Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-05 Thread Gordon Joly
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 has

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-05 Thread Thomas Dalton
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 nothing) might not be

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-05 Thread Gordon Joly
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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-04 Thread Gordon Joly
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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-04 Thread Gordon Joly
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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-04 Thread Thomas Dalton
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 *forcing*

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-04 Thread Mickey Conn
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 mailing list [EMAIL

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-03 Thread Michael Bimmler
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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-03 Thread Michael Peel
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. If this is indeed

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-03 Thread AndrewRT
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. If this is indeed

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-02 Thread Michael Bimmler
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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-02 Thread Gordon Joly
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 the

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-01 Thread Gordon Joly
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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-01 Thread Gordon Joly
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. So, is there

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-01 Thread Thomas Dalton
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 call member is what WMUK v1.0

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-12-01 Thread AndrewRT
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 the

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-11-30 Thread Thomas Dalton
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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-11-29 Thread Gordon Joly
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 to a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-11-29 Thread Thomas Dalton
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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-11-28 Thread Thomas Dalton
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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Process for admitting members

2008-11-28 Thread michael west
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