Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

On 12 April 2013 18:53, James Farrar wrote: > And I'm sure that if we do anything in the tiniest way different from your > interpretation of them you won't hesitate to let us know in your inimitable > helpful and friendly fashion. Wrong again. You guys are on your own. I've had enough. _

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

On 12 April 2013 16:24, James Farrar wrote: > Really, you're looking for problems where none exists. > > If we end up in a situation where nothing defines the number of directors, > that's a problem that needs rectifying before an election process can begin. > > But in any other situation we know

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

On 12 April 2013 13:00, Deryck Chan wrote: > On that note I do side with James - it does say "Election Rules". As I've said, the title is irrelevant. The rules say "The maximum number of directors shall be seven." It doesn't say "elected directors". It is possible a court would interpret it as m

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

On 12 April 2013 10:56, James Farrar wrote: > Look, if you want to argue that election rules apply to non-elected > directors, that's your privilege. If you want to start re-interpreting rules to mean something other than what they actually say, then I suggest getting some legal advice... __

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

Titles of legal documents rarely mean anything. On 12 Apr 2013 08:54, "James Farrar" wrote: > > Yes, they do say that. In the name. Election rules. > > > On 12 April 2013 00:11, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >> On 12 Apr 2013 00:03, "James Farrar" wr

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

On 12 Apr 2013 00:03, "James Farrar" wrote: > > The election rules only apply to elected directors, surely. That's not what they say, though. Unless something is ambiguous or impossible, legally it is interpreted literally. Intent is irrelevant. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how a court wou

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

On 11 Apr 2013 23:08, "Deryck Chan" wrote: > > On 11 April 2013 18:48, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >> There are several combinations that result in problems. Pretty much >> anything other than all passing and all failing is problematic to >> varying degrees. &

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Another voting reminder

On 11 Apr 2013 18:57, "Andrew Gray" wrote: > > So it is! > > I plead, um, ignorance of the conference schedule as an excuse... I'd plead that you could never get the hang of Thursdays if I were you - you would be in good company then. ___ Wikimedia UK m

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

On 11 April 2013 18:33, Chris Keating wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Yes, you're right that due to a drafting problem one particular combination > of votes at the EGM would result in an unanticipated result - we would > effect a change in the voting system, but would not have a specified maximum > number of

[Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

I would like to draw attention to a discussion on the UK wiki: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:EGM_2013/Resolutions#How_the_vote_works Mike Peel has pointed out some pretty serious issues with the way the resolutions we're supposed to be voting on at the weekend are drafted and how they interac

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Another voting reminder

Presumably thats for people wanting to use you as a proxy. There's no deadline for proxies in general, right? The proxy can just turn up with the letter of authorisation, I think. On 11 April 2013 17:21, Richard Symonds wrote: > All, > > Just another quick email to remind you that email proxies f

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] EGM resolution regarding the change in board structure - alternatives

I've been trying to make those points myself, but I've given up now... On 9 Apr 2013 17:39, "Lodewijk" wrote: > Hi all, > > on this talk > page > I > have asked some questio

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Funding Opportunity: Google launch the Global Impact Challenge

On 26 March 2013 21:35, Gordon Joly wrote: > > Indeed > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room I've always considered that a pretty stupid thought experiment. The beauty of language is that it allows you to communicate new ideas by combining known ones. The instruction book in the

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Funding Opportunity: Google launch the Global Impact Challenge

On 26 March 2013 13:53, Harry Burt wrote: > IMHO the idea of translation "hints" embedded into Wikipedia articles is a > better one. I'm not sure it's going to be possible to construct a pitch for > as complex a project as that within a short amount of time however; it may > even require a new web

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Funding Opportunity: Google launch the Global Impact Challenge

On 26 March 2013 09:45, WereSpielChequers wrote: > ... If Google were willing to work with us ... It's a great idea, but that "if" is pretty fundamental. We would need to get buy-in from Google as a partner in the project before we could apply for the grant. It wouldn't surprise me if Google love

