I'd just like to ask once more for some substantiation of Mr. Sinclair's business background and qualifications as a "career financial manager". I've tried to resolve this privately via e-mail, but instead of answers, was treated to a polite but frustrating and ultimately runaroundish runaround as he refused to name even one actual company for which he's served in a financial capacity. The only name I've heard so far - Businessfirst - doesn't look like a real company, beyond a name and a proxy address (both street address and IP address). There is something not quite right here, and if there are any necessary amendments to Mr. Sinclair's claims ("I'm a career financial manager - I first ran a business in the 80's, qualified as an ACA, moved to the board of a £multimillion company as their finance and admin manager, and I've worked as a financial controller or manager for two PLCs…") it'd be better to hear them sooner rather than later.
On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 22:49 -0700, franklin hammond wrote:
I'd just like to ask once more for some substantiation of Mr. Sinclair's business background and qualifications as a "career financial manager". I've tried to resolve this privately via e-mail, but instead of answers, was treated to a polite but frustrating and ultimately runaroundish runaround as he refused to name even one actual company for which he's served in a financial capacity. The only name I've heard so far - Businessfirst - doesn't look like a real company, beyond a name and a proxy address (both street address and IP address). There is something not quite right here, and if there are any necessary amendments to Mr. Sinclair's claims ("I'm a career financial manager - I first ran a business in the 80's, qualified as an ACA, moved to the board of a £multimillion company as their finance and admin manager, and I've worked as a financial controller or manager for two PLCs…") it'd be better to hear them sooner rather than later.
While the question of updates are being asked, can the above be answered as well please.
Thanks,
KTC
On Tue, August 12, 2008 21:26, Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 22:49 -0700, franklin hammond wrote:
I'd just like to ask once more for some substantiation of Mr. Sinclair's business background and qualifications as a "career financial manager". I've tried to resolve this privately via e-mail, but instead of answers, was treated to a polite but frustrating and ultimately runaroundish runaround as he refused to name even one actual company for which he's served in a financial capacity. The only name I've heard so far - Businessfirst - doesn't look like a real company, beyond a name and a proxy address (both street address and IP address). There is something not quite right here, and if there are any necessary amendments to Mr. Sinclair's claims ("I'm a career financial manager - I first ran a business in the 80's, qualified as an ACA, moved to the board of a £multimillion company as their finance and admin manager, and I've worked as a financial controller or manager for two PLCsâ¦") it'd be better to hear them sooner rather than later.
While the question of updates are being asked, can the above be answered as well please.
On this particular matter, and whilst I don't wish to be difficult, I will advise you quite simply that the other Directors of Wiki Educational Resources Limited have, as they are required to do by law, satisfied themselves that the present Finance Director - Paul Sinclair - has the requisite qualifications and experience which are appropriate for the task required of him and that they knew his background prior to his appointment.
As such, and in recognition that the information already required to be made public is indeed so, no further information will be publicised on this matter.
There is no excuse to 'go fishing' for any reason and whilst the release of certain information about a Company Director is demanded within the UK Company Law system, there is no requirement to release additional data and the Board do not choose to do so.
Alison Wheeler for WER Ltd.
There is no excuse to 'go fishing' for any reason and whilst the release of certain information about a Company Director is demanded within the UK Company Law system, there is no requirement to release additional data and the Board do not choose to do so.
Correction, there is no *legal* requirement. There is a moral requirement that people know who it is representing them. As I understand it, Paul will have to stand down at the upcoming AGM, since he was appointed not elected. Assuming you actually allow interested parties to take part in the AGM (if you don't, you can expect trouble), I strongly doubt he'll be elected without telling the electorate a little more about himself. His on-wiki identity, at the very least.
I, amongst others, have been seeing these calls for additional information as very close to trolling / stalking. Taking your points in order however:
On Tue, August 12, 2008 23:51, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Correction, there is no *legal* requirement. There is a moral requirement that people know who it is representing them.
