Wikimediauk-l July 2008

wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org

34 participants
92 discussions

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Help sought.
by Businessfirst 22 Jul '08

22 Jul '08

----- Original Message ---- From: Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Cc: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 22 July, 2008 10:23:55 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Help sought. At 20:17 +0000 21/7/08, joseph seddon wrote: >Regarding the position of treasurer, might i suggest having a deputy >or assistant position. Sounds like a motion for the next AGM? Vote on the post, then vote on the person to hold the post. Gordo The money side is trivial to manage, on a charitable body this size. It's jumping the hurdles for formal charitable registration and banking facilities as a non-profit organization, that's been the issue, not managing cash. The cash, accounting, and auditing, is likely to be trivial. There's nothing an assistant could do for me, or indeed us. Gordon, may I bounce something off you before Alison and I next meet up? Thanks __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html

3 2

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Help sought.
by Businessfirst 22 Jul '08

22 Jul '08

----- Original Message ---- From: joseph seddon <life_is_bitter_sweet(a)hotmail.co.uk> To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 22 July, 2008 1:51:11 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Help sought. Its not that i don't have any confidence in you its more that i don't have any confidence in the position in that if for some unexpected reason you leave we go back to square one. If we are now on our 3rd treasurer and havn't got anywhere i would rather have some sort of overlap from one treasurer to the next so that we don't loose momentum in sorting all of this out. Its more of a safety net than anything else and given we arn't paying wages its wouldn't harm us. J.Seddon Can't disagree __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html

1 0

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania Oxford 2010
by peterc＠cix.compulink.co.uk 22 Jul '08

22 Jul '08

In-Reply-To: <004e01c8e6a2$29370060$7ba50120$@holden@gmail.com> Balliol is handy for the Sheldonian, but places like BNC and Hertford that are in between there and schools would recommend themselves as college accommodation.

2 2

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Help sought.
by Casey Brown 22 Jul '08

22 Jul '08

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Tom Holden <thomas.holden(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Providing a very high (even excessively high) level of visibility is > absolutely essential for getting these things done efficiently. If people > are reporting on a weekly basis what they did, what issues they faced, what > they're doing to overcome these issues, what they are planning to do next > week, what else they still think needs doing, etc etc. then people on this > list can start offering advice (as I'd imagine we have a large enough base > of experience to cover many problems between all of us) and people can > start > volunteering for specific tasks. > > * quietly notes that we have almost 100 people on this list * -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

6 5

Welcome to the nexus of activity
by David Gerard 22 Jul '08

22 Jul '08

So far this list is just about the nexus of activity re Wikimedia in the UK. Much better than nothing. Gets us (that's an inclusive "us") out of a rut. May I also remind you there's monthly meetups now in London, second Sunday of every month at the back of the Penderel's Oak (kids welcome). Cheers to Gordon Joly for organising and persisting with this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/London London is not the entire UK, but I don't know of regular ones elsewhere. There should be some. Anyone? - d.

8 16

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Hello
by Thomas Dalton 22 Jul '08

22 Jul '08

> OR 2) We offer life membership to people. Say £250. (a concessionary > discount would probably be inappropriate as being unwaged is normally > temporary, and a significantly larger level for both might be pushing it a > bit as I doubt any of us are completely confident WM UK will be around in 20 > years). That's not a bad idea, and it might well to the job (Paul has been studying these things rather longer than the 2 or 3 days I have, so I'd like to hear from him). £250 sounds like a reasonable price, although I'm not sure I can really afford it. While I expect the chapter will be around long enough to make it worthwhile, that doesn't necessarily mean I'll be interested in being a member of the chapter that long. I'm a student with very little income, so it's a big commitment. Perhaps there are 19 more wealthy Wikimedians in the UK that can help!