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Funding Opportunity: Google launch the Global Impact Challenge

On 25 March 2013 22:34, Stevie Benton wrote: > "What would we be bringing to the table?" > > Expertise. Understanding. A committed community and a committed charity. > Experience. Support. An international reach. A proven need. A clear benefit. > A project that is scalable and sustainable. > > All

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Funding Opportunity: Google launch the Global Impact Challenge

On 25 March 2013 21:58, Stevie Benton wrote: > The money could bring in the skills and experience I think. If a project is > worth doing, it's worth doing properly (with community involvement as the > key, obviously). I think Rexx's idea is a very good one - and we already > know Google loves Wiki

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Funding Opportunity: Google launch the Global Impact Challenge

On 25 March 2013 21:43, rexx wrote: > The most impact that we could realise on a global scale would be to make the > knowledge in the English Wikipedia available to people who don't speak > English. £500,000 and Google technical support would go a long way to > realising some of that goal. > > As

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimedia UK Office empty today

Not a good day for a heating failure!!! I went out at lunch time and almost froze solid... On 25 March 2013 14:26, Richard Symonds wrote: > All, > > Due to a heating failure, there will be no staff in the WMUK office for the > rest of today - we'll all be working from home, though, and available

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Funding Opportunity: Google launch the Global Impact Challenge

I agree, it is interesting and we do desperately need to diversify our revenue. Do we have any suitable projects we've been wanting to run but haven't due to lack of funds, though? Funds haven't really been our limiting factor. The VLE work might be suitable, but I doubt Google would consider it i

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania 2014 in London.

On 19 March 2013 15:42, Deryck Chan wrote: > [putting WM2013 hat on] > Wikimedia Hong Kong thought about setting up a subsidiary company for > Wikimania 2013 but decided against it. This is because the subsidiary > company (and therefore Wikimania) will not enjoy charity benefits, > discounts, or

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK Volunteers + WIkimania 2014

On 19 March 2013 10:55, Gordon Joly wrote: > CIC might be easy. Quicker than forming a charity, eh? There's no need for the subsidiary to be a charity. WMUK can act as an intermediary and all the tax advantages can come from WMUK's status. Donations are made to WMUK, which are tax deductible, WM

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania 2014 in London.

On 19 March 2013 09:41, Gordon Joly wrote: > A subsidiary company? That would be my suggestion. It isolates the charity's main funds from the risks of the event (which will have a budget roughly equal to the annual budget of the rest of the charity, so the risks are pretty substantial) while stil

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania 2014 in London.

On 18 March 2013 23:10, Katie Chan wrote: > In this case, the bid isn't being submitted by volunteers and members of > Wikimedia UK as part of Wikimedia UK. The bid is funded by WMUK, the bid team are operating out of the WMUK office and the intention is for everything to be booked and paid for i

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania 2014 in London.

On 18 March 2013 22:57, Katie Chan wrote: > On 18/03/2013 22:47, Gordon Joly wrote: >> >> >> Seems that Wikimedia UK are the body involved in running this event > > > Wikimedia UK is supporting the bid, offering advice and support where it > can. The actual bid itself is led by volunteers Ed,

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania 2014 in London.

Did you have a point? On 18 March 2013 22:47, Gordon Joly wrote: > > Seems that Wikimedia UK are the body involved in running this event > > > Gordo > > > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mail

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Draft EGM resolutions

On 7 March 2013 12:34, Jon Davies wrote: > PS Katherine has been doing member development work. For instance, a > member's monthly enewsletter. Let me know if you have not been getting it. Indeed, although that relates to existing members not new members, so isn't really relevant to this discussi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Draft EGM resolutions

On 7 March 2013 12:23, Gordon Joly wrote: > Increasing the membership has to be planned. If there were 5,000 members > overnight, it would not be good at all. > > Previously I have suggested multiple levels of "membership". such as > members of the charity, and a wider group of members of a "f