"Moral" requirements don't cut much ice in this situation. Like it or not, WER Limited is obliged to operate under the Company Law of England & Wales as that is the law it is registered under. The Company as a whole represents Wikimedia in the UK. It doesn't, per se, represent individuals.
As I understand it, Paul will have to stand down at the upcoming AGM, since he was appointed not elected.
That is correct. One-third of the Board is required to resign each year and may seek re-appointment.
Assuming you actually allow interested parties to take part in the AGM (if you don't, you can expect trouble), I strongly doubt he'll be elected without telling the electorate a little more about himself.
As with every other registered company we will have an AGM to which all members of the Company will be invited, they being the "interested parties" required by law who are empowered to vote. As regards your bracketed aside I do not appreciate threats and would suggest you cease making them.
His on-wiki identity, at the very least.
As I said above, this repeated calling for what is, in every sense, unnecessary information - from a legal standpoint - is becoming very close to stalking. Should *any* member of or candidate for the Board wish to disclose information about themselves in addition to that required by Company Law to be published is their choice and theirs alone. It will never be something demanded by the Company.
Alison Wheeler
You'll have to forgive me for *really* not understanding how a few simple question for information from a number of people on the background of the company treasurer which provides him with the experience for the position is "trolling / stalking".
There's a couple of things that has been asked for that I can immediately recall.
First, who Paul is on-wiki. Considering we are talking about a Director (and if it ever get charitable status, trustee) of a Wikimedia Chapter, is an entirely reasonable question.
Secondly, one or more of the organisation for which Paul worked for in a financial capacity in the past prior to taking up the position of treasurer. You'll have to forgive those of us who isn't satisfied with a mere "I was financial controller / manager for multi-million £ company / PLCs, but we're not going to tell you who those companies are, just trust us", especially given the state of the company at the moment.
No one (AFAIK) is asking for personal details and what not, only basic details that will assure them that the company treasurer does indeed have the experience for the position.
His on-wiki identity, at the very least.
As I said above, this repeated calling for what is, in every sense, unnecessary information - from a legal standpoint
Well, a number of different people obviously seems to disagree with you that providing some substantiation to the claimed experience is unnecessary. I'll be more worried if there's no one that want that basic assurance.
If I claim (as is true) that I have been a charity trustee / (subsidiary) company director, I would wholly expect to have to answer the question "which charity / company".
KTC
I can't claim to have followed this list or the activities of Wikimedia UK generally for that long but the issue of Paul's background has very quickly emerged as a significant one. I think it is disappointing that Alison doesn't seem to feel that this organization should be striving for transparency above and beyond what is required by law especially considering the desire for charity status. Looking at the data that Company House hold it would seem that the directors have a lot more important things to worry about than trying to keep information about Paul's background out of the public eye.
Although I have seen the calls for more information about Paul repeated I don't feel it is reasonable to brand these as "trolling" or "stalking". Whilst I have no knowledge of what motives particular individuals to make these calls I can recognise the desire for greater openness.
I think it seems clear that whilst the questions about Paul continue many people will lack the confidence to donate their cash to the organisation which I assume is part of the longer term strategy to support its operations. I became aware of these ongoing concerns very quickly and I suspect others will also do so.
Adam
Al (Majorly) knows Paul's identity and is satisfied with his qualifications and suitability for the job, which is enough for me. I'm not sure it's constructive for people to keep pushing this.
However I think it is legitimate for people to hope that membership would be expanded prior to the AGM, either by accepting new members at the meeting or by letting people on this list sign up for free over the next few weeks (since accepting fees is still not an option). WMUK is supposed to represent all UK Wikimedians, for which open membership seems like an absolute base requirement.
Tom
2008/8/13 Adam Brookes adam.brookes@gmail.com
I can't claim to have followed this list or the activities of Wikimedia UK generally for that long but the issue of Paul's background has very quickly emerged as a significant one. I think it is disappointing that Alison doesn't seem to feel that this organization should be striving for transparency above and beyond what is required by law especially considering the desire for charity status. Looking at the data that Company House hold it would seem that the directors have a lot more important things to worry about than trying to keep information about Paul's background out of the public eye.
