Nor do I like the idea of viewing the charity application as being adversarial, and no, the CC aren't out to get us. That wasn't what I was trying to imply. However, it is a negotiation process, involving third parties as well as us and the CC. There are different possible angles to take - some productive; some counter-productive - and while those discussions are definitely being had, it doesn't necessarily help for them to be public discussions. I don't think it would be wise to publicly discuss "snags", for example.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 June 2011 09:58, Martin Poulter <infobomb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to be clear, the Board are giving charity status the highest priority-
> you can take that as given. However, we're very concerned not to "show our
> hand" by discussing those negotiations more widely. In that respect, the
> lack of detail in public communications is a sign of how seriously we take
> the issue.

I'm not sure I like the idea of viewing the charity application as
being adversarial. The CC aren't out to get us, they just need to be
helped to understand what we do and realise that it is charitable. We
should be being open with the CC, not trying to bluff them.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org



--
Dr Martin L Poulter           ICT Manager, The Economics Network
Based at the ILRT, University of Bristol: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/

The full experience: http://infobomb.org/
Wikipedia contributor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter
Board member of Wikimedia UK: http://uk.wikimedia.org/
"Creating a world in which every single human being can freely share
in the sum of all knowledge"