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Draft EGM resolutions

On 7 March 2013 09:54, Gordon Joly wrote: > I see this as a confusion of the legal situation. I understand the > aspiration, of course. > > Board - a dozen, or so.. > > Membership - several hundred > > Community - several thousand > > The board and the membership (since WMUK is company lim

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Draft EGM resolutions

On Mar 6, 2013 11:45 PM, "Andrew Turvey" wrote: > > For goodness sake, they even want to change the articles to get some complex provision in there that means there would never be a majority of directors up for election in a single year - because god forbid that the community would actually wantin

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Greyham Dawes co-opted to the Board of Wikimedia UK

On 20 February 2013 20:02, Chris Keating wrote: > - Tom - the Articles give the Board discretion about who to co-opt in the > event of a casual vacancy, so long as the Board is unanimous. I think that, > particularly given the circumstances, we did the right thing to use that > discretion. As you

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Greyham Dawes co-opted to the Board of Wikimedia UK

How is that a conflict of interest? On Feb 20, 2013 1:44 PM, "John Vandenberg" wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > > On 20 February 2013 11:17, Andrew Turvey > wrote: > >> I presume this decision was taken at the last board m

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Greyham Dawes co-opted to the Board of Wikimedia UK

On 20 February 2013 11:17, Andrew Turvey wrote: > I presume this decision was taken at the last board meeting on 9-10 > February. It's very disappointing that the draft minutes of the last board > meeting still haven't been published, a week and a half after the meeting. I > asked when this would

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

On 11 February 2013 17:52, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I would oppose any support from Wikimedia UK for targeted use of the > Wikipedia main page to increase the visibility of projects like > Gibraltarpedia. What do you count as "projects like Gibraltarpedia"? Are you opposed to the entire concept of

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership grace period

Can you elaborate? What does interval arithmetic have to do with anything? On Feb 11, 2013 8:49 PM, "Gordon Joly" wrote: > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Interval_arithmetic > > YMMV, > > Gordo > > > __**___

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

> to finalize. > > John > > On 11/02/2013 17:17, > wikimediauk-l-request@lists.**wikimedia.orgwrote: > >> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:00:59 + From: Thomas Dalton < >> thomas.dal...@gmail.com> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list < >> wikimediauk-l@lis

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

On Feb 11, 2013 7:59 PM, "geni" wrote: > > For example the next issue is how WMUK plans to pay for the upkeep of > QRpedia given that it wasn't in the budget. There shouldn't be an issue there. The costs are minimal. Renewal costs for two domain names and maybe a few hours work by the existing IT

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

Yes, but he didn't say the description in the media is accurate, so he hasn't contradicted the main point Andy is making. On Feb 11, 2013 5:17 PM, "Charles Matthews" wrote: > On 11 February 2013 17:11, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > The wmuk Secretary said nothing of t

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

The wmuk Secretary said nothing of the sort... On Feb 11, 2013 5:07 PM, "Charles Matthews" wrote: > On 11 February 2013 17:02, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > I'm not sure why you've attached your top-posted comment to my post; > > but to be clear; my purpose is not to apportion blame, nor to make > > c

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

On Feb 11, 2013 4:37 PM, "John Byrne" wrote: > > What we had is best described as "a delay in agreeing terms for the donation" or similar. That's what I'm still not getting. Donations don't have terms... ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikim

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

On 11 February 2013 15:49, Jon Davies wrote: > I think you are mistaking me for someone with the power of a Stalin. This is > a community movement with staff , trustees and volunteers all of which have > played roles in this and it is only the staff over whom I have authority. I'm not blaming you

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

On Feb 11, 2013 3:25 PM, "Jon Davies" wrote: > > It is so easy to think this was simple and why did it take so long. It just did. From October 1st 2011, through two legal drafts, the involvement of staff and trustees over two continents, countless meetings, phone calls and emails, it all took time