3 2

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Hello
by Businessfirst 21 Jul '08

21 Jul '08

----- Original Message ---- From: Tom Holden <thomas.holden(a)gmail.com> To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 22 July, 2008 12:11:38 AM Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Hello Re our chicken and egg situation: if I understand correctly all we need to do is to be able to show HMRC and the CC £5000 in cheques addressed to Wiki Educational Resources (correct me if I’m wrong). We don’t have to cash them until we actually are a charity (so we don't need to worry about getting a bank account now). Nor if I understand Paul’s e-mail correctly do we have to demonstrate that we can generate that level of income consistently in future years. There are two solutions to this I see that could get us those cheques within at most a month. 1) We discreetly and politely contact one of WMF’s rich donors. £5000 is by no stretch a large amount of money and for some it is certainly pocket money. OR 2) We offer life membership to people. Say £250. (a concessionary discount would probably be inappropriate as being unwaged is normally temporary, and a significantly larger level for both might be pushing it a bit as I doubt any of us are completely confident WM UK will be around in 20 years). I hereby commit publicly that I’d donate £250 for life membership if that was the agreed upon cost. If another 19 were prepared to do the same we'd be there. I'm a little worried this will create unnecessary and unwanted pressure on others to make similar gestures, but I thought it was probably necessary in this instance to put my (limited) money where my mouth is. To ameliorate this as much as possible I have created a pledgebank where other's can sign up without posting to this list and thus increasing pressure on others: http://www.pledgebank.com/wikimediauk-life Of course I may have grossly misunderstood Paul and this avenue may not be available, in which case, please correct me. Tom For that solution, we need to show first year income of £5000. That's all we'd have to do. We don't have to make any further commitments, or show them any other evidence that it will be repeated (although if it consistently isn't then there's a rule coming shortly that they can pull the plug if they want to). We don't have to prove anything about years 2 onwards at all. The only critierion is, we need to show them £5000 which needs to be: 1. Not a loan, or share capital of any kind, but actual keepable income. 2. At worst, a virtually bankable commitment to income - signed pledges, contracts, deeds, etc - not just "words". With no pressure, and just taking your example and numbers, if we did have 20 members who would write us cheques of £250 each, or would sign a deed to pay £125 once charitable status was granted and £125 six months afterwards, or a rich donor or two who'd give us £5000, or any combination of them, I could probably go to the Commission tomorrow and say that we've met their conditions. To answer the other email by Thomas, yes the FAQ at the Charity Commission states "An HMRC charity number should be accepted by other organisations such as banks and grant funders as evidence of charitable status". It turns out that means "... so they won't deduct tax on your interest" (if you are a club, trust, or the account is in the name of individuals and they would usually deduct tax on it). If your vehicle is an incorporated entity, then for banking purposes, without a charity number, you're counted as a business. -- Paul Sinclair businessfirst __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html

2 1

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Hello
by Ian A. Holton 21 Jul '08

