On 06/08/12 16:30, Fae wrote:
Yes, all Trustees have to maintain standards of probity.
Gordo
Could you explain that comment?
Thanks,
Fae
___
I am suggesting that the Chair of a board (along with Treasurer and
Secretary) should have the same standards as any other Trust
On Aug 6, 2012 4:39 PM, "steve virgin" wrote:
>
>
> If this starts into something please can you move this to private
> conversation rather than a public one with hundreds of people copied in
> please?
>
> Thanks
This is a matter that affects the whole chapter, so it makes sense to
discuss it on
Fae
Sent: 06 August 2012 16:31
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A message from Wikimedia UK
> Yes, all Trustees have to maintain standards of probity.
>
> Gordo
Could you explain that comment?
Thanks,
Fae
___
Wik
> Yes, all Trustees have to maintain standards of probity.
>
> Gordo
Could you explain that comment?
Thanks,
Fae
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedi
On 06/08/12 16:21, Michael Peel wrote:
Indeed, his role as a trustee was, and still is, unaffected by arbcom's
decision. It was his role as Chair that (sadly) became untenable.
Thanks,
Mike
Yes, all Trustees have to maintain standards of probity.
Gordo
On 6 Aug 2012, at 08:11, WilliamH wrote:
> Because the blog post response to The Daily Telegraph article wrote that
> "“The Board is united in the view that this decision does not affect his role
> as a Trustee of the charity."
>
> Then again my conclusion was only an inference based on a sequ
Because the blog post response to The Daily Telegraph article wrote that
"“The Board is united in the view that this decision does not affect his
role as a Trustee of the charity."
Then again my conclusion was only an inference based on a sequence of
events. I take it you still stand by that comme
On 5 Aug 2012, at 18:34, WilliamH wrote:
> I find it odd that Ashley grasped the incompatibility of his position before
> the rest of the board did, and more to the point, that they only did grasp it
> after he stepped down.
{{citation needed}}. I'm curious to know why you think this?
Thanks,
Got it.
I find it odd that Ashley grasped the incompatibility of his position
before the rest of the board did, and more to the point, that they only did
grasp it *after* he stepped down. Of those who signed the EGM, what are
your views on that?
WH.
On 6 August 2012 01:19, Thomas Dalton wrote
On 6 August 2012 01:11, WilliamH wrote:
>
> I see that the EGM call has been closed as unsuccessful. Do calls like that
> have a legal expiry date based on their opening, or was it just considered
> stale?
Calls like that don't have any legal meaning - the law only talks
about the actual reques
--
>> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:12:44 +0100
>> From: william.wiki.ad...@gmail.com
>> To: jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk; wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A message from Wikimedia UK
>>
>>
>> Thanks Jon. Please terminate my membership of WMUK. T
12 01:12:44 +0100
> From: william.wiki.ad...@gmail.com
> To: jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk; wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A message from Wikimedia UK
>
>
> Thanks Jon. Please terminate my membership of WMUK. This is not without
> regret, as my own p
h the situation would agree.
Seddon
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:12:44 +0100
From: william.wiki.ad...@gmail.com
To: jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk; wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A message from Wikimedia UK
Thanks Jon. Please terminate my membership of WMUK. This is not wi
Thanks Jon. Please terminate my membership of WMUK. This is not without
regret, as my own personal albeit scant interactions with Fae have been
wholly positive, and WMUK has always come across as very professional in
its dealings with me. But, of a group promoting the editing of Wikipedia
whose cha
14 matches
Mail list logo