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

"Dispute" may be putting it a bit strongly but obviously there was a disagreement or it wouldn't have taken this long to reach an agreement. "Dispute" does suggest a dispute over who owns it, which was never true. Any dispute was over the future, not the past. On Feb 9, 2013 8:57 PM, "Andy Mabbett"

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

On Feb 9, 2013 6:02 PM, "David Gerard" wrote: > > On 9 February 2013 17:41, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > > This is great news. Well the fuller announcement include an explanation of > > why this took so long? It sounds like a very straightforward agreement... > &

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

This is great news. Well the fuller announcement include an explanation of why this took so long? It sounds like a very straightforward agreement... On Feb 9, 2013 5:10 PM, "Chris Keating" wrote: > Dear all, > > I am pleased to announce that Wikimedia UK has reached an agreement with > Roger Bamk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] "Voice Intro Project"

On Feb 8, 2013 11:31 PM, "Roger Bamkin" wrote: > > Surely its the same problem that you have with a photograph - and that doesnt appear to be a big problem of people putting up the wrong picture. AGF? AGF has never been a counterargument to verifiability before... With pictures, you can usu

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] "Voice Intro Project"

How do you verify that it really is them? On Feb 8, 2013 1:57 PM, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > How can the UK chapter support the project I started: > >< > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/open-licensed-format-recordings-voices-wikipedia-wikimedia-commons/ > > > > asking the subjects of Wikipedia artic

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership grace period

On 8 February 2013 14:38, Katherine Bavage wrote: > Yes, you can pay for x number of years in advance - we can record longer > terms on the database, and append notes to the contact record explaining > why. How far in advance can we pay? If we pay in advance and the fee is increased, will you com

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership grace period

I agree, definitely nag us more. We're a forgetful lot! On Feb 7, 2013 5:56 PM, "HJ Mitchell" wrote: > I'm with David and Andrew. The chapter should send out an email when > membership expires and perhaps send a couple of reminders at given > intervals. I don't know if this is done now. I know a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMF withdraws support from WCA

On 6 February 2013 23:08, Andrew Turvey wrote: > That's an interesting way of putting it! However, now that the WMF has come > out against, is there any way that the WCA can fulfill its stated aims? > Furthermore, if WMUK continues to support the WCA, will this damage the > chapter's relationship

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMF withdraws support from WCA

On 6 February 2013 21:07, Andrew Turvey wrote: > I see the Foundation has withdrawn their support for the Wikimedia Chapters > Association, the cross-chapters partnership that WMUK backed. To be honest, it never really offered any support in the first place... they said they liked the idea, but t

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

The chapter and wmf were provided with a draft of the report a couple of weeks ago, so there shouldn't be any need to immediately counter factual errors. They should have already been fixed. On Feb 6, 2013 7:00 PM, "Damokos Bence" wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 201

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

On 6 February 2013 18:49, steve virgin wrote: > Tango > > > > I’ve always said you have a heart of gold Tom. Give the guys in London 3-4 > more days and we’ll all see it I am sure. If it is longer than that I’ll > complain too, jointly with you. The board meeting is in less than 3 days - Chris h

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

Yes, but he's trolling and complimenting me, so we must make allowances! On Feb 6, 2013 5:35 PM, "steve virgin" wrote: > > +1 > > He most certainly is > > > > -Original Message- > From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: > wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Beha

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

ing the charity even further than the > actions you are complaining about. > > Harry Mitchell > http://enwp.org/User:HJ > Phone: 024 7698 0977 > Skype: harry_j_mitchell > > -- > *From:* Thomas Dalton > *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list > *S

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review (Thomas Dalton)

On 6 February 2013 13:11, wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I think it is more a matter of what standards "we" (as the membership) > should expect from a) the board and b) WMUK the firm (which is undoubtedly > what it is). > > I value you your contributions because you are always pushing "us" (the > membershi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

On 6 February 2013 12:23, Stevie Benton wrote: > Tom, I don't see where anyone is making excuses. Try reading this email thread... To use the Wiktionary definition, an excuse is "an explanation designed to avoid or alleviate guilt or negative judgment". In a statement of the form "We are (not) d

