Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers (John Byrne)

e Chan) 4. Re: UK chapter membership numbers (Richard Nevell) > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:25:51 +0

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers (John Byrne)

apter > membership numbers (John Byrne) 3. Re: UK chapter membership numbers (Katie > Chan) 4. Re: UK chapter membership numbers (Richard Nevell) > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:25:51 +0100 (BST) > From: Charles Matthews > To:

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers (John Byrne)

imulate such a "one-off event" by simply asking > people whose membership had lapsed to renew. I was doing this sort of thing > for WMUK some seven years ago, so as an explanation it is not far-fetched. > > Charles > > > -- > > Messag

[Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers (John Byrne)

As very often in recent years, I got a notification of my post sent an hour or so ago, with completely blank text.  Yet Katie has clearly seen it, as she quotes me. Have others also got blanks? Can the rather cryptic instructions for replies be clarified, or is there some bug?  I get the digest

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers

Thanks Stevie. We are trying to work on an integrated communications and membership strategy to grow the membership further. As always there are capacity issues as to what we can do with the number of staff and funding we have, but I am always willing to listen to people's ideas for how we could

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers

Exactly what Katie says. The chapter can't win here. It gets criticised if membership doesn't grow because some see it as a kind of failure. Then, when the chapter grows its membership it is seen as some kind of entryist threat. I find it particularly notable that these criticisms come from the

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers

Dear Fae, My memory could be failing me, but I thought it was explained at the AGM that the increase was a result of asking donors to become members. It sounds like you are more interested in the 'how' of the process and the 'who' as you seem dissatisfied with the answer to *why* there was an

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers

Oh I don't know, maybe this "yawning gap" wouldn't be so wide if the chapter don't get criticised for both not increasing its membership numbers and having increased its membership numbers. Just a wide guess KTC Sent from my Samsung

[Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers

As I recall, the "successful membership drive" consisted in offering donors to convert some of their donation into a chapter sub. I doubt anyone knows who most of them are, and I doubt a high proportion know much about the movement or the chapter, beyond the experience of a reader.  Some of

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers

> On 10 April 2018 at 11:41 Fæ wrote: > > It appears that the jump in numbers was a one-off event, there has > been no continued growth since whatever happened. I don't know what happened. I did correspond with the office about a prompt to renew. One could simulate such a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers

Yes, at the AGM the tripling of membership numbers was explained as being due to an increase in members joining. No meaningful facts were presented to the members, but the impression given by the Chair and the CEO was that there would be more information publicly available. My question was "why".

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers

Dear Fae, As was explained at the AGM the increase in the number of members was the result of a successful membership drive. Regards, Richard Nevell On 9 Apr 2018 21:34, "Fæ" wrote: During the last UK Chapter AGM, it was asked why the membership numbers had radically

[Wikimediauk-l] UK chapter membership numbers

During the last UK Chapter AGM, it was asked why the membership numbers had radically changed, there was no specific answer to the question. Was any analysis done on this afterwards? When reviewing membership it seems likely that the charity's trustees would have been concerned at these figures so