Talk:Minutes 2014-03-08

Two points of clarification from Fæ

It should be made clear that I did not make a proposal to the Technology Committee, neither was I invited to take part in the Tech Committee discussion on what became their proposal. I put forward a Microgrant which was rejected.

I object to having my full legal name in the public minutes. My permission was not asked for this, and the Micro-grant proposal was under my pseudonym. Though as a past trustee my full name is in many locations on this website, I would prefer consistency, and I have reasons to reduce the use of my full legal name where not needed or where out of my control. --Fæ (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fae - I have removed your name from the minutes and replaced it with "Fae" as a courtesy to yourself. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposal was initially made as a microgrant request and transferred to the auspices of the Tech Committee with Fae's agreement. Fae was asked to join on-wiki discussion about the project proposal. Requests were made via email on 23rd January, 4th February, 4th March, and at various points on wiki between 23rd January and 3rd February. So far further input has not been forthcoming. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked for a clarification that I did not make a proposal to the Technology Committee. What has been said here supports this as a factual correction.

It is incorrect to say "input has not been forthcoming" as I have provided my input several times on-wiki and by email, this is missing from the one-sided audit trail of correspondence above.

I am not part of the Technology Committee, neither have I ever been invited to join its meetings to discuss this proposal. Since I first started discussing the microgrant with Jonathan, I asked for the potentially least-cost shared option with other chapters to be reviewed. I do not believe this ever seriously happened or that WMCH or other chapters have ever been approached. As I have not been invited to be part of the meetings discussing alternative options, I was under the impression that my views were only ever going to be supplementary. I provided my feedback on 23 January and have not changed my views, it seems redundant to continue repeating them or to work on this further by myself once employees took ownership of the idea. It should be understandable to anyone why as a result I have been given no particular motivation to spend my volunteer time in reviewing a final, albeit only briefly described, done-deal solution, which has been decided on by others, including those being paid for their technical expertise.

If you are looking to pin me down for my unacceptable behaviour, then not repeating replies where I have provided my feedback, seems small beer compared to the public accusation of having an unparalleled "ability to lose friends [and] alienate people" in order to damage my reputation on other projects. However, I guess the strategic benefit is that not being allowed any opportunity to build a positive reputation for my volunteer work elsewhere, gives me more time to consider what needs to change in the charity that I helped to create. --Fæ (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)