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

On 6 February 2013 09:32, Charles Matthews wrote: > On 6 February 2013 09:30, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> I don't want background. I want you to publish the report now. You don't >> need any more response than "we're looking at it and are beginning >> dis

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

sensible to check with us directly before posting. We * > have* been preparing but need to get a lot of consensus even for a 'short > response'. I think your email was unfair to Chris and a little rude. > Please assume good faith. > > Phone me if you want more background. > &

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

It doesn't take two working days to prepare a short response saying that the charity is now reviewing the report. In fact, that could have been prepared in advance, since it is the same regardless of the contents. It is extremely premature to be commenting on the contents to the press before we've

[Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania 2014

The deadline for people the create bids for Wikimania 2014 has now passed. London is the only official bid on the bidding page, although there is an unofficial bid from Tanzania that is active so will probably more up the page soon. So far, the Tanzanian bid doesn't look particularly credible (alth

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] John Byrne stands down as Treasurer and Trustee of Wikimedia UK

On Feb 4, 2013 5:14 PM, "HJ Mitchell" wrote: > > Thinking constitutionally for a moment, this leaves us with a relatively small board, no treasurer, and quite a high proportion of co-opted trustees (a ratio which will increase if a replacement for John is co-opted). Obviously the AGM is only four

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Polish becomes England's second language

On 30 January 2013 16:51, David Gerard wrote: > There's a WIkimedia IE list - any of its readers here? I'm on the WM IE list - very little traffic there. Apart from a cross-posted email asking for chapter's mailing addresses for a christmas card (there isn't an Irish chapter, although it has been

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

On 30 January 2013 15:21, Chris Keating wrote: > 1 November 2012 - Proposed methodology and project plan > - this was received and agreed, hasn't been published. > > 1 December 2012 - Description and Chronology > - a draft of this was received on time and circulated internally & to > interested pa

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

What about the first two deliverables on the TOR? On Jan 30, 2013 1:47 PM, "Chris Keating" wrote: > > The first three of those should therefore be available now. Can >> someone please tell me where I can find them, or explain why they are >> not yet available? > > > Hi Tom, > > The final report i

[Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

The terms of reference of the governance review can be found here: http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_UK_independent_review_Terms_of_Reference.pdf Section 9 gives the dates when various reports should be provided: 1 November 2012 - Proposed methodology and project plan 1 De

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New Article?

There are a lot of crazy balloon stories from around that time... Do you have any other sources? If that newspaper story is all we have, I don't think we can get a decent article from it - there isn't really more than about 3 sentences there. On 23 January 2013 12:02, Richard Symonds wrote: > If

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] state of qrpedia

Roger, Perhaps you could explain for us what the point of all these negotiations and contracts is? Why can't you just donate everything to WMUK? That's what I've never understood. I was at the November board meeting where this was discussed, and it seemed that the board didn't particularly underst

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Recent Changes on the UK wiki

Does it count as semi-automated if the controller isn't paying attention to what they're doing? On 16 January 2013 00:11, Richard Symonds wrote: > Semi automated! But point taken :-) > > On Jan 16, 2013 12:06 AM, "Thomas Dalton" wrote: >> >> Have we a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Recent Changes on the UK wiki

Have we also learned an important lesson about the importance of bot flags? On 15 January 2013 23:55, Richard Symonds wrote: > All, > > If you check recent changes, I was a bit too 'bold' on the UK wiki tonight - > testing out AWB to see if it'll be of use in correcting mispellings, tagging > unc

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Forgive the immodesty...

Congratulations! On Jan 10, 2013 12:46 AM, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > ...if you can find it ;-) > > I've accepted a nomination, by their Regional Programme Manager, to > become a Fellow of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, > Manufactures and Commerce. The nomination was “for your work

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [WMUK Office] Volunteer Declarations of Interest.

