe your considered contribution.... maybe empathetic?
I can see with 20/20 hindsight see lots of things I did wrong or could do better. The most recent was to offer some comments here. Apologies to those who might have liked a longer discussion.
R
On 2 October 2012 20:14, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Since you still don't understand what you did wrong, I think you made the right decision by resigning. On Oct 2, 2012 7:58 PM, "Roger Bamkin" victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I've taken a while to respond for a number of reasons. As Tom M notes this is upsetting. The other reason is that I'm not reading all of this because as Tom says its sticky. I'm sure that when he says " but the solution is not to use the charity to pay your wage" he didnt mean that as I think he already knows that is not true. However its lines like that that make the newspapers and the courts.... which Is one reason why words like "unfortunate" and other underestimations can be useful. As it is I think that some have used words that overestimate the problems and I'm having difficulty in thinking thats this is not accidental.
I don't intend to defend my statement line by line. It isnt meant to be a vindification. Its meant to be informative to those people who are interested in my understanding of what went on. I don't mention that I gave so much free time to get a tear but to avoid some people thinking that this was a plan driven by money. (If it is then its a poor plan)
One can always blame poor communication but we (WMUK) were trying our best to be transparent and as far as I can see all information that is being discovered was always available. You can always argue that it wasnt well advertised but I'm not sure that we could have done more (in some cases) than issue a press release about me standing down as chair because I was working for MCC or that the Government of Gibraltar was funding Gibraltarpedia with Roger and John as assistants. WMUK were being informed and they were reacting to these events to try and ensure that the situation was understood and properly managed.
So for example wrt imperfect communication I didn't read Tom's breakdown until now, and for that I apologise. If someone wants a particular point addressing then do feel free to email me direct.
Roger
On 29 September 2012 22:58, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
On 29 September 2012 22:57, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2012 22:55, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
> review, to make sure we are doing enough to safeguard the
reputation of not
> only ourselves as a charity but the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
Chis, I would hope it has nothing to to with reputation! And
everything to
do with doing things properly and with correct ethics. Reputation won't be a concern in those circumstances!
The decision appears to be everything to do with reputation.
Yes. My point precisely.
Tom
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Roger Bamkin Victuallers Ltd 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2
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
-- Roger Bamkin Victuallers Ltd 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Indeed. I'm now fully convinced that fundraising agreements are only a tactic by WMF to prevent any chapter from being operationally independent from it.
If I remember correctly, fundraising agreements, or payment processing, was originally invented when WMDE began making deals with external sponsors to secure its own funding, in a way that bypassed WMF in the negotiation process. The fundraising agreement was thus invented to make sure WMDE derives its main income from WMF projects, preventing them from becoming independent from WMF in its source of income.
Now, a few years down the line, WMF is stripping first the medium-sized chapters, then WMUK, of fundraising status, this time to prevent us from being independent from WMF in fundraising and other operations.
Having seen the drama of the last few years as a regular chapter volunteer and Wikimania attendee, I've had enough of this. I've lost trust in the WMF in the way they treat chapters too. It is becoming clearer and clearer to me that WMF is simply using chapters as pawns in their game of chess, rather than genuine-heartedly supporting the growth of local Wikimedian communities in their independent efforts to promote the Wikimedia mission.
On 29 September 2012 16:06, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
As best as I can tell, the WMF doesn't trust any chapter to raise funds, feeling threatened by any slight sign of independence that a chapter might exhibit.
This is a naked power-grab by the WMF as they have taken the opportunity to do what they've been wanting to do for months.
And I am confident that fundraising won't be coming back. Bureaucracies don't surrender power - ever. On Sep 29, 2012 3:07 PM, "HJ Mitchell" hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
The WMF don't trust WMUK to raise funds.
Perhaps too succinct? ;)
(this email is not intended to express my opinion on the issue, because I've yet to form one)
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
*From:* Doug Weller dougweller@gmail.com *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Saturday, 29 September 2012, 14:59 *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation
Can someone here please explain this issue succinctly? Thanks. Doug
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 29, 2012 1:40 PM, "Neil Harris" neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 29/09/12 13:20, James Farrar wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is
voluntarily
throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
Doesn't Gift Aid depend on the recipient, not the payment processor?
If so, I would have thought that donating to WMUK, even with WMF
acting as
the payment processor, would presumably be entitled to Gift Aid.
