Well the committee has been formed. We now have to work as best we can with this commitee to ensure all issues are covered. Seddon _________________________________________________________________ Beyond Hotmail — see what else you can do with Windows Live. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665375/direct/01/

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Thomas, who is "we"? As far as I know, WmUK was one of the many chapters that mandated the committee, so I am not sure whether "we" is "you personally" or whether the board's opinion has officially changed. -- Michael Bimmler mbimmler(a)gmail.com

Speaking as a board member (but not the whole board), I felt it was in our best interests to be part of the combined efforts of the chapters to deal with the multiple issues associated with the new agreement. It is simply not an option to try and work unilaterally whilst the other chapters are working on producing a refined version together and as a whole. There is nothing stopping us from seeking legal advice and I believe steps are being taken towards that, but I have to whole heartedly disagree that we should have nothing to do with this commitee. If, following legal advice and the work being done by the commitee (which we have a representative on), there are still issues with the chapters agreement, we can follow these up. We arent required to renew our agreement for some time so we have some breathing space. Lets work as both a chapter and with the commitee in smoothing over this chapters agreement. Seddon _________________________________________________________________ Beyond Hotmail — see what else you can do with Windows Live. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665375/direct/01/

2009/5/26 Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com>om>: Discussions between chapters I have absolutely no problem with and whole heartedly encourage. It is WMUK (or any other chapter, for that matter) negotiating, directly or indirectly, with the WMF (and if we're involved in the committee, then the committee negotiating with WMF is WMUK indirectly negotiating with WMF) before seeking legal advice that I strongly advise against. Getting legal advice once the negotiations are complete is too late.

2009/5/26 Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com>om>: The email at the start of this thread talks about "coordinating responses". Responses are part of negotiation, if the committee is part of the responses then the committee is part of the negotiations. As long as the committee sticks to brainstorming and sharing ideas, I have no problem, but if it starts agreeing on what to say to the WMF anyone without a lawyer should withdraw until they have one.

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't know the intentions of the chapters, but "coordinating responses" does not necessarily mean filing a shared response. Rather, it might mean making sure that the various responses delivered separately are mutually supportive. Sam -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

2009/5/26 Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>om>: The original agreement was more of a license than a two-way contract. We got to use the name "Wikimedia UK" and we didn't have to give up much in exchange. There wasn't a great deal to get advice on. We did, however, run it by the friendly barrister, I believe - informal legal advice was sufficient for such a simple agreement. The new version is not simple in the slightest and it expects us to give up a lot (including our independence, which I think makes it bordering on unconscionable), so a greater amount of legal advice is required. I doubt we would get anyone to agree to help us with just this, but that isn't what we really need. We need permanent ongoing legal representation, this agreement would be just one part of what they do. We need to find a lawyer or law firm that will represent us in the long term, preferably pro-bono. But there are lawyers involved, on the foundation's side. If you have a negotiation with lawyers on one side and just laymen on the other, the laymen are in serious trouble. A simple read of the proposed agreement will tell you that the foundation doesn't have our best interests in mind in this, they are thinking of themselves, we need to think of ourselves.