Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

[Thomas Dalton]

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.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

[Thomas Dalton]

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 how stuff is supposed to work even if the
> language can be claimed to be ambiguous.
>
> I tend to operate on the assumption that members of the charity will behave
> like adults.

These are legal documents. You can't just interpret them however you
like. You have to do what they actually say. There is nothing
ambiguous. It is all very clear, it just isn't what was intended.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

[Thomas Dalton]

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 meaning elected directors
in light of the amended articles, but I don't think it is obvious that
they would. The rule as it stands is perfectly clear and unambiguous
and is possible to implement, so there is no need to look for
alternative interpretations or consider intent.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

[Thomas Dalton]

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...

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

[Thomas Dalton]

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"  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 would interpret the old
election rule in the context of the proposed articles, but we really
shouldn't be putting ourselves in a position where there is that kind of
uncertainty.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

[Thomas Dalton]

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 would interpret the old
election rule in the context of the proposed articles, but we really
shouldn't be putting ourselves in a position where there is that kind of
uncertainty.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

[Thomas Dalton]

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.
>
>
> By "anything" you mean "3 but not 2 (irrespective of 1)". If 3 doesn't
pass we'll still be returning a total of 7 new and continuing trustees at
the AGM.

Only if you mentally replace "directors" with "elected directors"
throughout the old election rules. Read literally, the old election rules
limit the board to 7 board members, which means the board couldn't actually
coopt anyone because the board would be full.

>> > That is a bit irritating but it could be remedied with a motion at the
AGM
>> > to introduce a maximum number of directors. If the maximum of 11
Directors
>> > proposed to the EGM was rejected we would clearly have to have a
further
>> > debate about how many Directors was the right number.
>>
>> It is more than irritating to not know the number of seats being
>> elected until a few minutes before the election...
>
>
> The number will be published on the agenda,

The proposed number would be. We wouldn't know the actual number until it
is voted on, a few minutes before the election.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Another voting reminder

[Thomas Dalton]

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

[Thomas Dalton]

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 directors.

There are several combinations that result in problems. Pretty much
anything other than all passing and all failing is problematic to
varying degrees.

> That is a bit irritating but it could be remedied with a motion at the AGM
> to introduce a maximum number of directors. If the maximum of 11 Directors
> proposed to the EGM was rejected we would clearly have to have a further
> debate about how many Directors was the right number.

It is more than irritating to not know the number of seats being
elected until a few minutes before the election...

As I've said many times before, the debate should come before we try
and vote on things. Then we know what we actually want to vote on.

> So - some imperfect drafting, despite the many rounds of amendments - but no
> crisis.

Many rounds of rushed amendments with no proper discussion taking
place, yes. Is anyone really surprised that a rushed job gave a poor
quality result?

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

[Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

[Thomas Dalton]

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 interact with each other.

The main problem comes from the third resolution, which introduces
Single Transferable Vote. In addition to doing that, it has a seemly
minor change from specifying the maximum number of trustees directly
to saying the maximum is in the articles. The problem is, the articles
say there is no maximum.

The two other resolutions amend the articles, the first introduces an
overall maximum of 11 trustees and the second specifies 7 elected
trustees and 3 co-opted trustees (there is intentionally one vacancy
to make transistions easier). If neither of those resolutions passes,
but the STV one does, that leaves us with no maximum and everything
falls to pieces. Mike says everyone getting over 50% of the vote will
be elected, regardless of number, which isn't correct - the 50% thing
doesn't exist under the STV approach (it wouldn't make sense). A STV
without a well defined number of people being elected is simply
impossible (you can't calculate the quota) so we just can't have an
election. (We could still appoint people by some other ordinary
resolution at the AGM, but the election rules would be completely
meaningless.)

If the first resolution is passed, but not the second, then we would
end up electing 11 trustees, which isn't what anyone intended. If both
pass, it works fine, but I know some people are keen on STV but not on
the rest (eg. me!) and there isn't any way the meeting can introduce
STV and keep the size and composition of the board the same.

It is too late to amend any of the motions at this point, and I don't
think it makes sense to go ahead with a meeting where it isn't
possible for the meeting to reach certain results that it clearly
should be able to (we were originally going to have an EGM for just
the STV vote - there is no reason members should be forced to make the
other changes in order to get STV). Therefore I propose (as I've
proposed before) that we cancel the EGM and use the time to have a
proper discussion about what we want to do. We can then have the
actual votes at the AGM (there won't be any significant harm from the
delay - we'll have to have this year's election under approval voting
rather than STV, but that isn't the end of the world).

If the board doesn't cancel the EGM, then I will be proposing a motion
to adjourn at the start of the meeting.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Another voting reminder

[Thomas Dalton]

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 for the 2013 EGM
> must be received by 15:30 British Summer Time (UTC+1) tomorrow, Friday 12th
> April 2013.
>
> You can also vote in person on the day.
>
> Don't forget!
>
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over
> Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 questions regarding the goals and purpose of the resolution
> proposed, and what problem exactly it is trying to solve. I also tried to
> understand better what alternatives have been investigated (personally I
> find the proposed solution a bit strong as a first thought, so I am
> assuming less far reaching alternatives were seriously given consideration
> to solve the same problem).
>
> I may have missed part of the discussions, so would appreciate any help in
> filling the gaps in reasoning at that page.
>
> Also a more technical question: would it still be possible to pass
> alternative resolutions (for example, were the board-proposed resolution to
> be rejected)? Or has the term for that been passed and would you have to
> wait until the next General Meeting for that?
>
> Apologies that I didn't ask these questions in a much earlier stage - I do
> hope and assume someone else did and the answer can simply be copy pasted.
> Placing the answers on the linked talk page would be most helpful (rather
> than starting off a discussion here).
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 room would need to
be practically infinite. If you have a book that big, then I'm happy
to fudge the definition of "understand" such that the book
"understands" the language - the definition won't be any less useful
for it.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 standard.

It could possibly be done using existing standards for the Semantic
Web (as little used as they are!). Making text machine-translatable is
basically the same job as making it machine-readable - translation
errors happen because the computer doesn't know what the words
actually mean and it is meaning you need to translate, not words.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 loved the idea,
but it might be difficult to develop the idea enough in the 22 days
remaining to get a grant application in.

