Thanks, Stevie.
Andreas
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Stevie Benton <
stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Just a couple of things here to tidy up from my side. Apologies for my
> lack of communication over the weekend but as it was my anniversary and
> working may ha
You got the job of greeter? Damn, I was going to apply for that.
--
Rexx
On 11 February 2013 20:46, Gordon Joly wrote:
> On 11/02/13 16:51, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>> Unremarkably, I have first-hand knowledge of some things, and not of
>> others.
>>
> Welcome to the human race.
>
> Gordo
>
>
>
On 11/02/13 16:51, Andy Mabbett wrote:
Unremarkably, I have first-hand knowledge of some things, and not of others.
Welcome to the human race.
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
On 11 February 2013 17:29, Charles Matthews
wrote:
>Let's get
> over it - all of it. Will you take my point now, that the important
> matter is that the membership sees that the Board will implement the
> review?
Surely you can do better than the "but X is worse!" fallacy.
- d.
_
On Feb 11, 2013 5:07 PM, "Charles Matthews"
wrote:
>
> On 11 February 2013 17:02, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> > I'm not sure why you've attached your top-posted comment to my post;
> > but to be clear; my purpose is not to apportion blame, nor to make
> > criticisms I'm interested in correcting a fals
On 11 February 2013 17:20, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Yes, but he didn't say the description in the media is accurate, so he
> hasn't contradicted the main point Andy is making.
But I didn't say that he had. Look, please out the axe away: further
random hair-splitting is unlikely to add to the free c
Yes, but he didn't say the description in the media is accurate, so he
hasn't contradicted the main point Andy is making.
On Feb 11, 2013 5:17 PM, "Charles Matthews"
wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 17:11, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > The wmuk Secretary said nothing of the sort...
>
> Mike said that nei
On 11 February 2013 17:11, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The wmuk Secretary said nothing of the sort...
Mike said that neither of Andy's statements would be at all accurate.
He doesn't
see things the same way.
Charles
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau
The wmuk Secretary said nothing of the sort...
On Feb 11, 2013 5:07 PM, "Charles Matthews"
wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 17:02, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> > I'm not sure why you've attached your top-posted comment to my post;
> > but to be clear; my purpose is not to apportion blame, nor to make
> > c
On 11 February 2013 17:02, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> I'm not sure why you've attached your top-posted comment to my post;
> but to be clear; my purpose is not to apportion blame, nor to make
> criticisms I'm interested in correcting a false impression that has
> been given in the media of a dispute w
I'm not sure why you've attached your top-posted comment to my post;
but to be clear; my purpose is not to apportion blame, nor to make
criticisms I'm interested in correcting a false impression that has
been given in the media of a dispute which did not occur. I'm
delighted - and relieved - that
On 11 February 2013 15:23, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 15:20, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> On 11 February 2013 14:18, Michael Peel
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11 Feb 2013, at 14:01, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>>
It seems to me that "...included a delay in accepting the donation of
the
On 11 February 2013 15:49, Jon Davies wrote:
> I think you are mistaking me for someone with the power of a Stalin. This is
> a community movement with staff , trustees and volunteers all of which have
> played roles in this and it is only the staff over whom I have authority.
I'm not blaming you
I think you are mistaking me for someone with the power of a Stalin. This
is a community movement with staff , trustees and volunteers all of which
have played roles in this and it is only the staff over whom I have
authority.
I also think your email style is horrible and to quote yourself 'totall
would have hoped that you realised that
many issues become more complex in practice and accept this as a case in
point
all the best
Fabian
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:38:04 +
> From: Thomas Dalton
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Gover
On Feb 11, 2013 3:25 PM, "Jon Davies" wrote:
>
> It is so easy to think this was simple and why did it take so long. It
just did. From October 1st 2011, through two legal drafts, the involvement
of staff and trustees over two continents, countless meetings, phone calls
and emails, it all took time
It is so easy to think this was simple and why did it take so long. It just
did. From October 1st 2011, through two legal drafts, the involvement of
staff and trustees over two continents, countless meetings, phone calls and
emails, it all took time.
