We can assume you decision was arrived at in good faith without agreeing with it.
Keeping the report secret while a secret comittee reviews it and prepares a response is, I believe, the wrong decision.
I hope you will publish the report now so that the response can take account of comments by the WMF and WMUK communities
Joe On Feb 6, 2013 1:28 PM, "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I would suggest that real-world discussions like this do not benefit *at all* from quoting *editing* principles like "Assume Good Faith".
It's weird and cultish. Besides, it is irrelevant. Good faith has nothing to do with accuracy of judgment, or objective morality.
Andreas
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM, fabian@unpopular.org.uk wrote:
Hi Tom,
I think it is more a matter of what standards "we" (as the membership) should expect from a) the board and b) WMUK the firm (which is undoubtedly what it is).
I value you your contributions because you are always pushing "us" (the membership, the board and the staff, i.e. the firm as a whole) to raise our standards. Often what you propose is quite practicable, if it wasn't for the other activities the organisation is doing. It is Jon's job to organise those priorities. You may disagree with how he goes about that, as no doubt we all shall from time to time. However, I am not sure how helpful it is to question his good faith, short of supplying pretty clear evidence to support what your saying.
You have drawn certain conclusions from previous experience, but I do not think that is anyway indicative of any lack of good faith. From my own experience of dealing with the office - and indeed as reflected on the list - one problem seems to be we have all been over-ambitious about what we want to achieve. This has lead to the office becoming very hectic, with a certain amount of over work. With current plans to recruit more staff, this should lead a situation when WMUK (the firm) can more closely realise the sort of standards which you advocate.
Please don't hold back from raising these issues and advocating more exacting standards - just be a bit more understanding if they are not always met.
all the best
Fabian (User:Leutha)
Message: 5 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:30:17 +0000 From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review Message-ID: <
CALTQccdx7o8GEaPatsvT+VN3JBLukBOEHkJkimwE3gRkvWhRCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I don't want background. I want you to publish the report now. You don't need any more response than "we're looking at it and are beginning discussions with the community, we'll have a fuller response in a few weeks". You could have written that months ago.
Last time you used the "we need to prepare a response" excuse to delay publishing something you ended up publishing it without any response anyway and nothing bad happened, so your good faith is very much in
doubt.
On Feb 6, 2013 9:16 AM, "Jon Davies" jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
Tom, It might be sensible to check with us directly before posting. We
have* been preparing but need to get a lot of consensus even for a 'short response'. I think your email was unfair to Chris and a little rude. Please assume good faith.
Phone me if you want more background.
Jon
On 6 February 2013 00:58, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
It doesn't take two working days to prepare a short response saying that the charity is now reviewing the report. In fact, that could have been prepared in advance, since it is the same regardless of the contents. It is extremely premature to be commenting on the contents to the press before we've had any discussion about it.
Publish the report now. You've had plenty of time. You're supposed to be running an organisation that prides itself on being transparent. On Jan 31, 2013 11:15 AM, "Chris Keating" <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
> 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final
report
> > - this is expected by the end of this week and will be published > promptly > > (not necessarily immediately) when we get it. > > Why won't you publish it immeadiately? > > So that we have a chance to prepare responses for any media inquiries that might result from it. As I say, we will be prompt about it, and
I
also want to make sure there is a chance for the community to review the findings before our board meeting on the 9th. Someone from Compass Partnership will be attending that meeting, so if there are any questions or clarifications from the community, we can ask them then.
Hope this make sense,
Chris
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
-- *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*. Mobile (0044) 7803 505
169
tweet @jonatreesdavies
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org