Can we please change the subject of mails when it no longer represents
the topic under discussion.
This makes it much easier to follow discussions on a busy day and also
ensures that the archives are actually usable.
Thank you,
Ross
And how exactly do we build a community? I was kind of expecting a few good
ideas :P
Ian
[[User:Poeloq]]
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Looking forward to a new feeling of warmth, trust, community spirit
> with WMUK 2.0 so good luck to us all!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gordo
>
>
> --
> "Think Feynman"/////////
> http://pobox.com/~gordo/ <http://pobox.com/%7Egordo/>
> gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>
[cross-posting to meta talk page]
I've just seen that AndrewRT has refused a CRB check. I think it's
probably simplest not to disqualify him from the election and let
people vote for him if they choose (if there's a consensus to
disqualify him he won't win the election, so we might as well wait and
see), however if the majority of the board decides in favour of CRB
checks (at whatever time that decision is made - I'd suggest sooner
rather than later if AndrewRT is elected) his board membership would
be terminated. Anyone disagree?
I'm concerned that there is confusing messages about how decisions are made.
In one thread it has been stated that the community will decide (a
general comment).
In another thread it is stated that the board will decide (about CRB
checks specifically).
I think there needs to be some clarity on this issue. The community will
soon be asked to vote on an initial board. If this board is to have full
decision making power then that will affect the vote.
Ross
Just catching up on my emails and wanted to mention a few things:
1. Election committee/Returning Officer/teller
Andrew Whitworth - didn't realise you were from ChapCom. In that case, can I propose Andrew is asked to be the Returning Officer/teller/election committee, with responsibility for:
- sending out voting invitations (by email?)
- receiving back votes
- counting them
- publishing the results
Do we need more than one person to count 20 odd votes?
2. First Board meeting
Might be taken as read, but can I suggest the person who tops the poll has the responsibility of calling and chairing the first meeting.
3.50% Rule
Can someone clarify: does this mean everyone elected must get more "Yes"es tha "No"s? If so, presumably abstentions wouldn't count either way? Or does it mean Yes must be more than No + Abstentions. If the former, I think the rule should be kept as it prevents the election of a controversial polarising figures who might have many supporters but also many critics. If the latter, it could end up being quite an obstacle.
4. Initial/interim board
Of course, the Board announced on 27th September won't be directors of anything because no company will exist at that stage; however, soon after (hopefully round about 25 October) these same people will become directors of the new company and will remain so until the AGM three months later - so, yes, they will have real authority. I would say that all decisions of the chapter at this time will have to be made - formally at least - by the Board. However, the community can still hold them to account at follows:
- I would expect the Board to advertise the place, time and agenda of their meetings and encourage non-Board members to contribute to decisions (retaining, of course, the right to go "In Camera" if they need to discuss private matters)
- In some matters (e.g. how much the membership fee is) I would hope the Board would encourage the community to reach a decision and then implement it.
- I would expect the Board to publish minutes (redacted if necessary) of their decisions and the reasons behind them and to give regular progress reports to the community
Admittedly the community couldn't force any of these; however:
- Standard Board M&As would give the majority of Directors the power to dismiss a director if need be (although this may be modified in the specific Articles - which I haven't yet been through in detail)
- Directors can in some circumstances be voted out by members at the AGM (even those not standing for re-election)
- If directors refuse to call an AGM, a given % of members can normally force one to be held (the details are set out in the M&AoA)
- If all else fails, Wikimedia Foundation can revoke the license which essentially collapses the organisation (even if it doesn't legally)
By the way, I think it could be described as an "interim" board because it will only last three months and wont be doing much of substance.
Andrew Turvey
I've been thinking a bit more about my post yesterday and reading through the reactions to it - thanks for the responses. I didn't previously appreciate the point about people who can't participate via wiki but can via email.
I guess the key thing I am interested in is to understand what decisions have been made and really what was the rationale for those decisions. We don't have to do these things in haste and I think it's important that we aim to be open and transparent - explaining the decisions that have been made is perhaps just as important as making the right decisions.
