Talk:Call for EGM 2012

This discussion is closed. Please do not reopen it. Mike Peel (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

{{{2}}}

"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 [...]

Deryck Chan (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A proposal to remove a director pursuant to 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. 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). --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. 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. --Tango (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that such things are in effect recall petitions, so when five people signed it he resigned as chair. If that wasn't your intention then that's a real shame. But we've now lost our Chair. WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but then the discussion on the list was showing support both sides of the divide (but those list members are not exclusively the members of the company called Wikimedia UK). So can I repeat my call for a "members only" discussion group, that will discuss matters such as EGMs, AGMs, governance, five year plans, voting policy, etc? LoopZilla (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Message from Chief Executive

Moved here from call itself. --Tango (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have discussed this matter with Fae this morning. He is keen that there should be no division in the WMUK community over his role as Chair, especially at a time when so many great things are being achieved. He has therefore resigned as Chair. A board meeting, already scheduled for this evening, will see the election of a new Chair. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. The EGM is intended to discuss Fae's place on the board, rather than his position as chair (in my opinion, decisions about the chair are for the board to make, not the membership), so it is still relevant. --Tango (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The EGM statement says Fae is chair of the board. It needs to be updated, or the message from the Chief Executive re-instated. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Very briefly, as I'm at work. I believe Fae has taken the right decision, in the circumstances, to step down as Chair. However, I believe he still has a valuable role to play on the Board. If we do have an EGM with a motion to remove Fae as a trustee, I will speak against the motion. But I hope that members will consider Fae's resignation as Chair to be the end of the matter, and that we can avoid having the un-necessary distraction entailed by an EGM. The Land (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with The Land. Media attention seems to be quieting down. The EGM push seemed to be a response to that attention. Fae has now stepped down as Chair to facilitate focusing on the work of Wikimedia UK. It could be prudent to wait until the next media cycle is complete before calling an EGM. Jess T (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with Chris on this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am amazed that the only consideration here seems to be about the media. This person has been banned from Wikipedia! For six months! How can he remain in the executive of any Wikipedia-related organization? DevilShamer (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he's banned indefinitely. He can appeal in 6 months. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Point of order (without taking sides): He's no longer the Chair, so he's not in the executive. The Executive consists of the Chief Exec, the Chairman, the Treasurer and the Secretary. Richard Symonds (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think DevilShamer meant senior leadership, rather than specifically the executive subcommittee of the board - an imprecise use of terminology, perhaps. --Tango (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be amazed. Wiki-politics unfortunately creates a number of such spats and splits. Fae is still an editor in good standing on Commons where he has 294K edits, nearly 4 times the 77K he has on English Wikipedia. WMUK is an independent organization, and having spent time a year ago assuring and re-assuring the Charity Commission of this, which was one of their major concerns, I am very firmly opposed indeed to the idea that the Arbitration Committee or WMF or anyone else has the ability to control, select or deselect the WMUK board, which is a matter entirely for the membership of WMUK itself. Nor have either the Arbcom or the Foundation said, publicly or privately, anything about Fae's WMUK positions (which would indeed be very improper of of them). Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The independence of WMUK is imperative. When spin gets media attention it's a shame. As the media lose interest external pressures will abate. The hard work by the volunteers and staff of WMUK will continue to enrich the mission of the WMF and society. Jess T (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Telegraph, who first reported the ban, have now reported the resignation as well: [1]. It's a pretty good article. --Tango (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Damn, better be careful what you say on this page, or you'll end up quoted by the Telegraph. Although they really shouldn't assume that everyone commenting here is necessarily a "Wikimedia UK member". BabelStone (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very true. See my comment above. LoopZilla (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Why so few signatures?

I am confused. There are clearly a large number of people here and on the UK mailing list that are dissatisfied with the situation, however very few of them have signed the letter. Are you not members? If that's the reason, then, if you are so interested in the running of the chapter, why have you not joined?

I started this call because, based on the discussions I had seen, I thought it would easily get the requisite signatures. An unsuccessful call for an EGM does more harm than good. I am very disappointed there are so many people that are willing to complain, but not willing to actually do anything about it... Since I didn't anticipate that, my actions to protect the chapter may actually have harmed it... --Tango (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)