Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Location of AGM
If you do it during the day it will definitely be free - but my student union closes to non-members at 5 (to get round alcohol licencing laws) and I'm not sure just how many "guests" they'd let me bring in. :-) For other times I shall enquire. Dev 2008/11/30 AndrewRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Nov 30, 11:03 pm, "Sarah McCulloch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > If you want to meet in Manchester I may be able to provide meeting space > for > > up to 200 people in our student union/university depending on time of > day. > > Many thanks for the offer! Let's see what people say about location > and we may contact you later to follow this up. Would there be a > charge for this or would it be free? > > Andrew > > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > -- "But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams." -WB Yeats ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Location of AGM
On Nov 30, 11:03 pm, "Sarah McCulloch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you want to meet in Manchester I may be able to provide meeting space for > up to 200 people in our student union/university depending on time of day. Many thanks for the offer! Let's see what people say about location and we may contact you later to follow this up. Would there be a charge for this or would it be free? Andrew ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Location of AGM
> This probably wont be decide for a few weeks yet, but would be good to > get peoples' views. If you want to get somewhere for free it needs to be decided sooner rather than later - getting freebies takes time since you have to get all the right signatures in all the right places, paying for stuff is easy, you just hand over the cash and you're done. If you want to hold the AGM in late January, it should be booked before xmas, I'd say. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Location of AGM
If you want to meet in Manchester I may be able to provide meeting space for up to 200 people in our student union/university depending on time of day. Dev 2008/11/30 AndrewRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At the last Board meeting, one of the matters that was briefly > discussed what where the AGM in Jan/Feb should be held. > > London would seem an obvious option for me - although not > geographically central, it is easy to get to from all parts of the > country, > > Oxford would also be a good choice, as its the location for our > Wikimania 2010 bid so would be a good opportunity to familiarise > ourselves with the city (and have some experience organising an event > - albeit much smaller event - there) > > I guess other cities that are fairly central could be candidates too - > Birmingham was mentioned as was Manchester which is fairly central > when looking at the whole of the UK rather than just England. > > Has anyone got any views on this? > > This probably wont be decide for a few weeks yet, but would be good to > get peoples' views. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > -- "But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams." -WB Yeats ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
[Wikimediauk-l] Location of AGM
At the last Board meeting, one of the matters that was briefly discussed what where the AGM in Jan/Feb should be held. London would seem an obvious option for me - although not geographically central, it is easy to get to from all parts of the country, Oxford would also be a good choice, as its the location for our Wikimania 2010 bid so would be a good opportunity to familiarise ourselves with the city (and have some experience organising an event - albeit much smaller event - there) I guess other cities that are fairly central could be candidates too - Birmingham was mentioned as was Manchester which is fairly central when looking at the whole of the UK rather than just England. Has anyone got any views on this? This probably wont be decide for a few weeks yet, but would be good to get peoples' views. Thanks Andrew ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members
On Nov 30, 9:36 pm, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not a problem to have 1000s of guarantor members? Is that what you mean? I don't understand - why would it be a problem having over 1,000 members? I think it would be fantastic, personally, Andrew ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members
> Not a problem to have 1000s of guarantor members? Is that what you mean? Yes, what we call "member" is what WMUK v1.0 called "guarantor member". ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members
At 13:21 + 30/11/08, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > Yes, nice to agree. >> >> The Governance of WMUK is far from settled AFAIK. A very large group >> (hundreds or thousands) cannot have a single voice with some > > hierarchical or other structures. > >The Governance is pretty much determined by the Companies Act 2006, >the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association. There >are members who elect a board at the AGM and the board runs the >charity. The members have certain additional powers which can be >exercised in writing, at AGMs or at EGMs. "Member" is this context >means "guarantor member". > >The part that isn't settled yet is membership fees and what forms of >membership we'll have (if any) in addition to membership of the >company proper, but whatever is decided, they won't get a vote at >AGMs. > >Having 100s or over 1000s of members shouldn't be a problem - most >will probably vote by proxy at the AGM. There are public companies >with 10s or even 100s of thousands of shareholders that manage just >fine, the vast majority just fill out a proxy statement that is sent >to them in the post and never go near the actual meeting. Not a problem to have 1000s of guarantor members? Is that what you mean? Gordo -- "Think Feynman"/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership applications - do we need to wait?