I should emphasise, I personally think that the decisions have largely been the right ones - particularly the tight timetable and the small interim Board. I might question some of the more minor details (why 18+ and not 16+; why mandatory CRB checks?; why is it not called Wikimedia UK?) and I think how those running this initiative respond to questions can be seen as an insight to how this venture will develop!
As an attempt at a solution, I've started a page at [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Candidate_FAQs] to answer all these kind of questions and explain. I would appreciate anyone who could contribute - either there or in reply here - and answer these questions.
The questions so far are:
* 1 Why do Board candidates have to be over 18?
* 2 Why do Board candidates have to sign the declarations?
* 3 Why are Board members required to accept a Criminal Records Bureau check?
* 4 Why is the initial Board to consist of only [3]/[5] members?
* 5 What are the rules for the election of the initial Board
* 6 Why are we hoping to set up a UK Chapter?
* 7 Why do we intend to register the UK Chapter as a Charity?
* 8 Why have we decided to use a Company Limited by Guarantee structure for the Chapter?
* 9 What will be the main tasks for the interim Board?
I've answered 1 & 2 myself already, and I'm about to answer 3,4,6,7,8
(5) i think needs some urgent work as nominations close on Saturday and it's not really fair to ask people to stand before they have a good idea about what is expected of them - another email to follow on that!
Andrew Turvey
> 8. Vacancies
>
> Can I propose an addition: in the event of resignations or vacancies, the
> Board will invite the person who received the next highest number of votes
> to join. Or alternatively: the Board may co-opt up to two additional
> members.
You mean prior to incorporation? I think selecting the next person on
the list (if they are willing) is a good idea in the unlikely event
that someone drops out in the next couple of months.
======
Yes, that's what I had in mind. As you said, leave the permanent Board till later. I wouldn't be surprised myself if someone dropped out!
Andrew
As I said in my earlier post, nominations for the interim Board close in a few days and I think we should firm up a couple of details for the election ASAP.
So far we seem to have:
1. Voters will be all those who sign up to the potential guarantor or supporting members list (meta page)
I think it should be restricted to UK residents
To prevent sockpuppets we should adopt the same (or similar) rules as per [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en#Requirements] with dates advanced by 3 months
I suggest we apply a cut off date of 13 September
2. Number of Board members will be five (meta page)
Now I understand the rationale, I agree with this - does everyone else?
3. Voting will be via the approval system (5 highest winning; all elected have to get >50% approval) (meta)
I have no opinion here - is this usual?
4. If <3 candidates election, election is restarted (meta)
5. Election will be secret (consensus from this list)
I agree - if people want it secret, it should be secret.
6. Election will be run by a election committee
Sounds like overkill to me. Who will 'elect' this committee? I think all we need is an independent reliable trusted person who could be a Teller / Returning Officer to send out the votes, add them up and publish them. How about Anders Wennersten or someone else at ChapCom? Alternatively, I know Andrew Whitworth has volunteered - is everyone happy with him? Andrew, do you have any credentials on wikimedia?
7. Candidates will be ineligible for election if they do not or cannot sign the Declaration (meta - not explicit)
I think we should make this explicit - we can't have a situation where someone gets elected and then refuses to sign the form to be a Companies Houes director because they forgot to mention they were bankrupt.
8. Vacancies
Can I propose an addition: in the event of resignations or vacancies, the Board will invite the person who received the next highest number of votes to join. Or alternatively: the Board may co-opt up to two additional members.
Anything I've missed?
Andrew
I would like to say something. I don't wish to alienate the old board neither do
many others. Yes ok, there were issues and we were all disappointed with the
lack of noticeable advances, however, I think that we should simply move on
from that. If those who took part previously wish to work together with us in
making this chapter I see no reason why they cannot. I think that whilst our
board deal with the company and charity status, the rest of us can get on with
stuff that doesn't require us to be a company. Lets get some brain storming
going, and lets not hold back with ideas. Lets just see what idea we have build
on them and see where it takes us. I know that David gerard was working on a
wikipedia for schools project. I'm unsure where that is in terms of progress. Any
other long term ideas that we can get started on?
_________________________________________________________________
Get all your favourite content with the slick new MSN Toolbar - FREE
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354027/direct/01/