At 19:08 + 5/12/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/12/5 Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 11:35 + 4/12/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I am sure there is some guesswork here.
And yes, I agree, WMUK must be democratic. I am trying to suggest
that making every supporting member become a
At 13:35 + 3/12/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
[...]
I don't see how you can disenfranchise 90% of the
membership just for convenience, it goes completely against the
democratic ideals of the chapter.
I believe most people would want to be a friend rather than a
member, and I mean member in
At 14:45 + 3/12/08, Mickey Conn wrote:
I've been involved in a company with around 1,000 members and it found
no particular difficulties with managing them. None of them were very
interested in an alternative friends affiliation; quite a few took
no interest in the AGM, but nobody ever
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Thomas Dalton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see anything particularly hard to manage with a 1000 members
company. Most people won't attend the AGMs and will vote by proxy. If
a significant number do attend the AGM then it would need to be run a
little more
At 22:36 + 30/11/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Not a problem to have 1000s of guarantor members? Is that what you mean?
Yes, what we call member is what WMUK v1.0 called guarantor member.
So, is there only one class of membership for WMUK 2.0?
BTW, I have just seen an example of an
Yes, nice to agree.
The Governance of WMUK is far from settled AFAIK. A very large group
(hundreds or thousands) cannot have a single voice with some
hierarchical or other structures.
The Governance is pretty much determined by the Companies Act 2006,
the Memorandum of Association and the
2008/11/29 Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 22:22 + 29/11/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
It is for such concerns that I have suggested a limit on guarantor
members, say to 75 or 100 people, all reviewed by the board, and open
membership for the Friends of WMUK 2.0 with no review.
Why
The nature of online communities is such that you simply won't have
access to the information that would be required to make an informed
judgement about an applicant. You can't require details of their
Wikimedia activities since they could simply deny being a Wikimedian
(and I believe we are
Surely the chapter is about the promotion of Wikimedia in the UK, raising
awareness of our projects and supporting the wider projects of WMF. I don't
see a link between SPs on Wikipedia (and or other projects) whose disruption
is essentially behind a computer screen and who wish to engineer