Let's be happy we got there and toast the succe
On 11 February 2013 15:20, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 14:18, Michael Peel wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Feb 2013, at 14:01, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>
>>> It seems to me that "...included a delay in accepting the donation of
>>> the intellectual property of QRpedia..." is more accurate; or perh
On 11 February 2013 14:18, Michael Peel wrote:
>
> On 11 Feb 2013, at 14:01, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that "...included a delay in accepting the donation of
>> the intellectual property of QRpedia..." is more accurate; or perhaps
>> "..included a dispute among trustees over whethe
On 11 Feb 2013, at 14:01, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> It seems to me that "...included a delay in accepting the donation of
> the intellectual property of QRpedia..." is more accurate; or perhaps
> "..included a dispute among trustees over whether to accept the
> donation of the intellectual property
On 11 February 2013 14:01, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> It seems to me that "...included a delay in accepting the donation of
> the intellectual property of QRpedia..." is more accurate; or perhaps
> "..included a dispute among trustees over whether to accept the
> donation of the intellectual property
It seems to me that "...included a delay in accepting the donation of
the intellectual property of QRpedia..." is more accurate; or perhaps
"..included a dispute among trustees over whether to accept the
donation of the intellectual property of QRpedia..."
(note corrected capitalisation of "QRped
Do you have a term of wording you'd prefer, Andy?
Stevie
On 11 February 2013 12:41, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 11:30, Stevie Benton
> wrote:
> > Dispute over QRpedia - the description isn't ideal, of course. However,
> to
> > outsiders it's probably reasonable to think there is
On 11 February 2013 11:30, Stevie Benton wrote:
> Dispute over QRpedia - the description isn't ideal, of course. However, to
> outsiders it's probably reasonable to think there is a dispute given the
> length of time it took to reach an agreement.
It's not reasonable that the impression given is
Hello everyone,
Just a couple of things here to tidy up from my side. Apologies for my lack
of communication over the weekend but as it was my anniversary and working
may have led to it being my last, I hope you'll forgive me.
- Use of logos - the use of logos is covered by fair use. Publicat
On 9 February 2013 21:01, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 20:56, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone wrote:
>
>>> http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity
>
>> This also refe
"Dispute" may be putting it a bit strongly but obviously there was a
disagreement or it wouldn't have taken this long to reach an agreement.
"Dispute" does suggest a dispute over who owns it, which was never true.
Any dispute was over the future, not the past.
On Feb 9, 2013 8:57 PM, "Andy Mabbett"
Not from me, if that is what you are implying. I have not been in touch
with either publication. As for the Signpost piece, it is a fair summary of
what they wrote, which is the Signpost's job to deliver.
Andreas
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 9:01 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 20:56, An
On 9 February 2013 20:56, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone wrote:
>> http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity
> This also refers to an "an intellectual property dispute over
> QRPe
On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone wrote:
> http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity
This also refers to an "an intellectual property dispute over
QRPedia", which is, of course, bunkum.
--
Andy Mabbett
@p
I got revison 5. Can we see 1 thru 4?
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone wrote:
[not speaking for anyone but myself]
> 1) Using the WMF logo instead of Wikimedia UK one (do we allow use of logos
> for press purposes?)
WMF used to explicitly say on the press page that use of the logos in
press articles about Wikimedia sites
On 09/02/2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone wrote:
1) Using the WMF logo instead of Wikimedia UK one (do we allow use of
logos for press purposes?)
Fair use and or fair dealing ?
KTC
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
__
Thanks Andreas for that. A few comments in-line for some corrections -
Stevie can you contact them?
On 8 February 2013 17:20, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Press coverage:
>
>
> http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Governance/article/1170282/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/
>
>
1) Using th
Press coverage:
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Governance/article/1170282/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity
_
Just to reply to some of the points raised;
* We've actually only this evening received the final version of the report
chronology (and there is a fairly technical procedural i that needs dotting
before that is published, which ought to be completed before too long into
tomorrow)
* In my view it's
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The chapter and wmf were provided with a draft of the report a couple of
> weeks ago, so there shouldn't be any need to immediately counter factual
> errors. They should have already been fixed.
>
I was referring to possible errors in the assu
The chapter and wmf were provided with a draft of the report a couple of
weeks ago, so there shouldn't be any need to immediately counter factual
errors. They should have already been fixed.
On Feb 6, 2013 7:00 PM, "Damokos Bence" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote
sts.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton
Sent: 06 February 2013 18:55
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 6 February 2013 18:49, steve virgin wrote:
> Tango
>
>
>
> I’ve always said you have a hea
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 6 February 2013 18:49, steve virgin wrote:
> > Tango
> >
> >
> >
> > I’ve always said you have a heart of gold Tom. Give the guys in London
> 3-4
> > more days and we’ll all see it I am sure. If it is longer than that I’ll
> > complain to
On 6 February 2013 18:49, steve virgin wrote:
> Tango
>
>
>
> I’ve always said you have a heart of gold Tom. Give the guys in London 3-4
> more days and we’ll all see it I am sure. If it is longer than that I’ll
> complain too, jointly with you.
The board meeting is in less than 3 days - Chris h
...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton
Sent: 06 February 2013 18:00
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
Yes, but he's trolling and complimenting me, so we must make allowances!
On Feb 6, 2013 5:35 PM, "steve virgin" wrote:
+1
He mo
wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
> Sent: 06 February 2013 17:02
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
>
> On 6 February 2013 16:56, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > Speaking just for myself, I was actually
ing the charity even further than the
> actions you are complaining about.
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> Phone: 024 7698 0977
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
> ----------
> *From:* Thomas Dalton
> *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list
> *S
+1
He most certainly is
-Original Message-
From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: 06 February 2013 17:02
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 6
On 6 February 2013 16:56, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Speaking just for myself, I was actually enjoying Thomas' posts, rather than
> resenting them filling up my inbox.
> Yours, on the other hand, I did resent: for its glib pomposity.
Considering you are in fact here to troll, that's just fine.
-
, I did resent: for its glib pomposity.
Regards,
Andreas
> ------
> *From:* Thomas Dalton
> *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:35
> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
>
> On 6 February 2013 12:
__
From: Thomas Dalton
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:35
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
On 6 February 2013 12:23, Stevie Benton wrote:
> Tom, I don't see where anyone is making excuses.
Try reading this email thread... To use
ndards - 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 +
>> > From: Thomas Dalton
>> > To: UK Wiki
hese 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 +
> > From: Thomas Da
On 6 February 2013 13:11, 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
> membershi
Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:30:17 +
> From: Thomas Dalton
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I don't want background. I wa
On 6 February 2013 12:23, Stevie Benton wrote:
> Tom, I don't see where anyone is making excuses.
Try reading this email thread... To use the Wiktionary definition, an
excuse is "an explanation designed to avoid or alleviate guilt or
negative judgment".
In a statement of the form "We are (not) d
Tom, I don't see where anyone is making excuses.
As your previous email acknowledges, the review was co-commissioned by
Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation. We are discussing the review
with the Foundation and are in the process of preparing a response. This
response needs to be co-ordinated
On 6 February 2013 09:32, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> On 6 February 2013 09:30, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 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 full
On 06/02/13 09:15, Jon Davies wrote:
Phone me if you want more background.
Jon
Not sure how that would add to transparency
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk
On 6 February 2013 09:30, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 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 th
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 prepa
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 Februa
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
> > 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 a
On 30 January 2013 15:21, Chris Keating wrote:
> 1 November 2012 - Proposed methodology and project plan
> - this was received and agreed, hasn't been published.
>
> 1 December 2012 - Description and Chronology
> - a draft of this was received on time and circulated internally & to
> interested pa
1 November 2012 - Proposed methodology and project plan
- this was received and agreed, hasn't been published.
1 December 2012 - Description and Chronology
- a draft of this was received on time and circulated internally & to
interested parties for comment. The final version is expected by the end
What about the first two deliverables on the TOR?
On Jan 30, 2013 1:47 PM, "Chris Keating" wrote:
>
> The first three of those should therefore be available now. Can
>> someone please tell me where I can find them, or explain why they are
>> not yet available?
>
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> The final report i
> The first three of those should therefore be available now. Can
> someone please tell me where I can find them, or explain why they are
> not yet available?
Hi Tom,
The final report is expected to be finished this week, and should be
published shortly thereafter. We will be discussing it at th
The terms of reference of the governance review can be found here:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_UK_independent_review_Terms_of_Reference.pdf
Section 9 gives the dates when various reports should be provided:
1 November 2012 - Proposed methodology and project plan
1 De
Dear all,
As you may know, earlier in the Autumn Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia
Foundation appointed Compass Partnership to conduct an independent review
of our governance. The review is well under way now and Mike Hudson and
Keith Smith, the governance experts conducting the review, have alread
67 matches
Mail list logo
