Hi all,

> I'm sure at least one other can so that we have
> at least 3 members/directors to incorporate with. If we can't get the
> others straightaway, we can co-opt them as soon as we're incorporated -
> then we can get things moving towards applying to the Charities
> Commission. I see no need for another meeting to agree what we've
> already agreed - let's use the next meeting to progress the project
> further.

This is a non-caffeine-fueled "NO NO NO!" I'm afraid. Ideally we want
*everyone* who is going to be formally active for Wikimedia UK to have
completed their space on the forms and to have signed the last sheet of
the AoA and MoA (everyone doesn't have to sign at the same time) before
the forms are submitted to Companies House.

Otherwise ...

We have to wait for the paperwork to return from the incorporation, then
the directors who *are* named have to meet and have a minuted meeting
which does such things as are needed at a first meeting and *that meeting*
can appoint new directors (which are then submitted on the appropriate
paperwork or web page to CH), so that we end up with a *longer* delay
until everyone is 'on board' in the formal sense. Only the
legally-recognised "legal person" that will be the registered company can
do this.

Jon's new comment: Yes, ideally we would. My point is that there is no need to delay if we can only get 4 or 5 of us, say, to sign in the near future - this can easily be rectified at the first meeting (which can only be held once we've been issued with a Certificate of Incorporation in any case). Minuting a decision of the directors is no big deal (it's one sentence) and new directors become directors immediately (ie they do NOT need to wait until the form has been submitted to Companies House to become directors formally). In short, if the 6 of us taking on the initial director roles can't get to sign the founding document quickly, there's no need to let that to be a reason to delay incorporation. As noted above, ideally we'll all be around to sign the relevant paperwork anyway.

There is also the further aspect that the more names on an AoA/MoA the
more peole will accept it as a "serious" business and treat it as such. It
will be to our benefit in the longer run therefore. We might also get
questions as to why people who were added to the management team in week
one weren't on the founding paperwork (ie. were we/they trying to hide
something?)

Jon's new comment: I can't see this happening (and I've never heard it mentioned before). A very large proportion of companies are "off the shelf" anyway and all these are taken seriously. On the last point, I think that can be easily explained (not that we'd need to explain it). The real point of my post is that we can (once we've had a final legal review) go ahead quickly now so we can start progressing towards an application to the Charity Commission.

Alison

> Let's get this baby born and on the road!

The thing about creating something that has a legal existence whcih is
separate to those of the people who create it (unlike a baby for the first
16 years) is that a company controls its own life from day 1. Getting
things right before day 1 is therefore a *very good thing* :-)

Jon's new comment: Absolutely.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l