There is, of course, no reason why we can't develop the idea, talk to
Google and then get funding from elsewhere (or perhaps just from
Google Translate's budget). The key point I've been trying to make in
this thread is that you should have good ideas and then go looking for
funding, not the other way around.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 of those things are there, if we get the approach and parameters
> established properly.

If we have everything it takes except the cash, why aren't we already
planning it? There are a dozen ways we could get hold of £500k. Money
really isn't an issue for the WM movement - people are lining up to
give it to us.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 Wikipedia.

Why would Google give us the money if we're just going to use it to
pay someone else to do it? They could just pay the same people
directly. What would we be bringing to the table?

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 the largest established chapter in the English-speaking world, the onus
> should probably fall on us to coordinate an effort of that sort.
>
> Thoughts?

I don't think we have anything like the skills or experience to make
good use of the money on that kind of project.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 on
> mobile phones/email if needed.
>
> All the best,
>
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over
> Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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
interesting enough (it's useful, but it isn't really transformative).

Coming up with new projects specifically to apply for a particular
grant is generally a bad idea.

On 25 March 2013 10:21, Jon Davies  wrote:
>
> Interesting
>
>
>
> Dear Jon,
>
> Today Google launched the Global Impact Challenge. Over the past few
> months ACEVO has been working very closely with Google and think that this
> game-changing award will celebrate the innovative work happening within the
> sector. So we are inviting charities and voluntary organisations to showcase
> how they would use technology to transform the lives of their beneficiaries.
> The top four entries of the competition will each receive £500,000 and
> support to help their project become a reality. A team at Google will
> announce 10 finalists in mid-May and the public will be invited to vote and
> donate to their favourite project.
>
> The prestigious panel judging the finalists will be inventor of the
> Internet Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Mogul Sir Richard Branson and founder and CEO
> of Forster Communications Jilly Forster. It’s thrilling to know how similar
> Google and ACEVO’s approach is in celebrating innovation - I feel that this
> is the start of a great corporate friendship.
>
> Applications opened today so apply here www.g.co/impactchallenge for your
> chance win.
>
> Best wishes and good luck,
>
> Sir Stephen Bubb
> Chief Executive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If you would like to unsubscribe from this list, please click here
>
> Privacy Policy (Privacy Page)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
> tweet @jonatreesdavies
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
>
> Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 tax deductibility, which renders "the benefits of going
> through" the chapter nothing more than a brand name.

It may be different in HK, but in the UK it is still possible to take
advantage of charitable status while working through a subsidiary.
(See my email to the other thread.)

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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, WMUK then pays
the subsidiary to provide a service (the conference) and then the
subsidiary donates any profit it makes to WMUK to eliminate its tax
liability. That is entirely legal and above board - you can even find
guidance on how to do it on the HMRC website.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 still providing most of the benefits of going
through WMUK.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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
in the name of WMUK. Explain to me how this isn't a WMUK bid...

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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, James, Kimi, Anastasia,
> ...

Just because something is being done by volunteers doesn't mean it
isn't being done by Wikimedia UK. We need to get away from the idea
that "Wikimedia UK" is synonymous with "The Board and Staff of
Wikimedia UK".

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Draft EGM resolutions

[Thomas Dalton]

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 discussion. I recall a pretty detailed
paper she wrote about getting new members, but I haven't seen anything
from it implemented yet.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Draft EGM resolutions

[Thomas Dalton]

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 "friends" group,
> who would not be able to vote at general meetings, but would benefit from
> association to WMUK. Maybe a mug?

Yeah, it was always a little vague about what the benefits of being a
"friend" would be...

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Draft EGM resolutions

[Thomas Dalton]

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 limited by guarantee)
> have a legal footing. The wider community does not. Wouldn't it be nice if
> all 5,000 joined the current membership?

It's always been the nature of the Wikimedia community that people get
involved in those things they consider interesting or worthwhile and
leave other things to other people. The membership is the subset of
the community that has chosen to get involved with the chapter (a
little more effort to ensure that everyone makes an informed choice
about whether or not to get involved would be good - I know Katherine
was working on a plan to increase membership, but I suspect it ended
up taking a back seat during the governance stuff).

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Draft EGM resolutions

[Thomas Dalton]

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 wanting to kick out a poorly-performing board en
mass. God forbid the board should be subject to any accountability for
their performance.

Actually, that complex provision is already in there - I wrote it! It does
the opposite of what you think - it makes sure there is always at half
(rounded down) of the board up for election at the next AGM. Without it,
you might have the whole board resign at once and a new board all be
elected for two year terms and then there is no election next year. My
complex provision avoids that by giving some of them one year terms.

The lawyers are suggesting that having co-option means we could choose to
remove that clause, but I didn't follow that reasoning.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 indicate in your post, it would have been possible for us
> to create another process to go through, but I don't think that would have
> been helpful.

I didn't say you shouldn't have used co-option. I didn't even say you
should create a new process. You should just follow normal, prudent
processes for making a decision. You wouldn't make major procurement
decisions without getting multiple quotes. In the same way, you
shouldn't make major recruitment decisions without interviewing
multiple candidates.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 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 be published over a week ago and was told that a
> >> reasonably final draft was available on Sunday. Chapter policy says that
> >> "Volunteers are encouraged to ... hold the Trustees and staff to
> account,
> >> through public and private discussion". [2] It's impossible to do this
> if
> >> we're not even allowed to see on a timely basis the decisions that are
> being
> >> made by the board.
> >
> > Publishing draft minutes is quite unusual for a board - most I'm aware
> > of don't publish minutes until they are formally approved at the next
> > meeting (which can be months later) - so I'm not sure a week and a
> > half really qualifies as untimely. I doubt the minutes say much, any
> > way. The discussion was presumably in camera, so there will just be
> > the final decision in the public minutes and we've already been told
> > about that.
>
> The minutes will, or should, note if there were any conflicts of
> interest.  e.g. *if* Greyham applied due to the direct personal
> approaches, that should be noted.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 be published over a week ago and was told that a
> reasonably final draft was available on Sunday. Chapter policy says that
> "Volunteers are encouraged to ... hold the Trustees and staff to account,
> through public and private discussion". [2] It's impossible to do this if
> we're not even allowed to see on a timely basis the decisions that are being
> made by the board.

Publishing draft minutes is quite unusual for a board - most I'm aware
of don't publish minutes until they are formally approved at the next
meeting (which can be months later) - so I'm not sure a week and a
half really qualifies as untimely. I doubt the minutes say much, any
way. The discussion was presumably in camera, so there will just be
the final decision in the public minutes and we've already been told
about that.

So, transparency doesn't seem to be an issue here. Proper board
recruitment processes do seem to be an issue, though - it doesn't
sound like they even interviewed anyone else... When Saad and I were
co-opted, we had been through the election process and secured the
support of members (just not as much support as other candidates), so
the board could have reasonable confidence that we were appropriate
choices. When you are co-opting someone that has been completely
uninvolved before, a much more thorough review process is required and
it doesn't sound like that happened in this case.

(To be clear - Greyham sounds like a very good choice, but I see no
evidence that he was the best choice available.)

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

[Thomas Dalton]

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 wikitowns? Or is it the specific
circumstances of Gibraltarpedia you object to?

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership grace period

[Thomas Dalton]

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
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

[Thomas Dalton]

There are restricted donations, certainly, and I suppose those restrictions
could be considered terms. A restricted donation is not a contractual
arrangement though (a contract requires consideration - if there is
consideration then it isn't a donation), so I would not use the word
"terms", which is normally used in reference to contracts.

In any case, the announcement of this donation didn't mention any
restrictions.
On Feb 11, 2013 8:25 PM, "John Byrne"  wrote:

> Tom,
> Why do you talk nonsense half the time (or more)?  Of course many
> donations have terms, implied or explicit. Hence the restricted funds many
> charities have. Any donation involving transferring domain names should
> have a written agreement, as this one will have, and that agreement has
> terms.  Which from a combination of various reasons took an inordinate time
> 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@lists.**wikimedia.org >
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia Message-ID: > wmAKt2BK+**aUevStT8ks-PMNPCcsL1GeVA@mail.**gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 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...
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l<http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l>
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

[Thomas Dalton]

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 contractors
to transition things and sort out the security concerns that have been
raised. The budget can absorb that.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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 the sort...
>
> Mike said that neither of Andy's statements would be at all accurate.
> He doesn't
> see things the same way.
>
> Charles
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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
> > criticisms  I'm interested in correcting a false impression that has
> > been given in the media of a dispute which did not occur. I'm
> > delighted - and relieved - that agreement to transfer ownership of
> > QRpedia has been reached, and have been calling for that for sometime.
> > However, I don't wish to "move on" until  reasonable efforts have been
> > made to correct the aforesaid false impression.Your support in this
> > endeavour would be welcome.
>
> I think we've established that your view that a false impression has
> been given is that of someone with a partial view of the proceedings,
> and that the WMUK Secretary, who has a fuller view to go on, doesn't
> see things the same way.
>
> Move next business.
>
> Charles
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

[Thomas Dalton]

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...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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 for it taking so long. I'm saying it is
unacceptable for you to dismiss the problem with "it just did".

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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.
>
> Let's be happy we got there and toast the success. But please let's move
on and make QRpedia work.

You're the chief executive, it's your job to review what has happened, work
out why it went wrong and work out how to do things better in future. "It
just did" is totally unacceptable.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

"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"  wrote:

> On 9 February 2013 13:08, Thehelpfulone 
> wrote:
>
> >
> http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity
>
> This also refers to an "an intellectual property dispute over
> QRPedia", which is, of course, bunkum.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

[Thomas Dalton]

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...
>
>
> You were on the board and don't remember the speed of charities?

Do you realise just how long this has taken?
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

[Thomas Dalton]

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 Bamkin and Terence Eden regarding the ownership of QRpedia.
>
> The intellectual property in QRpedia and the qrpedia.org and qrwp.orgdomains 
> will be transferred to Wikimedia UK, which will maintain and
> support the development of the QRpedia platform for the future. Roger and
> Terence will act as honorary advisors to Wikimedia UK in this, as well as
> retaining their moral rights of attribution, but will not receive any
> financial consideration for this.
>
> I am very pleased we have reached an agreement. I look forward to
> Wikimedia UK working to support QRpedia's future development. This includes
> defining our future involvement with the MonmouthpediA and GibraltarpediA
> projects. A fuller statement will follow.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Keating
>
>
> --
> Chris Keating
> Chair, Wikimedia UK
> @chriskeating
> chris.keat...@wikimedia.org.uk
>
> Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Charitable
> Company registered in England and Wales. Registered Company No. 6741827.
> Registered Charity No.1144513.
> Registered Office: 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
> London EC2A 4LT
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 usually find a reliable source with a picture in
fairly easily and make sure it is the same person. That's much harder with
voice.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 articles to record a 10-second sample
> of their speaking voice, for use on those articles?
>
> An example script is "Hello, my name is [name]. I was born in [place]
> and I have been [job or position] since [year]".
>
> So far, the participants:
>
>
>
> include Alice Arnold, Sue Black, Quentin Cooper, Corrie Corfield, Cory
> Doctorow, Jack Schofield, Bill Thompson and Dave Winer; and we've just
> had our first recording in French - but we need many more.
>
> Of course, this isn't limited to article subjects, and it would be a
> good idea if board members and chapter staff would consider adding
> their voices, so they can be identified in conference calls and
> recorded meetings.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership grace period

[Thomas Dalton]

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 come after us
with a baseball bat for the difference?
Will people paying a long way in advance give you an administrative
headache, for example from having to make allowance for it in the
accounts?

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership grace period

[Thomas Dalton]

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 notification was
> experimented with a few months ago, but before then there was no easy way
> to know if your membership has expired or not.
>
> Similarly, I don't if t's done now, but there didn't used to be an
> acknowledgement of a membership application. If it's not done already, the
> chapter should certainly send out a "thank you for your £5, your membership
> is awaiting approval" and then a "your membership has been approved" email.
>
>
> Harry Mitchell
> http://enwp.org/User:HJ
> Phone: 024 7698 0977
> Skype: harry_j_mitchell
>
>   --
> *From:* Andrew Gray 
> *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list 
> *Sent:* Thursday, 7 February 2013, 17:40
> *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership grace period
>
> On 7 February 2013 17:22, David Gerard  wrote:
> > On 7 February 2013 17:01, Katherine Bavage
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> So - I'm not advocating FOR a reduction in limiting the grace period to
> a
> >> shorter time span (say, three months) but rather seeking your thoughts
> on
> >> whether that would be a good or a bad idea and why, much like I did when
> >> asking about verifying the identity of members applying for membership.
> >> Candid responses welcome.
> >
> > I'm thinking you should nag us more.
> >
> > *cough* I suspect I am one of said members. Where do I go to give you
> > my money again?
>
> Yeah, I'm with David - active members in grace are mostly just
> forgetful :-). As there are virtually no things for which being a
> member is essential other than voting, it's very easy to not get
> around to it...
>
> Is it possible to set up recurring membership dues as a direct debit?
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 with the Foundation?

The key issue will be funding. The FDC deducted from all the
applications any amount intended to be contributed to the WCA and
there was a suggestion that the WCA would apply directly to the FDC
for funds. I think we can safely assume that won't be happening now.
That may mean the FDC will be willing to fund the WCA through
chapters, at least once there is a clear budget (that was one of the
main reasons they rejected that part of the applications - chapters
were just making wild guesses about the amounts). Of course, that
would put them on a collision course with the WMF board, who have to
approve the FDC's recommendations. Would the WMF board overrules the
FDC over it? I have no idea. I also have no idea if the FDC would risk
it.


If the FDC doesn't approve funding, chapters can fund the WCA out of
their FDC grants anyway (they are unrestricted grants), although they
may not want to risk future FDC grants by doing so. The WCA can also
be funded by non-WMF money. Only WMDE has a significant amount of that
at the moment, and much of it is restricted (mainly to Wikidata), but
I know WMUK has been investigating other revenue streams and I'm sure
other chapters are too. Without access to WMF funds, the FDC may need
to scale down its plans a little, but there doesn't seem to be much
appetite for large scale spending anyway. It could probably make do
with £100k p.a. if it had to, which works out at an average of £2.5k
per chapter (presumably with more coming from wealthier chapters and
less from the others), which should be easily achievable.

As long as the FDC can get the funding it needs, there is no reason it
can't function as planned. WMF support would make it easier, but isn't
essential. Representing the views of the chapters in discussions with
the WMF is the only part of its planned activities that involve the
WMF, and I don't think the WMF can really refuse to talk to it if
that's what the chapters want. (There are plenty of examples of big
businesses trying to break unions - it tends not to end well for the
big businesses.)

Would continuing to support the WCA harm WMUK's relationship with the
WMF? Perhaps, but the only way I can really see that happening is if
WMUK funds it out of an FDC grant contrary to the FDC's wishes and
there are ways around that.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 that's as far as it got.
They haven't withdrawn their support, they've said they aren't going
to be giving any support - subtly different!

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 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 has said he wants the
>> community to have a chance to review it before the board meeting, so
>> they need to publish in the next 24 hours or so to meet his target.
>>
>> What do you think "the guys in London" should be doing over the next
>> 3-4 days? As I've said repeatedly, and no-one has attempted to
>> counter, it doesn't make sense to prepare a response beyond "we're
>> starting a discussion" before the discussion has taken place. Why
>> can't we all be reviewing the report at the same time?
>>
>
> While I am - as an outsider - also very interested in the report, I think
> the example of publishing the Board's WCA letter shows that it might be
> helpful to give a bit of time for the subjects of the report to consider
> some responses for the most likely questions and comments that will start
> immediately after publication and not responding quickly enough could
> potentially lead to incorrect facts entering "general knowledge" (like the
> "fact" that the WCA will cost $500k a year).
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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 has said he wants the
community to have a chance to review it before the board meeting, so
they need to publish in the next 24 hours or so to meet his target.

What do you think "the guys in London" should be doing over the next
3-4 days? As I've said repeatedly, and no-one has attempted to
counter, it doesn't make sense to prepare a response beyond "we're
starting a discussion" before the discussion has taken place. Why
can't we all be reviewing the report at the same time?

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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 Behalf Of David Gerard
> Sent: 06 February 2013 17:02
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review
>
> On 6 February 2013 16:56, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > Speaking just for myself, I was actually enjoying Thomas' posts,
> > rather than resenting them filling up my inbox.
> > Yours, on the other hand, I did resent: for its glib pomposity.
>
>
> Considering you are in fact here to troll, that's just fine.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

We're talking about when the report is published, not whether it is
published, so I fail to see what people losing their jobs or Wikimedia UK
losing its chapter status has to do with anything... If the report is so
damning that those are going to be the outcomes, then that is going to be
as much the case in a few days as it is now.
On Feb 6, 2013 4:48 PM, "HJ Mitchell"  wrote:

> Tom,
>
> I've a lot of respect for you, and I usually agree with you. In fact, I
> mostly agree with you on this issue - I would like to see the report
> published sooner rather than later because even if it is absolutely
> damning, it is in the charity's best interests to publish it and be seen to
> be addressing the issues raised in it.
>
> However, it is not your decision (or mine) to make, and there is more at
> stake here than a delay in the membership being able to hold the board to
> account. In the worst case scenario, potentially people's jobs, WMUK's
> chapter status, and the UK community's relations with the WMF and the wider
> movement are at risk. Thus, it is understandable that Jon and the board
> might want some time to work out what they're going to do about it before
> they are lambasted for the failings (to use your word) that are being
> reported on.
>
> Taking that into account, please moderate your tone. This is a public
> mailing list and people don't want their inboxes filled with your
> diatribes, and directing those diatribes at members of staff who work very
> hard in the name of this charity and are limited in what they can say in
> response by standards of professionalism and decency is unlikely to achieve
> the result you desire and risks damaging 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 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:35
> *Subject:* 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) doing X because of Y" we call
> Y an "excuse".
>
> > As your previous email acknowledges, the review was co-commissioned by
> > Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation. We are discussing the review
> with
> > the Foundation and are in the process of preparing a response. This
> response
> > needs to be co-ordinated on both sides, discussed, and consensus reached.
> > This doesn't happen immediately. Please do be assured that we are in
> regular
> > contact with the WMF on this issue, as they are with us.
>
> As I have explained repeatedly, you do not need to discuss a response.
> The response should simply say that we are now going to have an open
> discussion with the community and decide where we go from here, and
> you could have written that months ago. Or have you already decided
> that you don't care what the community thinks and are just going to
> make all the decisions about how to respond yourselves?
>
> > One other important point I want to address from your email below, too.
> You
> > say "co-commissioned a report into your own failings". This is
> inaccurate as
> > there are plenty of things that we do well that the report will also look
> > at.
>
> Well, yes, I would hope you haven't failed at everything. The review
> was commissioned to look at your failings, though. Obviously, to work
> out what your failings are, it will have looked at things that turned
> out to be fine. Trying to deny that this is about your failings is
> disingenuous.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[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
> membership, the board and the staff, i.e. the firm as a whole) to raise
> our standards. Often what you propose is quite practicable, if it wasn't
> for the other activities the organisation is doing. It is Jon's job to
> organise those priorities. You may disagree with how he goes about that,
> as no doubt we all shall from time to time. However, I am not sure how
> helpful it is to question his good faith, short of supplying pretty clear
> evidence to support what your saying.

To be clear, I was using the plural "you". I suspect it is more the
board rather than Jon that are stalling.

> You have drawn certain conclusions from previous experience, but I do not
> think that is anyway indicative of any lack of good faith. From my own
> experience of dealing with the office - and indeed as reflected on the
> list - one problem seems to be we have all been over-ambitious about what
> we want to achieve. This has lead to the office becoming very hectic, with
> a certain amount of over work. With current plans to recruit more staff,
> this should lead a situation when WMUK (the firm) can more closely realise
> the sort of standards which you advocate.

Being overambitious is certainly a problem, but given that I wrote a
long blog post explaining why the chapter needed to cut down its plan
for this year so there would be time to give all the governance
problems the time they need, I'm not going to accept that as an excuse
for anything. They should have taken my advice and it is their fault
they didn't.

I don't think that is relevant to this, however. Publishing the report
will take about 2 minutes.

> Please don't hold back from raising these issues and advocating more
> exacting standards - just be a bit more understanding if they are not
> always met.

If mistakes are made despite everyone trying very hard to do things
right, then I am very understanding. Not publishing the report isn't a
mistake, though. It is a concious decision, and an incorrect one.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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) doing X because of Y" we call
Y an "excuse".

> As your previous email acknowledges, the review was co-commissioned by
> Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation. We are discussing the review with
> the Foundation and are in the process of preparing a response. This response
> needs to be co-ordinated on both sides, discussed, and consensus reached.
> This doesn't happen immediately. Please do be assured that we are in regular
> contact with the WMF on this issue, as they are with us.

As I have explained repeatedly, you do not need to discuss a response.
The response should simply say that we are now going to have an open
discussion with the community and decide where we go from here, and
you could have written that months ago. Or have you already decided
that you don't care what the community thinks and are just going to
make all the decisions about how to respond yourselves?

> One other important point I want to address from your email below, too. You
> say "co-commissioned a report into your own failings". This is inaccurate as
> there are plenty of things that we do well that the report will also look
> at.

Well, yes, I would hope you haven't failed at everything. The review
was commissioned to look at your failings, though. Obviously, to work
out what your failings are, it will have looked at things that turned
out to be fine. Trying to deny that this is about your failings is
disingenuous.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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
>> discussions with the community, we'll have a fuller response in a few
>> weeks". You could have written that months ago.
>>
>> Last time you used the "we need to prepare a response" excuse to delay
>> publishing something you ended up publishing it without any response anyway
>> and nothing bad happened, so your good faith is very much in doubt.
>
> Tom, cut it out. In the bigger picture it is going to be much more
> important that WMUK members hold the Board to implementation of the
> report.

It's rather hard to know if it will be important to implement the
report without having read it... I have no idea what the
recommendations are.

When you are forced to co-commission a report into your own failings,
making excuses not to publish it doesn't reflect well on you.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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
discussions with the community, we'll have a fuller response in a few
weeks". You could have written that months ago.

Last time you used the "we need to prepare a response" excuse to delay
publishing something you ended up publishing it without any response anyway
and nothing bad happened, so your good faith is very much in doubt.
On Feb 6, 2013 9:16 AM, "Jon Davies"  wrote:

> Tom, It might be 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.
>
> Jon
>
> On 6 February 2013 00:58, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
>
>> 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 had any discussion about it.
>>
>> Publish the report now. You've had plenty of time. You're supposed to be
>> running an organisation that prides itself on being transparent.
>> On Jan 31, 2013 11:15 AM, "Chris Keating" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report
>>>> > - this is expected by the end of this week and will be published
>>>> promptly
>>>> > (not necessarily immediately) when we get it.
>>>>
>>>> Why won't you publish it immeadiately?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So that we have a chance to prepare responses for any media inquiries
>>> that might result from it. As I say, we will be prompt about it, and I also
>>> want to make sure there is a chance for the community to review the
>>> findings before our board meeting on the 9th. Someone from Compass
>>> Partnership will be attending that meeting, so if there are any questions
>>> or clarifications from the community, we can ask them then.
>>>
>>> Hope this make sense,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
> tweet @jonatreesdavies
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
>
> Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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 had any discussion about it.

Publish the report now. You've had plenty of time. You're supposed to be
running an organisation that prides itself on being transparent.
On Jan 31, 2013 11:15 AM, "Chris Keating" 
wrote:

>
> > 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report
>> > - this is expected by the end of this week and will be published
>> promptly
>> > (not necessarily immediately) when we get it.
>>
>> Why won't you publish it immeadiately?
>>
>>
> So that we have a chance to prepare responses for any media inquiries that
> might result from it. As I say, we will be prompt about it, and I also want
> to make sure there is a chance for the community to review the findings
> before our board meeting on the 9th. Someone from Compass Partnership will
> be attending that meeting, so if there are any questions or clarifications
> from the community, we can ask them then.
>
> Hope this make sense,
>
> Chris
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania 2014

[Thomas Dalton]

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 (although that may change as they improve their
bid page), so it seems London is in with an excellent chance. In that
light, can we get an update from the bid team?

In particular, the logistics page says a fundraising website would
launch in January and there would be a event for sponsors in February.
Can we get an update on those?

Thanks!

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 months away, which will soon be upon us, and
it might not be a situation that can be helped, but it doesn't seem to me
(as a lay member) to be desirable.

If the two vacant seats are filled by co-option, that still leaves a
majority of the board elected, so I don't think the democratic legitimacy
of the board is too badly hurt. If we weren't so close to the agm, there
might be an argument for an egm rather than use co-option, but I think we
can wait a little to have our say.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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
discussed, so I think it was sent to that list by mistake) there has
been nothing since June 2012.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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 parties for comment. The final version is expected by the end of
> this week.
>
> 1 January 2013 - Interim report
> - this was received a little late, and is a draft which was circulated to
> the Board for comment
>
> 31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report
> - this is expected by the end of this week and will be published promptly
> (not necessarily immediately) when we get it.

Why won't you publish it immeadiately?

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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 is expected to be finished this week, and should be
> published shortly thereafter. We will be discussing it at the Board meeting
> on Saturday 9th and Sunday 10th Feb, and I expect we will be taking action
> on it there and then.
>
> The "interim report" was a draft circulated in private to allow for
> corrections of fact (in fact, one draft of the chronology, one of the
> conclusions & recommendations) and will not be published.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

[Thomas Dalton]

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 December 2012 - Description and Chronology
1 January 2013 - Interim report
31 January 2013 (target), 15 February 2013 (deadline) - Final report

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?

Jon said on the wiki on 9 January 2013 that the Interim report was
expected to be published "any day now"...

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New Article?

[Thomas Dalton]

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 anyone's looking for a new article to write, I just had this pointed out
> to me:
>
> http://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2012/08/24/the-first-duel-fought-in-hot-air-balloons-paris-1808/
>
> I believe it's notable - if a little tricky to find modern sources for.
> There might even be a Did You Know in it.
>
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over
> Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] state of qrpedia

[Thomas Dalton]

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 understand either, which was why it was so difficult to
try and work out a mutually acceptable deal.

I think it's clear you aren't asking for money, so what are you asking
for in exchange?

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 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
>> > uncategorised pages, keeping track of board actions etc. Unfortunately,
>> > I
>> > edited some historical pages too without realising, so I've rolled back
>> > all
>> > my edits. The test was promising, at least - although the 'recent
>> > changes'
>> > page has an extra hundred or so edits on it!
>> >
>> > Thanks for participating in my grand experiment!
>> >
>> > Sorry once again,
>> >
>> > Richard Symonds
>> > Wikimedia UK
>> > 0207 065 0992
>> >
>> > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
>> > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
>> > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
>> > 4LT.
>> > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
>> > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation
>> > (who
>> > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>> >
>> > Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
>> > over
>> > Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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
> uncategorised pages, keeping track of board actions etc. Unfortunately, I
> edited some historical pages too without realising, so I've rolled back all
> my edits. The test was promising, at least - although the 'recent changes'
> page has an extra hundred or so edits on it!
>
> Thanks for participating in my grand experiment!
>
> Sorry once again,
>
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over
> Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 on open
> data, Wikipedia and social media”.
>
> More at <
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/andy-mabbett-fellow-royal-society-arts/>
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett FRSA
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Indeed. Part of that is separating decision-making from any benefit that
> results from those decisions. Community input will be vital in further
> developing things like our GLAM programme, and we are planning to formalise
> that with things like a formally-constituted GLAM Committee. It's very
> likely that that programme will in future involve more Wikimedians in
> Residence and more staff.
>
> What we can't have is a situation where someone on (say) a GLAM Committee
> is helping make decisions about where Wikimedia UK is seeking to appoint
> Wikimedians in Residence, or what their contract should say, and then
> applying for one of those Wikimedian in Residence posts. I hope this makes
> sense.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

*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, as a community, to learn how to manage conflicts of interest. We
> can't just avoid them.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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
> and agreed that it might be worth reminding active members that if they
> have any intention of applying for roles that are coming up, e.g.
> Wikipedian in Residence posts it would be prudent to refrain from
> commenting on any of the aspects surrounding these roles, specifically
> discussions about job descriptions, contracts, working agreements etc. This
> will eradicate any issues around Conflicts of Interest. We just cannot be
> too careful with such a sensitive issue.
>
> For those who are not so conflicted we would really appreciate any
> comments on 
> thispaper
>  setting out how we would like to manage such CoI's in future.
>
> Jon
>
> --
> *Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
> tweet @jonatreesdavies
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
>
> Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 verify an identity. It wouldn't appear on a
credit report as an attempt to get credit - it's a separate service
designed for exactly this kind of thing.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 whatever standard system we come up with, then they can be dealt
with as special cases.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 me get
my own account (rather than my mum having an account in my name) when
I was 13. Obviously, you can't get any kind of credit facility (which
includes standard debit cards), but that's not an issue for us.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 only check your details when you try to make
a claim, we could just check when people try to vote.

> Yes, the credit checking thing occurred to me but seemed a little excessive
> - plus it would complicate our obligations in terms of possible data
> protection (if it was part managed by staff) or I suspect would be really
> expensive.
>
> I suppose what we need to demonstrate is that, say 'Joe Bloggs' is a) Is who
> he says he is (proof of photo ID) and b) Lives at the address he says he
> does (utility bill? Electoral roll?). If people pay from a verified paypal
> account the need to check is superseded, because Paypal requires all this
> information.

Electoral roll is no good - plenty of people aren't registered to
vote. Utility bills only help if you are the one that pays them.
People that live with their parents, or live in student halls, or
simply have everything in the name of their spouse, aren't going to
have one. I'm not sure Paypal does anything particularly thorough when
it verifies your account, and people tend to only verify their
accounts if they are selling things through paypal.

I suggested a credit scoring agency because it's the only thing I can
really think of that is practical. It will check your details in lots
of different ways, so is likely to be able to find something for
everyone (some minors may have a problem - they would need to have a
bank account in their own name or something in order to be in the
database). I have no idea what it would cost, though.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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, "Katherine Bavage" <
katherine.bav...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> Hey Harry,
>
> I'm not sure if ii) *is* easier. Compare the work of verifying members
> before every AGM and EGM or merely at the point of joining.
>
> We don't really have formal check on membership at the moment - no
> applicant is asked to prove their residency at their address of that they
> have provided their real name.
>
> In terms of Wikimedia U.K. as a company it is required to keep an accurate
> list of members addresses and names (
> http://www.companylawsolutions.co.uk/topics/statutory_registers.shtml#Ins)
> (apologies if you knew that already) I don't think it's *required* to
> check validity of address. While, the legal view (on whether in creating a
> false membership invalidates any voting rights) will be informative, I'm
> still not seeing how that is material unless we have a mechanism for ID'ing
> false applications.
>
> Therefore, I still think the key question is one of 'How should we check
> those members' names and addresses are valid' in a way that isn't too
> invasive, expensive or time consuming. No suggestions yet...
>
> Kat
>
> On 19 November 2012 15:19, Harry Burt  wrote:
>
>> Aren't there really two points here:
>> (i) Should we enforce more checks on prospective members?
>> (ii) Should we enforce more checks on members before we let them vote at
>> AGMs, whether in person or by proxy?
>>
>> I think the legal question is a good one. Are charities required to do
>> neither/either/both? Legal issues aside, surely (ii) but not (i) is the
>> easiest by quite a margin.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> --
>> Harry Burt (User:Jarry1250)
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Katherine Bavage <
>> katherine.bav...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> At the board meeting on Saturday a valid point was made that currently
>>> the verification process for membership applications doesn't really prove a
>>> barrier to fraudulent or duplicate applications.
>>>
>>> I'd like to look at ways of improving this, so as we aim to expand our
>>> membership numbers we're also making sure fairness is enshrined in a
>>> checking process that means people can only have one vote.
>>>
>>> If people pay their membership fee with Paypal, this isn't so much of a
>>> problem, as having a verified paypal account has already required this
>>> person to link their identity to their postal address - but we want to be
>>> as open as possible and so there will be people who give us 'a form and a
>>> fiver'.
>>>
>>> What checking processes do we think would be acceptable without being
>>> invasive/onerous? At a basic level, we should be confirming that the
>>> applicant is the named person at the address given.
>>>
>>> Please flag up concerns, suggestions for services or resources we can
>>> use, and so on. It may be that we can't completely eliminate the risk of
>>> fraudulent applications, but we can make it more difficult and provide a
>>> measure or reassurance that no individual has more power than any other by
>>> being able to vote twice etc .
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Katherine Bavage *
>>> *Fundraising Manager *
>>> *Wikimedia UK*
>>> +44 20 7065 0949
>>>
>>> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
>>> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
>>> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
>>> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
>>> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
>>> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>>>
>>> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
>>> control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Katherine Bavage *
> *Fundraising Manager *
> *Wikimedia UK*
> +44 20 7065 0949
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other p

[Wikimediauk-l] Proposal - Audit Committee

[Thomas Dalton]

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 went with a mixed approach of providing options but a more openly
> phrased question. I'm open to use redrafting the questions, but only if the
> redrafted versions were accommodating in this respect.

What you're really doing there, though, is asking "How do you answer
the question "What is your gender?"?" which is logically equivalent to
just asking "What is your gender?".

Including enough options that everyone will fall into one of the boxes
(or at least "Other") is a good idea, but torturing the English
language in an attempt to appear politically correct doesn't actually
achieve anything!

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] London Wikimeet 63

[Thomas Dalton]

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. The office are aware of that, so
I'm sure it is in their diaries.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK Wikipedians in Residence

[Thomas Dalton]

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 accounting year should
not be a major consideration in the planning of activities...

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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  wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I earlier today published a list of the decisions that had been made
> regarding theses areas as recorded on the public wiki.
>
> It has been brought to my attention that there are significant gaps e.g.
> Mention of the evolution of Qr codes in the Derby project which could make
> this digest misleading.
>
> However all the information is up there on the wiki.
>
> Apologies for any confusion this may have caused. It was done with good
> intentions in order to assist an understanding of what happened.
>
> Jon Davies.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
> tweet @jonatreesdavies
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.
>
> Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 (I'm assuming transparency was the aim of creating the
> document).

Are you saying it was you that objected? If so, can you explain what
your objection was?

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Having an advisory board

[Thomas Dalton]

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 subset of the membership, I believe.
> The CIC decides at the start how to run the stakeholder function.

We could create some kind of members' council if we wanted to. There
is a lot of freedom in how individual charities handle their affairs.
I'm not sure if the powers of members could be delegated to a subset,
but the powers of the board can be restricted so they can't do certain
things without the consent of the council.

I don't really see what would be gained by that, though. The council
would need to be significantly larger than the board, otherwise it
would have no greater legitimacy than the board. If the council is
much larger than the quorum for a general meeting, then you might as
well just have a general meeting. If we get to the point where we have
thousands of members then it might make sense to add an extra layer of
governance. We don't need that now, though.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Having an advisory board

[Thomas Dalton]

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 what authority they have (ie. none).
>>
>
> I would ask them, given the current age of the charity, the budget, the
relationships with stakeholders, the number of staff, the relationship with
the Foundation, recent resignations, the work balance between Trustees and
staff would an advisory board be of positive benefit.

That's not something they will be able to answer from just a phone call.
That's pretty complicated advice, which isn't something the charity
commission's helpline can give. They would need to know a lot about the
charity to know what would and wouldn't be appropriate for us.

>>
>> What is the difference between the CIC approach and our approach of
having members that hold the board to account?
>>
>
> Members of charities exercise their choices at AGMs and EGMs. Stakeholder
groups for CICS might meet on a regular basis (e.g. quarterly?). Scrutiny
roles can be defined in various ways, like the CIC model. Housing
associations (all registered providers of housing) used to be subject to
(tenant) scrutiny, before the TSA was abolished!

We could have quarterly general meetings if we wanted to. We don't need to
change legal structure for that.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Having an advisory board

[Thomas Dalton]

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 to account?
On Oct 23, 2012 5:22 PM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:

> On 23/10/12 16:26, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 23 October 2012 16:19, Gordon Joly  wrote:
>>
>>  Advisory board? Why? Why not just put petrol on the flames?
>>> A charity that is as small as Wikimedia U.K. has no need of more
>>> dimensions
>>> of governance...
>>>
>>
>> An advisory board is conventionally "advisory", per the name: they're
>> there to ask things and to occasionally speak up. They're not part of
>> the governance as such.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>
> So, what is the point? The Advisory Board can be ignored, as and when. The
> issue reminds of why I favour the CIC model, with a group of stakeholders
> to hold the main board to account. Likewise, NHS Foundation Trusts with a
> membership and a Council of Governors.
>
> No gift aid with CICS.
>
> http://www.bis.gov.uk/**cicregulator/
>
> ***
>
> Community Interest Companies (CICS) are limited companies, with special
> additional features, created for the use of people who want to conduct a
> business or other activity for community benefit, and not purely for
> private advantage.
>
> This is achieved by a "community interest test" and "asset lock", which
> ensure that the CIC is established for community purposes and the assets
> and profits are dedicated to these purposes. Registration of a company as a
> CIC has to be approved by the Regulator who also has a continuing
> monitoring and enforcement role.
>
>
> ***
>
>
> Gordo
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board

I don't think the WMF's advisory board has been particularly
successful or effective, so I would advise against basing WMUK's on it
to too great an extent.

Sitting on the WMF's advisory board is more of a sinecure than
anything. If WMUK is going to have an advisory board, we need to
ensure we avoid that.

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geonotices.

[Thomas Dalton]

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 should try much more targeted ones - London area, Cambridge
> area, Manchester area, etc. Hmm.)

It is very difficult to accurately identify geographic locations
within the UK. IP addresses are generally assigned from an ISPs pool
which they use nationwide, so they just identify to wherever the ISP
is based.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

Then they should wait for the review before apologising. Or they could just
apologise for those things they already know they did wrong. An apology
that doesn't say what you are apologising for is meaningless, so why say it?
On Oct 14, 2012 12:15 PM, "David Gerard"  wrote:

> On 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 complaining had they said anything or nothing.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

If they don't know what they've done wrong, what are they apologising for?
On Oct 14, 2012 12:11 PM, "Martin Poulter"  wrote:

> Heed Fabian's words, please, Tom. It would be paradoxical at best to
> say "we think mistakes have been made, and we're having an independent
> review to look at what went wrong, and _here's_ _specifically_ _what_
> _went_ _wrong_."
>
> With a bit of imagination and stretchy analogies, it's possible to put
> a negative spin on *any* development, and attribute the worst
> intentions to any 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 "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,  wrote:
> >>
> >> Tom,
> >>
> >> Please re-read the statement.
> >>
> >> The board:
> >> a) acknowledges mistakes have been made
> >> b) acknowledges that those mistakes have had a damaging impact
> >> c) identified a process (the review) which will not only look closely at
> >> what went on, but will produce "clear recommendations which will help us
> >> follow best practice in every area of governance".
> >>
> >> I think you bring very important insights which can and should help get
> >> WMUK to where it needs to be. However I don't think you help people
> grasp
> >> the importance of what you suggest when you take umbrage where it is not
> >> necessary.
> >>
> >> all the best
> >>
> >> Fabian
> >> (User:Leutha)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom Dalton wrote:
> >> >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 fixing the problems
> >> >caused by those mistakes and making sure similar mistakes don't happen
> >> >again? That's what people want to know. If you want to wait until the
> >> >review is complete before going into details, then say that. Don't
> >> .post this kind of meaningless drivel.
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> >> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> >> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia UK mailing list
> > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dr Martin L Poulter
> Wikipedia contributor http://enwp.org/User:MartinPoulter
> Associate, Wikimedia UK  http://uk.wikimedia.org/
> Musician  http://myspace.com/comapilot
> Person http://infobomb.org/
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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,  wrote:

> Tom,
>
> Please re-read the statement.
>
> The board:
> a) acknowledges mistakes have been made
> b) acknowledges that those mistakes have had a damaging impact
> c) identified a process (the review) which will not only look closely at
> what went on, but will produce "clear recommendations which will help us
> follow best practice in every area of governance".
>
> I think you bring very important insights which can and should help get
> WMUK to where it needs to be. However I don't think you help people grasp
> the importance of what you suggest when you take umbrage where it is not
> necessary.
>
> all the best
>
> Fabian
> (User:Leutha)
>
>
>
> Tom Dalton wrote:
> >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 fixing the problems
> >caused by those mistakes and making sure similar mistakes don't happen
> >again? That's what people want to know. If you want to wait until the
> >review is complete before going into details, then say that. Don't
> .post this kind of meaningless drivel.
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

The other option I've been considering recently along those lines, but a
little more formal, is an audit committee. It would consist of 3 trusted
and experienced members elected by the membership and have a mandate to
generally keep an eye on what is going on and to investigate specific
complaints. It would then report to the board or, if necessary, the
membership (and would have the power to call an EGM so the membership can
react to that report).
On Oct 13, 2012 8:41 PM, "Tom Holden"  wrote:

> Is there a role for an advisory board? It was discussed a while back.
> Perhaps some of the long serving former board members could be invited to
> be on it (Andrew T., Joe S., Tom D.)?
>
> A little bit of an external check of "are we doing something basically
> sensible" might help.
>
> And it'd be easier to enforce a hard policy of "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 Thomas Dalton
> Sent: 13 October 2012 20:20
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
> Subject: 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 fixing the problems
> caused by those mistakes and making sure similar mistakes don't happen
> again? That's what people want to know. If you want to wait until the
> review is complete before going into details, then say that. Don't post
> this kind of meaningless drivel.
>
> On 13 October 2012 19:43, Stevie Benton 
> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I thought I'd drop you a line to let you know that Wikimedia UK has
> > just published its latest blog post. The post is a message to our
> > community from the Board of Trustees.
> >
> > You can find the blog post at
> > http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/10/a-message-from-the-wikimedia-uk-b
> > oard/
> >
> > As ever, please do feel free to get in touch with your comments.
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> >
> > Stevie
> >
> > --
> >
> > Stevie Benton
> > Communications Organiser
> > Wikimedia UK
> > +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
> > @StevieBenton
> >
> > Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Company
> > Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No.
> 6741827.
> > Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor,
> > Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United
> > Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation
> > (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> > Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
> > control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia UK mailing list
> > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
> >
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 fixing the problems
caused by those mistakes and making sure similar mistakes don't happen
again? That's what people want to know. If you want to wait until the
review is complete before going into details, then say that. Don't
post this kind of meaningless drivel.

On 13 October 2012 19:43, Stevie Benton  wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I thought I'd drop you a line to let you know that Wikimedia UK has just
> published its latest blog post. The post is a message to our community from
> the Board of Trustees.
>
> You can find the blog post at
> http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/10/a-message-from-the-wikimedia-uk-board/
>
> As ever, please do feel free to get in touch with your comments.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Stevie
>
> --
>
> Stevie Benton
> Communications Organiser
> Wikimedia UK
> +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
> @StevieBenton
>
> Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Company Limited by
> Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827.
> Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development
> House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK
> is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are
> run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other
> projects).
> Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over
> Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 rejected offers, rather than the one
that was finally accepted. My understanding is that those were in
camera decisions, but perhaps now they can be released? The reasons
for keeping it in camera probably don't apply now Roger has actually
resigned.

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:
>>>
 It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an
 individual,
 when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his
 position.
 It appears that he was protected.

>>> You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps
>>> it's time you shared that with us.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you
>> have something to say, say it.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>
> Did the board reject Roger's resignations in the past?
>
>
> Gordo
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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.

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