Talk:Call for EGM 2012: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(cmt)
(blanking)
 
(56 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Obviously, what will happen during such a meeting is that the ArbCom decision itself will be discussed and then you get a polarized discussion between two camps where one side will say that you have to just accept that decision as correct even if it isn't, while others will say that ArbCom caused the problem by banning Fae when normally people are only banned when their behavior is such that they really cannot contribute to Wikipedia by any reasonable measure. [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 02:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
This was the discussion page for a call for a EGM made in August 2012 that failed to get the requisite number of signatures. It has been blanked as a courtesy to those involved, but the discussions remain in the page history.
 
I'm hoping that Fae will do the right thing and resign from the board. The board can then issue a statement thanking him for his service and hoping he will continue to be involved. By not resigning as chair immediately after the ArbCom decision was announced I am afraid that Fae made an error which can now only be corrected by his resignation from the board altogether. It doesn't matter if we think arbcom was wrong - we weren't elected to arbcom, our opinions are irrelevant. [[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] ([[User talk:Filceolaire|talk]]) 07:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
:If Arbcom erred, and I'm not the only one who thinks they did, then yes it does matter that in recognising that he was harassed but banning him anyway they got this wrong. As for the idea that simply resigning as chair would have defused things and let him continue as a trustee, sadly I don't think that would work. He withdrew from the topic of gay pornstars because his editing there was contentious, but that didn't stop his critics. He quit as admin despite no-one criticising his admin actions, but that didn't stop what had by then become harassment. If he were to quit as chair of WMUK despite no-one criticising his actions as chair do you seriously think he would have been left in peace to continue serving as a trustee? If he ceases to be a trustee what confidence can we have that he could continue his GLAM work without harassment starting against him being active in that? At some point he is entitled to stop retreating. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 08:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
::I argee that ArbCom erred, but not in the way you suggest. Being the victim of harassment does not make one infallible... why would the fact that he was harassed automatically make the ban a wrong decision? They erred because they sentenced him based on vague and unsubstantiated claims, rather than on what there was actually evidence for. There is very clear evidence that Fae did some things wrong, but nothing ban-worthy. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 11:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
:WSC nails it. This is sounding uncomfortably like Whitehall politics. There's no dispute that Fae is the right person for the role: informed, absolutely dedicated to our values, great with partner organisations, with the right background and track record that WMUK needs. I haven't seen a complaint against his ''ability'' to do what WMUK requires him to do, except the question over him training newcomers, which seems to require an oddly legalistic interpretation of "editing on behalf of a banned user". It makes total sense that the board would give him unanimous backing. But some members think we need to debate our confidence in him because of... what? Because of headlines? Because of how his situation can be spun? This is something I associate with party politics or corporate PR: I hope, perhaps naively, that Wikimedia UK is something different and meritocratic. I wish the people who think it obvious that Fae should stand down would recognise that it isn't obvious, and spell out what the action is be supposed to achieve. (e/c) Specifically I agree that stepping down won't stop the harassment. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 11:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
::Public perception is something that has very real impact. PR is PR, whether you are in politics, the for-profit sector or the non-profit sector. Whoever you are, it matters what people think of your organisation, regardless of whether they are right to think it. Just to be clear, the goal of the EGM isn't the stop the harassment of Fae. It is to discuss the situation with respect to Wikimedia UK. Wikimedia UK should support any member of the UK community who is facing harassment, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't also consider its own interests and the interests of the wider movement. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 11:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Martin; he's got issues understanding copyright (pertinent to GLAM work), launches vicious online attacks against people he dislikes and manoeuvres behind the scenes to evade scrutiny and recruit sympathy. That is not a fit person to lead ''this'' charity. As rose-tinted as the boards spectacles are here, it's ludicrous that his behaviour has escaped all of your notice... or even that you are unconcerned about it! --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 12:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 
== "Neutral" EGM? ==
 
I find it confusing to see this:
*''Please note, by signing you are not expressing an opinion about whether Ashley should remain on the Board. You are simply saying that you want to have a General Meeting so that we members can discuss the matter and reach a decision, whatever that decision may be.''
When the request itself says this:
*'' Is it our intention to move the following resolution: "This meeting resolves, pursuant to Section 168 of the Companies Act 2006, to remove Ashley Van Haeften [...]''
[[User:Deryck Chan|Deryck Chan]] ([[User talk:Deryck Chan|talk]]) 08:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 
:A proposal to remove a director pursuant to [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/168 Section 168] of the Companies Act 2006 requires special notice be given of such a resolution. As such, the above notice has to be given if the resolution are to be available as an option for the EGM. That doesn't mean the meeting will actually move such a resolution. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 09:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
::That's correct. We wouldn't be able to vote on it if it notice wasn't given. I will move the resolution so that we can get a definitive decision made, but I don't know what that decision will be (I don't even know how I'll vote). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 11:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
:I'm assuming that people will only sign if they want him to stand down. Pretending that the recall itself is not a recall petition just seems a bit shabby to me. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 10:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
::You can assume whatever you like, but I can tell you that I haven't made up my mind how to vote. This is not a recall, this is call for an EGM. As the call says repeatedly, the EGM will be to ''discuss'' and then vote. There isn't much point having a discussion if everyone has made up their minds in advance. I think there is significant advantage to the members making a decision, whatever that decision may be. If the meeting rejects the motion and shows that it has confidence in Fae, then he will have a clear mandate to continue in his position and we can make it clear to the press that it is a decision of the charity members. Either way, we will have a little closure on the whole thing. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 11:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:45, 6 August 2012

This was the discussion page for a call for a EGM made in August 2012 that failed to get the requisite number of signatures. It has been blanked as a courtesy to those involved, but the discussions remain in the page history.

Retrieved from "https://dev.wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Talk:Call_for_EGM_2012&oldid=26838"