2008/11/30 Paul Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Are there any legal implications to this? Is payment required to be a > member? Remember, cheques can bounce, and while I do not anticipate there > being any issues with our memberbase, such things can happen. Then you get > into the tricky business of disassociating a member if they refuse to pay. The governing documents lay out specific procedures for members that are behind in payments (I think they have 6 months to pay and then the board can terminate membership). The other problem is what you do if something goes wrong and the bank account is never opened and we end up dissolving the company again (God forbid!) - if the membership is kept to just the board then that process would be easy, if there are loads of other members that need to be consulted it gets much harder (having to hold a proper EGM just to close everything down as a lost cause would be rather regrettable). It's a very very small risk, but there is essentially no benefit at all to accepting members earlier, so why do so? As long as everyone that applies is a member in time for all the official notifications about the AGM, then everything is fine. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members
> Yes, nice to agree. > > The Governance of WMUK is far from settled AFAIK. A very large group > (hundreds or thousands) cannot have a single voice with some > hierarchical or other structures. The Governance is pretty much determined by the Companies Act 2006, the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association. There are members who elect a board at the AGM and the board runs the charity. The members have certain additional powers which can be exercised in writing, at AGMs or at EGMs. "Member" is this context means "guarantor member". The part that isn't settled yet is membership fees and what forms of membership we'll have (if any) in addition to membership of the company proper, but whatever is decided, they won't get a vote at AGMs. Having 100s or over 1000s of members shouldn't be a problem - most will probably vote by proxy at the AGM. There are public companies with 10s or even 100s of thousands of shareholders that manage just fine, the vast majority just fill out a proxy statement that is sent to them in the post and never go near the actual meeting. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership applications - do we need to wait?
Are there any legal implications to this? Is payment required to be a member? Remember, cheques can bounce, and while I do not anticipate there being any issues with our memberbase, such things can happen. Then you get into the tricky business of disassociating a member if they refuse to pay. 2008/11/30 Andrew Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > We've sent out a message inviting people to apply to join but we're not > able to cash their cheque until we have a bank account. However, do we need > to wait to accept them as members? > > Should we not just accept them as members now and then wait until the bank > account is opened before cashing their cheque? > > Just a thought. > > Andrew > > > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > > -- -- Paul "skenmy" Williams -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
[Wikimediauk-l] Membership applications - do we need to wait?
We've sent out a message inviting people to apply to join but we're not able to cash their cheque until we have a bank account. However, do we need to wait to accept them as members? Should we not just accept them as members now and then wait until the bank account is opened before cashing their cheque? Just a thought. Andrew ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members
At 23:04 + 29/11/08, Thomas Dalton wrote: >2008/11/29 Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> At 22:22 + 29/11/08, Thomas Dalton wrote: >>> > It is for such concerns that I have suggested a limit on guarantor members, say to 75 or 100 people, all reviewed by the board, and open membership for the "Friends of WMUK 2.0" with no review. >>> >>>Why should only the first 100 people get to have any say in the >>>running of the chapter? >> >> They will have a say, at the AGM, or an SGM, only. The Board runs >>the Company. >> >> Also, look forwards a decade? Many of the "first 100" will have left >> by then, and it will be important to maintain a stable body. > >The AGM is a meeting of members of the company, ie. guarantor members. >"Friends" don't get a vote at the AGM. Yes, nice to agree. The Governance of WMUK is far from settled AFAIK. A very large group (hundreds or thousands) cannot have a single voice with some hierarchical or other structures. Here is the original posting, for some context. Not everbody uses Gmail to read posts... :-) * - To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org From: Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members At 00:06 + 29/11/08, Andrew Turvey wrote: >[...] >When we were drafting the constitution, we adopted the standard >Articles for charities, which give the Board fairly broad powers to >refuse (or remove) membership if they consider this in the best >interests of the charity. This is subject to a due process that the >Board must follow and a right of appeal to the AGM, which the Board >decided to beef up from the standard rules.[...] It is for such concerns that I have suggested a limit on guarantor members, say to 75 or 100 people, all reviewed by the board, and open membership for the "Friends of WMUK 2.0" with no review. Gordon - * Gordo -- "Think Feynman"/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Election Rules (non-english speakers)
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Here, here. >> >> This *was* iphone's auto spelling correct. Really. Or so I hope. Ouch. > > I'm not buying it, "hear" has been in every dictionary I've ever seen! ;) See, that shows that you don't use an iPhone. While it has many nice features, it does have the tendency to replace correct words either by other correct words (as here) or, even worse and at least when writing in German, it replaces correct words with completely unintelligible babble. So I uphold my non-guilty plea, but maybe this is getting a bit off-topic... Michael -- Michael Bimmler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Election Rules (non-english speakers)
2008/11/29 Andrew Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I wanted to answer one of the questions I put with a suggestion regarding > minority languages. > > Most of the people active in Wikimedia UK seem to be active in the english > Wikimedia projects. However, there are some other smaller Wikimedia > languages where UK editors form a vital part of the editing and readorship > base. I'm thinking particularly of the native languages of the UK such as > Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and maybe Irish, Scots/Ullans, Cornish, Manx etc. > > As well as recognised the diversity of the Wikimedia community, there are > also significant public funds available for promoting these languages which > could be used by us to support these projects. > > The Board has already reached out to these projects by asking if the > newsletter could be translated into these languages. My suggestion is we set > aside two reserved seats on the Board for people who actively contribute to > at lease one wikimedia project in a minority language of the UK. I don't like it - the number of reserved seats (even if it's only one) would be way out of proportion to the number of contributors that are out there. I'd be much happier with the idea that if only the English language happens to be represented after a round of elections, then the Board could co-opt a minority language speaker (and if such a person is elected in the normal scheme of things, than it doesn't need to). [Trying to contribute here more - but my life is too chaotic!] ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