There is a difference between contributing to the public discussion on a topic and being party of the committee making decisions on it. Jon's email was much broader than just sitting on committees. On Dec 7, 2012 5:33 PM, "Chris Keating" wrote: > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:38

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [WMUK Office] Volunteer Declarations of Interest.

*Throw*, even - my fingers like to type (near-)homophones... On 7 December 2012 15:38, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 7 December 2012 15:33, Jon Davies wrote: >> We live in difficult times > > True, but don't want to through the baby out with the bathwater. We > need, a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [WMUK Office] Volunteer Declarations of Interest.

On 7 December 2012 15:33, Jon Davies wrote: > We live in difficult times True, but don't want to through the baby out with the bathwater. We need, as a community, to learn how to manage conflicts of interest. We can't just avoid them. ___ Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Volunteer Declarations of Interest.

That seems a bit excessive. Those are precisely the people that could have very valuable input in the discussions. As long as they declare the interest, I don't see a problem. On Dec 7, 2012 3:09 PM, "Jon Davies" wrote: > Chris Keating and I had a chat about Volunteer Declarations of Interest > a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Verifying membership applications - Suggestions and comments

On Nov 28, 2012 11:05 PM, "Andrew Turvey" wrote: > > Credit checking, besides the costs, would require consent and can damage their credit rating so I would strongly advise against that. Just to clarify, it wouldn't actually be a credit check. It would be using a credit agency's database to verif

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Verifying membership applications - Suggestions and comments

On 20 November 2012 13:05, Gordon Joly wrote: > Aha. Seems there are accounts for the 11 to 15 age range (Barclays, > Santander, etc) > > But I think membership should be open to all. id checks will exclude > some. As long as it is only a small number of members that can't be checked by whate

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Verifying membership applications - Suggestions and comments

On 20 November 2012 12:30, Gordon Joly wrote: > This is all a bit exclusive. Widening membership should not be down PayPal > or electoral roll or having a bank account (since this would exclude people > aged 17 years old and under). You can have a bank account when under 18. I think my bank let m

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Verifying membership applications - Suggestions and comments

On 20 November 2012 10:37, Katherine Bavage wrote: > Morning - > > All members are voting members...unless I've missed something? I think Harry might have been distinguishing between members that do vote and members that don't, rather than members than *can* vote. Just like insurance companies on

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Verifying membership applications - Suggestions and comments

The only way I can think of for verifying identities like this is a credit check. For example, this service offered by Experian: http://www.experian.co.uk/qas/qas-authenticate.html I'm not sure what that would cost or what data protection restrictions there are on its use. On Nov 19, 2012 4:32 PM

[Wikimediauk-l] Proposal - Audit Committee

I have posted a proposal for an Audit Committee on the wiki: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Audit_Committee Please feel free to edit it or comment on the talk page. (Please don't comment here - let's keep everything in one place.) Thank you. ___ Wikimedi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Consultation] Members strategy and members survey - 1st deadline 26th October (Friday)

On 9 November 2012 17:22, Katherine Bavage wrote: > Seriously though - the phrasing came following reading a blog I read that > talks about why this type of question is better for people who identify as > trans > (http://tranifesto.com/2009/07/06/multiple-choice-is-rarely-trans-friendly/) > - I we

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] London Wikimeet 63

On 2 November 2012 11:32, Roger Bamkin wrote: > Last time I booked the downstairs room (for the EGM) - we arrived and the > weekend staff didn't know about it. Suggest we pay in advance. I don't believe we have to pay for the room. We do need to remind them a couple of days beforehand, though. Th

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK Wikipedians in Residence

On 26 October 2012 17:24, Richard Symonds wrote: > Our budget is limited, and must be used by January 31st It is better to defer spending to the next financial year than rush and spend money badly... If there are good applications that will be finished by the year end, then great, but the account

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Gazette of board decisions on Monmouth, Gibraltar at QR.

