tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12046714.post4620988529734113537..comments2024-03-27T13:58:49.915+01:00Comments on Words and what not: Think globally, act locallyGerardMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14287269079265427282noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12046714.post-24782170234053640082011-09-05T15:06:47.442+02:002011-09-05T15:06:47.442+02:00i totally agree with your opinion. your blog is ve...i totally agree with your opinion. your blog is very nicesaffron williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14850128816429393295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12046714.post-83707343311028736562011-08-30T11:36:58.766+02:002011-08-30T11:36:58.766+02:00Mike,
Thanks for your two valid points. There is ...Mike,<br /><br />Thanks for your two valid points. There is a relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation and a Wikimedia chapter. I didn't mean to imply chapters are today sub-elements of the foundation. However any independent organisation is a Wikimedia chapter if and only if approved by the board of the Foundation (after recommendation by the chapter committee). If you feel better when reading "the chapters" in stead of "its", that is fine with me, and has been corrected that way.<br /><br />About the letter. I didn't mean to imply that there was solely an emotional response. People weren't crying. Some people were angry or furious. Some people showed that there feelings were hurt. Stuart West has repeatedly apologized for the fact that the letter wasn't a nice example of effective communication.<br /><br />I just meant people were upset enough to produce over a hundred postings on internal-l and foundation-l. Only a few of them showed any sign of intention to strengthen financial controls, increase transparancy and improve accountability over funds received from donors. You submitted a link to the financial report of WMUK on [[:m:Reports]] on August 9. Thanks for that. <br /><br />In my humble opinion the intent of the board letter was a call to action, not an invitation for a lengthy debate. That didn't work out that way, that is my point. Nonetheless, I'm happy nearly all chapters have met the current reporting deadline and removed in doing that an obstacle to continued participation in the online fundraiser. <br /><br />From the lengthy debate I learned again that the fundraiser is a very sensitive issue and that quite a few chapters are very eager to participate in it. <br /><br />Finally, English isn't my native language, so any misunderstanding can be attributed to my poor English.<br /><br />--AdAd Huikeshovenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14919019786812238384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12046714.post-41997936486707502622011-08-30T10:17:08.547+02:002011-08-30T10:17:08.547+02:00I just want to pick up on two parts of this which ...I just want to pick up on two parts of this which either show up some misunderstandings, or are translation glitches (hopefully the latter).<br /><br />The first is "The foundation and its chapters" - which implies that the chapters belong to the foundation. That clearly isn't the case - chapters are independent organisations supporting the foundation, rather than being sub-elements of it. That's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding; I hope that "its" was meant to be "the"...<br /><br />The second is "a lot of people were heavily upset by a letter and resolution", which implies that there was a solely emotional response to the letter (people crying in the corridors, etc.). Given the level of the discussion on the mailing lists, I would be rather surprised and concerned if that was the case... Perhaps you meant "debated at length", or "raised points in opposition", etc.?<br /><br />Hope you can get those points cleared up. :-)Mike Peelhttp://www.mikepeel.netnoreply@blogger.com