21 Jul '08

Tim, you've just come up with one of the best ideas in the last few days. Currently I am unable to afford that kind of money, no matter how small it may seem in relation to other expenditures - as a student I just can't do it yet. Has anybody from the board, especially Paul, contacted anybody over at WMF or any of the well known donors? Ian [[User:Poeloq]] On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Tom Holden <thomas.holden(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Re our chicken and egg situation: if I understand correctly all we need to > do is to be able to show HMRC and the CC £5000 in cheques addressed to Wiki > Educational Resources (correct me if I'm wrong). We don't have to cash them > until we actually are a charity (so we don't need to worry about getting a > bank account now). Nor if I understand Paul's e-mail correctly do we have > to > demonstrate that we can generate that level of income consistently in > future > years. > > There are two solutions to this I see that could get us those cheques > within > at most a month. > > 1) We discreetly and politely contact one of WMF's rich donors. £5000 is by > no stretch a large amount of money and for some it is certainly pocket > money. > OR 2) We offer life membership to people. Say £250. (a concessionary > discount would probably be inappropriate as being unwaged is normally > temporary, and a significantly larger level for both might be pushing it a > bit as I doubt any of us are completely confident WM UK will be around in > 20 > years). > > I hereby commit publicly that I'd donate £250 for life membership if that > was the agreed upon cost. If another 19 were prepared to do the same we'd > be > there. > > I'm a little worried this will create unnecessary and unwanted pressure on > others to make similar gestures, but I thought it was probably necessary in > this instance to put my (limited) money where my mouth is. To ameliorate > this as much as possible I have created a pledgebank where other's can sign > up without posting to this list and thus increasing pressure on others: > > http://www.pledgebank.com/wikimediauk-life > > Of course I may have grossly misunderstood Paul and this avenue may not be > available, in which case, please correct me. > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org > [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of > Businessfirst > Sent: 21 July 2008 23:12 > To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Hello > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> > To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Monday, 21 July, 2008 9:48:04 PM > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Hello > > > Yours, > > > > -- P. > > Does "P." stand for Paul Sinclair? If so, perhaps you would like to > start by introducing yourself - keeping your on-site identity secret > does not fill one with trust... (I believe I've met you in person and > know who you are, but not everyone has had the pleasure.) > > > Yes, I'm him :) > > The last few emails in the archive are about the state of WMUK, > introduction > about me, and reassurance if anything's actually happening. Anything else, > ask. > > I was into social volunteer work offline, edited a lot for a few years on > Wiktionary and Wikipedia, and enjoy it, so I went along to the meetings to > find out more. A natural extension of interest like most people here I > guess. I met David at one of the 2007 wiki meetups, we got chatting about > the problems we saw, and it came out WMUK were having problems. Fixing > business problems is my job, so conversation ensued, and we discussed it > further. I had free time and relevant skills, they needed a finance guy who > understood the aims of the chapter and charity. I attended my first meeting > two or so months after that time. > > I'm a career financial manager - I first ran a business in the 80's, > qualified as an ACA, moved to the board of a £multimillion company as their > finance and admin manager, and I've worked as a financial controller or > manager for two PLCs and a number of small businesses since. I'm all for > open source, open knowledge, and building something that'll help others, > that's the attraction for me. Sue Gardner's seen my CV, and my full > references back to the nineties got taken when we talked. Alison's got > copies of them all. > > Where WMUK is, has been a bit of a "chicken and egg" problem. When I took > on > the role, I was told it was a problem, but we're getting there on it. To > register as a charity (formally) you need to show actual, first year of > registration, expected income of £5000 or more. That's the Charity > Commission rules for registering any trust, foundation or legal entity, as > a > charity. Alison has been trying to address this, and get commitments for > that level of income. (Below this level you can get HMRC tax recognition > which does the same thing financially but it's not actually "registered > charity" status. Some people get confused on that.) > > Until we have committed income of £5000 or more pledged, which must not be > a > loan of any kind, we have a problem under UK banking conventions. Without > that status, all that WMUK is, is a company like any other, and it gets > treated as a business by almost every high street bank or building society > - > business banking, charges, minimum balance, and so on. The full works. If > WMUK were a trust, club, or any other unincorporated entity, then it would > be easier, but it isn't. That would also be a fundamental change to WMUK's > structure and nobody is inclined to do that if it can be avoided. (If we > did, then migrating back later and legal paperworks would be expensive, and > a procedural/legal pain in the posterior.) Thus in effect, with the present > structure, a non-profit bank account really requires charitable status; > charitable status really requires a bank account, and that circle is what's > held it back previously. > > The options going forward all require circumventing the chicken and egg > situation that the HMRC and CC have. There's ways to do that; a few we can > do ourselves, one or two of the quickest would take some arranging and > funds. Getting £5000 of prospective commitments is almost the easiest (no > change to the company at all, direct charitable registration), so we're > working on that too, but that one takes time. I appreciate it's taken a > ridiculously long time to date, but hopefully that will be resolved in the > fairly near future now. Alison and I are meeting up this week to review how > it's going and decide which route's the best. After some discussion with > HMRC and the Charity Commission, I'm looking at one other option that's > promising, but it needs careful review before going ahead. If it would > work, > then it would be a quick resolution, but even so getting the commitment > level is still preferable. > > > I'm not sure what else I can usefully say at this time. I will promise a > regular update until it's resolved, and action, though, that's the best I > can do. It's a full board matter rather than a purely treasury one. I'll > give it my best and now I'm signed up, I'll try to keep the list in the > picture. > > > Paul Sinclair > businessfirst > > > __________________________________________________________ > Not happy with your email address?. > Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now > at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >

1 0

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Hello
by Businessfirst 21 Jul '08