Don't be fooled by the WMF's political choices of language. We're not talking about payment processing, we're talking about who is actually fundraising.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Doug Weller http://www.ramtops.co.uk
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
James, if you are accusing a charity of throwing away money could you be specific as to which charity you are accusing of throwing away money?
I'm not aware of any of WMUK's financial decisions being disputed.
By contrast the WMF by processing the payments for this years fundraiser will lose the movement as a whole hundreds of thousands of pounds. This is partly because they are not a UK registered charity and WMUK is, so Gift Aid of probably more than £100,000 won't be achieved, but I suspect that even more will be lost because as a US organisation they can't collect by direct debits. Over the next few decades that will lose the movement several times as much as the foregone Gift Aid money.
However the WMF doesn't have a formal membership structure, or at least not one I'm aware of. So were you suggesting that WMUK has been throwing away money?
WSC
On 29 September 2012 13:20, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there goes my donation. On Sep 28, 2012 9:16 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the
Foundation
which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's fundraiser.
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
Right, so money->SF and so much for Gift Aid?
- d.
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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 29 September 2012 20:58, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
James, if you are accusing a charity of throwing away money could you be specific as to which charity you are accusing of throwing away money?
WMF: by pulling fundraising in-house, they're throwing away the ~30% [1] HM Government would be adding to the donation pool were it collected by WMUK.
- d.
[1] rough guesstimate average. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_aid for how it works. This is why charitable status is such a prize, because it means more money for free.
Whoever decided that UK donations to the fundraiser wouldn't be Gift Aid eligible. According to the statement, that's both WMF and WMUK. On Sep 29, 2012 8:59 PM, "WereSpielChequers" werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
James, if you are accusing a charity of throwing away money could you be specific as to which charity you are accusing of throwing away money?
I'm not aware of any of WMUK's financial decisions being disputed.
By contrast the WMF by processing the payments for this years fundraiser will lose the movement as a whole hundreds of thousands of pounds. This is partly because they are not a UK registered charity and WMUK is, so Gift Aid of probably more than £100,000 won't be achieved, but I suspect that even more will be lost because as a US organisation they can't collect by direct debits. Over the next few decades that will lose the movement several times as much as the foregone Gift Aid money.
However the WMF doesn't have a formal membership structure, or at least not one I'm aware of. So were you suggesting that WMUK has been throwing away money?
WSC
On 29 September 2012 13:20, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there goes my donation. On Sep 28, 2012 9:16 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the
Foundation
which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our
blog
regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's fundraiser.
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
Right, so money->SF and so much for Gift Aid?
- d.
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
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
I think it is fairly obvious that this was a WMF decision. On Sep 29, 2012 9:33 PM, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Whoever decided that UK donations to the fundraiser wouldn't be Gift Aid eligible. According to the statement, that's both WMF and WMUK. On Sep 29, 2012 8:59 PM, "WereSpielChequers" werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
James, if you are accusing a charity of throwing away money could you be specific as to which charity you are accusing of throwing away money?
I'm not aware of any of WMUK's financial decisions being disputed.
By contrast the WMF by processing the payments for this years fundraiser will lose the movement as a whole hundreds of thousands of pounds. This is partly because they are not a UK registered charity and WMUK is, so Gift Aid of probably more than £100,000 won't be achieved, but I suspect that even more will be lost because as a US organisation they can't collect by direct debits. Over the next few decades that will lose the movement several times as much as the foregone Gift Aid money.
However the WMF doesn't have a formal membership structure, or at least not one I'm aware of. So were you suggesting that WMUK has been throwing away money?
WSC
On 29 September 2012 13:20, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.comwrote:
Well, there goes my donation. On Sep 28, 2012 9:16 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
> I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the Foundation > which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog > regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's > fundraiser. > http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
Right, so money->SF and so much for Gift Aid?
- d.
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
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
Then the statement should have been more honest... On Sep 29, 2012 9:41 PM, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is fairly obvious that this was a WMF decision. On Sep 29, 2012 9:33 PM, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Whoever decided that UK donations to the fundraiser wouldn't be Gift Aid eligible. According to the statement, that's both WMF and WMUK. On Sep 29, 2012 8:59 PM, "WereSpielChequers" werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
James, if you are accusing a charity of throwing away money could you be specific as to which charity you are accusing of throwing away money?
