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 "supportin
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 guarantor member (or
>>> become not
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 guarantor member (or
>> become nothing) might not be the best way forward.
>
>No-one
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what did they these members do? Just pay their fees?
>
> Gordo
>
>
> --
> "Think Feynman"/
> http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]///
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK maili
> 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 guarantor member (or
> become nothing) might not be the best way forward.
No-one has disagreed with that. What you're suggesting is *forc
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 s
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 mea
On Dec 3, 2:13 pm, Michael Peel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I believe most people would want to be a "friend" rather than a
> >> "member",
>
> > At this point, you're just guessing. The lists of people interested in
> > being guarantor and supporting members were pretty similar in length.
>
> I
2008/12/3 Mickey Conn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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 ev
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 suggested that the vanishingly
small responsibil
>
>> I believe most people would want to be a "friend" rather than a
>> "member", and I mean "member" in the technical sense of "guarantor
>> member".
>
> At this point, you're just guessing. The lists of people interested in
> being guarantor and supporting members were pretty similar in length.
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 m
> Being a member of a company (and in future a member of a charity)
> will bring a certain responsibility, which some may find is not what
> they want.
Technical point: Wiki UK Ltd. is a charity now - a charity is defined
as a non-profit company with charitable objects. Registration is not
require
At 11:24 -0800 2/12/08, AndrewRT wrote:
>On Dec 2, 9:11 am, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I assert that that model is wrong. Maybe not for inception, but
>> certainly for the future.
>>
>
>Are you happy that the model works ok for when we have less than, say,
>100 members? Given th
At 10:14 +0100 2/12/08, Michael Bimmler wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I assert that that model is wrong. Maybe not for inception, but
>> certainly for the future.
>>
>
>Why?
>
Being a member of a company (and in future a member of a charity)
On Dec 2, 9:11 am, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I assert that that model is wrong. Maybe not for inception, but
> certainly for the future.
>
Are you happy that the model works ok for when we have less than, say,
100 members? Given that we dont foresee being at that level for a
while
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I assert that that model is wrong. Maybe not for inception, but
> certainly for the future.
>
Why?
--
Michael Bimmler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[EMAIL PR
At 15:22 -0800 1/12/08, AndrewRT wrote:
>On Dec 1, 7:05 pm, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> But really there are two: directors and members, surely?
>
>I suppose you could think about it like this, yes, but this could
>confuse people.
>
>Legally speaking the members are the owners of t
On Dec 1, 7:05 pm, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But really there are two: directors and members, surely?
I suppose you could think about it like this, yes, but this could
confuse people.
Legally speaking the members are the owners of the organisation, who
meet annually and elect th
2008/12/1 Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 17:33 + 1/12/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>2008/12/1 Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> 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 cal
At 17:33 + 1/12/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>2008/12/1 Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 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".
> I am member of several charities, and a Trustee of one (which has no
> members other than the Trustees).
>
> I have sat in AGMs and wondered what it would be like if people
> rocked the boat, which is so easy to do
>
> Does every member have a voice?
Yes, rocking the boat is certainly possib
At 14:51 -0800 30/11/08, AndrewRT wrote:
>On Nov 30, 9:36 pm, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Not a problem to have 1000s of guarantor members? Is that what you mean?
>
>I don't understand - why would it be a problem having over 1,000
>members? I think it would be fantastic, personall
2008/12/1 Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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
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 or
On Nov 30, 9:36 pm, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Not a problem to have 1000s of guarantor members? Is that what you mean?
I don't understand - why would it be a problem having over 1,000
members? I think it would be fantastic, personally,
Andrew
> 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".
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wi
At 13:21 + 30/11/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > 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 t
> 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 th
ext. Not everbody uses
Gmail to read posts...
:-)
*
-
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
From: Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members
At 00:06 + 29/11/08, Andrew Turvey wrote:
>[...]
>When we were drafting the con
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 revie
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 should only the first 100 people get to
At 00:06 + 29/11/08, Andrew Turvey wrote:
>[...]
>When we were drafting the constitution, we adopted the standard
>Articles for charities, which give the Board fairly broad powers to
>refuse (or remove) membership if they consider this in the best
>interests of the charity. This is subject
> 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 should only the first 100 people get to have any say in the
running of the chapter?
_
My viewpoint here is that we should always assume good faith, but
keep an eye out for activity which might be suspicious, which could
then be raised for discussion at a board meeting, or if necessary at
a general meeting.
We shouldn't refuse membership applications because we think that the
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 splits
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 agreed
The Board has decided to put on its agenda for the next meeting the process for
admitting new members.
One question I wanted to raise for discussion among the community is what kind
of "due diligence" should the Board do when admitting members.
Most of the people who get involved in the wikimed
38 matches
Mail list logo
