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" <victuall...@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.tho...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> On 29 September 2012 22:57, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 29 September 2012 22:55, Thomas Morton <morton.tho...@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 >> wikimediau...@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 > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