Although I have seen the calls for more information about Paul repeated I don't feel it is reasonable to brand these as "trolling" or "stalking". Whilst I have no knowledge of what motives particular individuals to make these calls I can recognise the desire for greater openness.
I think it seems clear that whilst the questions about Paul continue many people will lack the confidence to donate their cash to the organisation which I assume is part of the longer term strategy to support its operations. I became aware of these ongoing concerns very quickly and I suspect others will also do so.
Adam
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 13:19 +0100, Tom Holden wrote:
Al (Majorly) knows Paul's identity and is satisfied with his qualifications and suitability for the job, which is enough for me. I'm not sure it's constructive for people to keep pushing this.
The only thing I've seen Al mentioned on this list is that he think he knows who Paul is on-wiki, nothing on the questions about prior experience. Though since it was the first time I have commented on this subject / ask those questions yesterday (note Alison: hard to define someone as stalking when it was the first time that person has asked about something), it is possible Al has be in private conversation with those that has asked before indicating his satisfaction.
I am not actually suggesting Paul is not qualified for the job. For all I know, he is, and is working very hard in getting the bank account open and the company getting charitable status.
It's simple questions. If Paul didn't for whatever reasons want to answer it, he only need to say so, and when it come time for (re-)election, people will judge on their own with or without that information. However, don't be surprised if some people isn't satisfied with a "I know, not going to tell you, just trust me", whoever that "I" might be (rest of the Board / Al / ...).
KTC
2008/8/13 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
It's simple questions. If Paul didn't for whatever reasons want to answer it, he only need to say so, and when it come time for (re-)election, people will judge on their own with or without that information. However, don't be surprised if some people isn't satisfied with a "I know, not going to tell you, just trust me", whoever that "I" might be (rest of the Board / Al / ...).
Part of the problem is being involved in a project with sociopaths like Daniel Brandt and his friends stalking those involved.
- d.
At 15:40 +0100 13/8/08, David Gerard wrote:
2008/8/13 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
It's simple questions. If Paul didn't for whatever reasons want to answer it, he only need to say so, and when it come time for (re-)election, people will judge on their own with or without that information. However, don't be surprised if some people isn't satisfied with a "I know, not going to tell you, just trust me", whoever that "I" might be (rest of the Board / Al / ...).
Part of the problem is being involved in a project with sociopaths like Daniel Brandt and his friends stalking those involved.
- d.
Does that apply to members as well as the company directors?
Gordo
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 15:40 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
2008/8/13 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
It's simple questions. If Paul didn't for whatever reasons want to answer it, he only need to say so, and when it come time for (re-)election, people will judge on their own with or without that information. However, don't be surprised if some people isn't satisfied with a "I know, not going to tell you, just trust me", whoever that "I" might be (rest of the Board / Al / ...).
Part of the problem is being involved in a project with sociopaths like Daniel Brandt and his friends stalking those involved.
(If I'm understanding what you're saying.)
They are obsessive with "outing" the real life identity of pseudo-anonymous editors, they lose interest pretty quickly if the real life identity is known as obviously is the case here.
KTC
2008/8/14 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 15:40 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
2008/8/13 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
It's simple questions. If Paul didn't for whatever reasons want to answer it, he only need to say so, and when it come time for (re-)election, people will judge on their own with or without that information. However, don't be surprised if some people isn't satisfied with a "I know, not going to tell you, just trust me", whoever that "I" might be (rest of the Board / Al / ...).
Part of the problem is being involved in a project with sociopaths like Daniel Brandt and his friends stalking those involved.
(If I'm understanding what you're saying.)
They are obsessive with "outing" the real life identity of pseudo-anonymous editors, they lose interest pretty quickly if the real life identity is known as obviously is the case here.
Well, in some instances, there has been real-life harassment if editors are particularly disliked. If people had a particular animus against Paul as an editor, I'm sure they would go after him in real life if they could.
-- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org