I'm not aware of any of WMUK's financial decisions being disputed.
By contrast the WMF by processing the payments for this years fundraiser will lose the movement as a whole hundreds of thousands of pounds. This is partly because they are not a UK registered charity and WMUK is, so Gift Aid of probably more than £100,000 won't be achieved, but I suspect that even more will be lost because as a US organisation they can't collect by direct debits. Over the next few decades that will lose the movement several times as much as the foregone Gift Aid money.
However the WMF doesn't have a formal membership structure, or at least not one I'm aware of. So were you suggesting that WMUK has been throwing away money?
WSC
On 29 September 2012 13:20, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.comwrote:
Well, there goes my donation. On Sep 28, 2012 9:16 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
> On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating < > chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the > Foundation > > which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our > blog > > regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's > > fundraiser. > > > http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati... > > > Right, so money->SF and so much for Gift Aid? > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Sep 29, 2012 9:58 PM, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Then the statement should have been more honest...
This is politics. It's how the game is played. You avoid a mutually harmful fight by allowing the weaker party to save face by pretending it was their decision. On Sep 29, 2012 9:58 PM, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Then the statement should have been more honest... On Sep 29, 2012 9:41 PM, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is fairly obvious that this was a WMF decision. On Sep 29, 2012 9:33 PM, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Whoever decided that UK donations to the fundraiser wouldn't be Gift Aid eligible. According to the statement, that's both WMF and WMUK. On Sep 29, 2012 8:59 PM, "WereSpielChequers" < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
James, if you are accusing a charity of throwing away money could you be specific as to which charity you are accusing of throwing away money?
I'm not aware of any of WMUK's financial decisions being disputed.
By contrast the WMF by processing the payments for this years fundraiser will lose the movement as a whole hundreds of thousands of pounds. This is partly because they are not a UK registered charity and WMUK is, so Gift Aid of probably more than £100,000 won't be achieved, but I suspect that even more will be lost because as a US organisation they can't collect by direct debits. Over the next few decades that will lose the movement several times as much as the foregone Gift Aid money.
However the WMF doesn't have a formal membership structure, or at least not one I'm aware of. So were you suggesting that WMUK has been throwing away money?
WSC
On 29 September 2012 13:20, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.comwrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.comwrote:
> Well, there goes my donation. > On Sep 28, 2012 9:16 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote: > >> On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating < >> chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the >> Foundation >> > which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our >> blog >> > regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's >> > fundraiser. >> > >> http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati... >> >> >> Right, so money->SF and so much for Gift Aid? >> >> >> - d. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
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
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
On 29 September 2012 20:58, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.comwrote:
James, if you are accusing a charity of throwing away money could you be specific as to which charity you are accusing of throwing away money?
I'm not aware of any of WMUK's financial decisions being disputed.
By contrast the WMF by processing the payments for this years fundraiser will lose the movement as a whole hundreds of thousands of pounds. This is partly because they are not a UK registered charity and WMUK is, so Gift Aid of probably more than £100,000 won't be achieved, but I suspect that even more will be lost because as a US organisation they can't collect by direct debits. Over the next few decades that will lose the movement several times as much as the foregone Gift Aid money.
Indeed. Lesson here: WMF would prefer to lose 30% of its UK income than risk a PR scandal in the UK. I'm not sure when we (they?) have become so cash-strapped and image-conscious.
However the WMF doesn't have a formal membership structure, or at least not one I'm aware of. So were you suggesting that WMUK has been throwing away money?
WSC
On 29 September 2012 13:20, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, and for now I remain a member.
This is subject to finding out precisely why the charity is voluntarily throwing away money. On Sep 28, 2012 11:11 PM, "Deryck Chan" deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
There is, an will always be, the option to donate to WMUK rather than WMF even if WMUK isn't the default payment processor anymore.
What I can certainly see is a fragmented 2012 fundraiser, with certain donors staying with WMUK and others switching to WMF because that's where the default landing page now points them to. Lots of returning donors will be very very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the same time.
On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there goes my donation. On Sep 28, 2012 9:16 PM, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the
Foundation
which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our
blog
regarding the management of conflicts of interests and this year's fundraiser.
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundati...
Right, so money->SF and so much for Gift Aid?
- d.
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
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
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org