21 Jul '08

----- Original Message ---- From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 21 July, 2008 9:48:04 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Hello > Yours, > > -- P. Does "P." stand for Paul Sinclair? If so, perhaps you would like to start by introducing yourself - keeping your on-site identity secret does not fill one with trust... (I believe I've met you in person and know who you are, but not everyone has had the pleasure.) Yes, I'm him :) The last few emails in the archive are about the state of WMUK, introduction about me, and reassurance if anything's actually happening. Anything else, ask. I was into social volunteer work offline, edited a lot for a few years on Wiktionary and Wikipedia, and enjoy it, so I went along to the meetings to find out more. A natural extension of interest like most people here I guess. I met David at one of the 2007 wiki meetups, we got chatting about the problems we saw, and it came out WMUK were having problems. Fixing business problems is my job, so conversation ensued, and we discussed it further. I had free time and relevant skills, they needed a finance guy who understood the aims of the chapter and charity. I attended my first meeting two or so months after that time. I'm a career financial manager - I first ran a business in the 80's, qualified as an ACA, moved to the board of a £multimillion company as their finance and admin manager, and I've worked as a financial controller or manager for two PLCs and a number of small businesses since. I'm all for open source, open knowledge, and building something that'll help others, that's the attraction for me. Sue Gardner's seen my CV, and my full references back to the nineties got taken when we talked. Alison's got copies of them all. Where WMUK is, has been a bit of a "chicken and egg" problem. When I took on the role, I was told it was a problem, but we're getting there on it. To register as a charity (formally) you need to show actual, first year of registration, expected income of £5000 or more. That's the Charity Commission rules for registering any trust, foundation or legal entity, as a charity. Alison has been trying to address this, and get commitments for that level of income. (Below this level you can get HMRC tax recognition which does the same thing financially but it's not actually "registered charity" status. Some people get confused on that.) Until we have committed income of £5000 or more pledged, which must not be a loan of any kind, we have a problem under UK banking conventions. Without that status, all that WMUK is, is a company like any other, and it gets treated as a business by almost every high street bank or building society - business banking, charges, minimum balance, and so on. The full works. If WMUK were a trust, club, or any other unincorporated entity, then it would be easier, but it isn't. That would also be a fundamental change to WMUK's structure and nobody is inclined to do that if it can be avoided. (If we did, then migrating back later and legal paperworks would be expensive, and a procedural/legal pain in the posterior.) Thus in effect, with the present structure, a non-profit bank account really requires charitable status; charitable status really requires a bank account, and that circle is what's held it back previously. The options going forward all require circumventing the chicken and egg situation that the HMRC and CC have. There's ways to do that; a few we can do ourselves, one or two of the quickest would take some arranging and funds. Getting £5000 of prospective commitments is almost the easiest (no change to the company at all, direct charitable registration), so we're working on that too, but that one takes time. I appreciate it's taken a ridiculously long time to date, but hopefully that will be resolved in the fairly near future now. Alison and I are meeting up this week to review how it's going and decide which route's the best. After some discussion with HMRC and the Charity Commission, I'm looking at one other option that's promising, but it needs careful review before going ahead. If it would work, then it would be a quick resolution, but even so getting the commitment level is still preferable. I'm not sure what else I can usefully say at this time. I will promise a regular update until it's resolved, and action, though, that's the best I can do. It's a full board matter rather than a purely treasury one. I'll give it my best and now I'm signed up, I'll try to keep the list in the picture. Paul Sinclair businessfirst __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html

3 2

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Hello
by Businessfirst 21 Jul '08

21 Jul '08

----- Original Message ---- From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 21 July, 2008 11:22:32 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Hello According to the HMRC, their tax recognition for small charities should make everyone treat you as a charity. Do the banks not subscribe to that? Have we at least got that tax recognition sorted out so we can accept tax deductable donations? You'll struggle to get £5000 pledged without that. That's what you would think. It took a hell of a lot of going in circles, talking to this and that person, and telephone tag for quite a few weeks, to establish it's not so. HMRC's tax status is easy to obtain. It's not charitable status, and as best I have managed to find out, doesn't get you recognized as a charity by a high street bank. You'd think it would. Saying we have "tax exempt status" also wouldn't carry the same weight with sponsors and donors as "charitable status" would. The latter means our finances and scrutiny are done according to applicable UK charity rules and carries credibility; not just that we operate like any other company but with an agreement we can claim tax back. One option we're looking into for resolving this would require a bit of deft footwork at Companies House, and I'll probably know more whether this route is viable by the end of the month. -- Paul Sinclair businessfirst __________________________________________________________ Not happy with your email address?. Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html

3 2

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

Wikimediauk-l July 2008