Could you fill in the gaps and republish? It would be good to get the bits of the story that aren't in the public minutes included too. All this information is going to need to be collated for the independant reviewer anyway, so it might as well be published. On 25 October 2012 16:17, Jon Davies

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Digest of board decisions regarding Monmouth, Gibraltar and QR codes

On 25 October 2012 17:47, HJ Mitchell wrote: > Sorry, Jon, but if you'd put it on the wiki, it wouldn't have been (as much > of) an issue, because people can and will edit it. It's also more public and > doesn't require digging a URL out of an archive if somebody wanted to read > it in the future

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Having an advisory board

On 23 October 2012 22:49, Gordon Joly wrote: > On 23/10/12 22:31, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >> >> We could have quarterly general meetings if we wanted to. We don't need to >> change legal structure for that. >> > But stakeholder groups in CICS can be a s

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Having an advisory board

On Oct 23, 2012 10:23 PM, "Gordon Joly" wrote: > > On 23/10/12 17:45, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >> >> What do you want to ask the charity commission? I think the guidance is pretty clear. You just need to have it written down somewhere what their role is and

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Having an advisory board

What do you want to ask the charity commission? I think the guidance is pretty clear. You just need to have it written down somewhere what their role is and what authority they have (ie. none). What is the difference between the CIC approach and our approach of having members that hold the board t

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Having an advisory board (was: Latest WMUK blog post - message from our Board)

On 21 October 2012 19:20, Michael Peel wrote: > I'd personally agree that an advisory board could be very beneficial for > WMUK. I've set out a first draft of what such a board could look like, after > looking into the WMF's advisory board setup and some other background > documents, at: > https:/

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geonotices.

On 16 October 2012 13:14, Andrew Gray wrote: > On 16 October 2012 10:21, Charles Matthews > wrote: >> While we're on the topic: could someone add in the Cambridge meetup to >> the current notice? Charles > > Done. > > (Still not sure if we should have this one national-level notice, or > if we sh

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A message from the Wikimedia UK Board

14 October 2012 12:12, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > > If they don't know what they've done wrong, what are they apologising > for? > > > There is, of course, an inquiry underway on that precise question. > > I think you would be c

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A message from the Wikimedia UK Board

utterance. (*Cough* > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion ). > > On 14 October 2012 11:59, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > When I was a child and got in trouble I would go up to my mum and say > "I'm > > soyy". She would invariably respond "

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] A message from the Wikimedia UK Board

When I was a child and got in trouble I would go up to my mum and say "I'm soyy". She would invariably respond "and what are you sorry for?" If I didn't have a good answer, the apology would have no effect. I don't think my upbringing was unusual in that respect. On Oct 14, 2012 9:48 AM,

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Latest WMUK blog post - message from our Board

;no links to the WMF or any > commercial organisations even vaguely related to new media" on an advisory > board. > > T > > -Original Message- > From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: > wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of T

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Latest WMUK blog post - message from our Board

The board needs to learn how to write a statement that actually says something... Apologising for mistakes is meaningless if you don't acknowledge what those mistakes are. This statement comes across as defensive and empty of actual content. What have you done wrong? What are you doing about fixi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

On 9 October 2012 12:31, Richard Symonds wrote: > As far as I am aware a resignation offer has not been publicly minuted, but > that may well be because the minutes from the meeting in question are still > being drafted (and certainly haven't been approved!) I think John is refering to the reject

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, "James Farrar" wrote: > > Do *you* have any evidence for that? For their actions, or their reasons? Their actions are pretty clear to anyone that has been following the situations. I'm speculating about their reasons. ___ Wikime

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

It is clear that the board protected Roger. It is not clear that they did so because of an overfamiliarity among the board. I think they probably thought they were just being supportive colleagues. On Oct 8, 2012 10:36 AM, "Gordon Joly" wrote: > On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard wrote: > >> On 8 Oc

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

On 7 October 2012 22:34, Roger Bamkin wrote: > Classically the board tried to get a > consensus on all matters. That's the problem right there. A fear of disagreement. Far better to make a half-decent majority decision than fail to make any decision at all because there isn't a consensus. __

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >