Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

2013-04-12 Thread Thomas Dalton
Titles of legal documents rarely mean anything. On 12 Apr 2013 08:54, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, they do say that. In the name. Election rules. On 12 April 2013 00:11, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 Apr 2013 00:03, James Farrar james.far

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

2013-04-12 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 12 April 2013 10:56, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

2013-04-12 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 12 April 2013 13:00, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

2013-04-12 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 12 April 2013 16:24, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

2013-04-12 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 12 April 2013 18:53, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Another voting reminder

2013-04-11 Thread 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 richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: All, Just another quick email to

[Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

2013-04-11 Thread 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

2013-04-11 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 11 April 2013 18:33, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Another voting reminder

2013-04-11 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 11 Apr 2013 18:57, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk 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.

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

2013-04-11 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 11 Apr 2013 23:08, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 April 2013 18:48, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: There are several combinations that result in problems. Pretty much anything other than all passing and all failing is problematic to varying degrees

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

2013-04-11 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 12 Apr 2013 00:03, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com 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

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

2013-04-09 Thread Thomas Dalton
I've been trying to make those points myself, but I've given up now... On 9 Apr 2013 17:39, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Hi all, on this talk pagehttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:EGM_2013/Resolutions#Alternatives_to_Resolution_regarding_the_composition_of_the_board I have

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

2013-03-26 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 26 March 2013 09:45, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com 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

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

2013-03-26 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 26 March 2013 21:35, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com 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

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

2013-03-25 Thread 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

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

2013-03-25 Thread 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 richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk 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

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

2013-03-25 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 25 March 2013 21:43, rexx r...@blueyonder.co.uk 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

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

2013-03-25 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 25 March 2013 21:58, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk 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

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

2013-03-25 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 25 March 2013 22:34, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk 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

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

2013-03-19 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 19 March 2013 09:41, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com 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

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

2013-03-19 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 19 March 2013 10:55, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com 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

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

2013-03-19 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 19 March 2013 15:42, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com 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,

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

2013-03-18 Thread Thomas Dalton
Did you have a point? On 18 March 2013 22:47, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: Seems that Wikimedia UK are the body involved in running this event Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org

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

2013-03-18 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 18 March 2013 22:57, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info 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

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

2013-03-18 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 18 March 2013 23:10, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Draft EGM resolutions

2013-03-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 7 March 2013 09:54, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Draft EGM resolutions

2013-03-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 7 March 2013 12:23, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Draft EGM resolutions

2013-03-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 7 March 2013 12:34, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk 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

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

2013-02-20 Thread Thomas Dalton
How is that a conflict of interest? On Feb 20, 2013 1:44 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 February 2013 11:17, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote: I presume this decision was taken

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

2013-02-11 Thread Thomas Dalton
On Feb 11, 2013 3:25 PM, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

2013-02-11 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 11 February 2013 15:49, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

2013-02-11 Thread Thomas Dalton
On Feb 11, 2013 4:37 PM, John Byrne j...@bodkinprints.co.uk 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

2013-02-11 Thread Thomas Dalton
The wmuk Secretary said nothing of the sort... On Feb 11, 2013 5:07 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 11 February 2013 17:02, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: I'm not sure why you've attached your top-posted comment to my post; but to be clear; my

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

2013-02-11 Thread 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 charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 11 February 2013 17:11, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: The wmuk Secretary

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

2013-02-11 Thread Thomas Dalton
On Feb 11, 2013 7:59 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

2013-02-11 Thread Thomas Dalton
17:17, wikimediauk-l-request@lists.**wikimedia.orgwikimediauk-l-requ...@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 wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] QRpedia

2013-02-09 Thread 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 chris.keat...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Dear all, I am pleased to announce that Wikimedia UK has reached an

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

2013-02-09 Thread 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership grace period

2013-02-08 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 8 February 2013 14:38, Katherine Bavage katherine.bav...@wikimedia.org.uk 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Voice Intro Project

2013-02-08 Thread Thomas Dalton
On Feb 8, 2013 11:31 PM, Roger Bamkin victuall...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership grace period

2013-02-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
I agree, definitely nag us more. We're a forgetful lot! On Feb 7, 2013 5:56 PM, HJ Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

2013-02-06 Thread Thomas Dalton
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 thomas.dal

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

2013-02-06 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 6 February 2013 09:32, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 6 February 2013 09:30, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

2013-02-06 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 6 February 2013 12:23, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk 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

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

2013-02-06 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 6 February 2013 13:11, fab...@unpopular.org.uk 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

2013-02-06 Thread Thomas Dalton
, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 6 February 2013 18:49, steve virgin st...@mediafocusuk.com 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

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

2013-02-06 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 6 February 2013 21:07, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com 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

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

2013-02-06 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 6 February 2013 23:08, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com 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

[Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania 2014

2013-02-05 Thread 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

2013-02-05 Thread 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

[Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

2013-01-30 Thread 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

2013-01-30 Thread Thomas Dalton
What about the first two deliverables on the TOR? On Jan 30, 2013 1:47 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Governance review

2013-01-30 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 30 January 2013 15:21, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com 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

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

2013-01-30 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 30 January 2013 16:51, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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,

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] New Article?

2013-01-23 Thread 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] state of qrpedia

2013-01-22 Thread 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

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

2013-01-15 Thread Thomas Dalton
Have we also learned an important lesson about the importance of bot flags? On 15 January 2013 23:55, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk 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

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

2013-01-15 Thread 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 richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Semi automated! But point taken :-) On Jan 16, 2013 12:06 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Have we

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

2013-01-09 Thread Thomas Dalton
Congratulations! On Jan 10, 2013 12:46 AM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk 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

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

2012-12-07 Thread 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 jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Chris Keating and I had a chat about Volunteer

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

2012-12-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 7 December 2012 15:33, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk 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.

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

2012-12-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
*Throw*, even - my fingers like to type (near-)homophones... On 7 December 2012 15:38, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 December 2012 15:33, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: We live in difficult times True, but don't want to through the baby out

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

2012-12-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 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

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

2012-11-28 Thread Thomas Dalton
On Nov 28, 2012 11:05 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com 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

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

2012-11-20 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 20 November 2012 12:30, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com 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

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

2012-11-20 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 20 November 2012 13:05, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com 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

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

2012-11-19 Thread 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

[Wikimediauk-l] Proposal - Audit Committee

2012-11-11 Thread 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. ___

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

2012-11-09 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 9 November 2012 17:22, Katherine Bavage katherine.bav...@wikimedia.org.uk 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] London Wikimeet 63

2012-11-02 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 2 November 2012 11:32, Roger Bamkin victuall...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK Wikipedians in Residence

2012-10-26 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 26 October 2012 17:24, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk 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

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

2012-10-25 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 25 October 2012 17:47, HJ Mitchell hjmitch...@ymail.com 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

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

2012-10-25 Thread 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Having an advisory board

2012-10-23 Thread 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Having an advisory board

2012-10-23 Thread Thomas Dalton
On Oct 23, 2012 10:23 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Having an advisory board

2012-10-23 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 23 October 2012 22:49, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com 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

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

2012-10-21 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 21 October 2012 19:20, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk 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

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

2012-10-14 Thread 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,

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

2012-10-14 Thread Thomas Dalton
/Introspection_illusion ). On 14 October 2012 11:59, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 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

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

2012-10-14 Thread Thomas Dalton
October 2012 12:12, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com 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

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

2012-10-13 Thread 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

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

2012-10-13 Thread Thomas Dalton
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] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-09 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 9 October 2012 12:31, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk 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

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

2012-10-08 Thread 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 gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard

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

2012-10-08 Thread Thomas Dalton
On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com 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.

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

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it is practical. I think at some point you have to trust people to be able to handle that kind of indirect conflict. People are indirectly conflicted on pretty much everything if you use a broad enough definition. Being able to handle that is a

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

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
On Oct 7, 2012 2:26 PM, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: If you are someone's mate then you probably have a COI is as well, and I would assume you would also recuse yourself... Just being friends with someone that has an interest in an issue can't be considered a conflict. That

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

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 7 October 2012 18:15, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hey, So I felt that mate implies more than friendship, but you are right, friendship should never get in the way of simply putting the interests of the organization first. To me mate is just a colloquial synonym for

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

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 7 October 2012 19:26, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 07/10/12 14:39, Thomas Dalton wrote: Just being friends with someone that has an interest in an issue can't be considered a conflict. That would make it impossible for anyone to ever act! I disagree, Please elaborate. I'm

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

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
Then what were you disagreeing with? On Oct 7, 2012 7:47 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 07/10/12 19:39, Thomas Dalton wrote: Please elaborate. I'm not on the WMUK board any more, but when I was I was frequently involved in decisions about other UK volunteers, other chapters

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

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
People can make errors of judgement for all sorts of reasons. Overfamiliarity can be a cause, but it is hardly necessary. On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, when that person (e.g. Roger

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

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 7 October 2012 22:34, Roger Bamkin victuall...@gmail.com 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] London Wikimeet, November 11th and Wikimedia UK 4th Anniversary.

2012-10-04 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 4 October 2012 11:27, Hasina Khatun hasina.kha...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hello, Just to keep you updated the Penderal's Oak has been booked for the 11th November. Just the cake now :) Great, thanks! You should probably call them a couple of days before to confirm, since they haven't

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimedia UK Office Support Job.

2012-10-04 Thread Thomas Dalton
Is hiring new staff really wise when there is still so much uncertainty surrounding the chapter? Are you that confident that the FDC is going to approve the budget for new staff, given the lack of confidence the WMF has in the chapter? Hiring additional admin support is going to be an essential

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Support service (was:Social enterprise)

2012-10-04 Thread Thomas Dalton
If anyone is interested, I have written up a fuller description of my idea here: https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tango/Consultancy Hopefully, people will see that it isn't such a disgusting, money-grabbing idea after all. I suggest discussion takes place on the talk page, rather than here

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Social enterprise

2012-10-03 Thread Thomas Dalton
The idea of setting up some kind of social enterprise is a very interesting one. One other service it could sell, somewhat more controversially, is advice on dealing with problems with Wikipedia articles. I think it is clear that just letting OTRS handle it doesn't really work and people need more

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Daily Telegraph error

2012-10-03 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 3 October 2012 11:15, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com wrote: I though this was a largely accurate article without any major errors. Far better than most media articles! The main body of the article is very good. The summary at the top is simplified to the point of being

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Social enterprise

2012-10-03 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 3 October 2012 12:32, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: It would be... tricky to get the idea past the community on Wikipedia, though, would it not? I know a good few administrators who delete any paid articles on sight. I should have been clearer - I'm talking about

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Support service (was:Social enterprise)

2012-10-03 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 3 October 2012 12:26, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: (starting a new topic as this is a little wider than the original thread, hope that is OK) I think it is clear that just letting OTRS handle it doesn't really work and people need more support than just an email

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] London Wikimeet, November 11th and Wikimedia UK 4th Anniversary.

2012-10-03 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 3 October 2012 12:25, Hasina Khatun hasina.kha...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hi, I was just wondering if I need to wait for this budget before I go ahead and make the booking at the Penderel's Oak and order a cake. If we're going with Penderal's Oak, then I don't think there is a charge for

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >