ok, I'm going to be frank. I hate this way of making decisions. Doing it on IRC or the email list might be quick and dirty but it means that the decisions are not easy to understand, record or justify. I've asked half a dozen questions and none of them have been readily answered. Saying "that's what we decided" frankly isn't good enough. It's no way to learn from past mistakes, and easily descends into bickering - like we've seen just recently.
I suggest all decision making is done on the wiki. All past decisions need to be put up there - with explanations and justifications so they are open to challenge. All decisions should be affirmatively made and agreed.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the process here for making decisions. Reading through http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0 I can see a few decisions are already being presented as if they have been made:
* The initial Board will have 3-5 members
* The initial Board will serve only until the AGM
* WM-UK will be a Company Limited by Guarantee
* The name will be "Wiki Information Network"
How have/should these decisions be made? a consensus on the email list? a consensus on the wiki page?
Please enlighten me!
Andrew Turvey
> I agree with the IRC issue.
>
> IRC is not a mode of communication I favour.
Then you're going to miss out on real time discussions, there's
nothing anyone can do about that. Sure, we could stop using IRC, but
what's the point? It would just mean that every decision gets made
unilaterally until someone complains, rather than the current system
of running things by people that happen to be on IRC at the time you
decide a decision needs make and then putting it on meta to give other
people a chance to disagree.
> Elected by the guarantor members, to be precise. Only guarantor
> members can speak and vote at the general meetings (of the company).
Indeed, although the plan is to allow pretty much anyone in the UK
community that wants to to be a guarantor member.
For those of you who haven't been on the wiki (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0) recently, just to remind you that invitations have opened for members and nominations have opened for members of the Board. Nominations for Board members are due to close on Saturday.
Ten people have put themselves forward so far, although only seven have signed the candidate declaration and some may of course withdraw. Aside from the legal requirements (over 18, not bankrupt etc), the only requirement so far seems to be enthusiasm, something to bring to the table and the ability to attend meetings.
I'd encourage anyone who's thinking of it to put their name forward so that v2 can have the best possible pool of candidates to choose from.
Regards,
Andrew Turvey
>> The main problem with this is unlimited liabilities - if you are a member
>> of the association and the association has a dispute with, say a venue,
>> they could sue any member of the association as they would be jointly and
>> severally liable.
>
> Yes, and quickly set aside. When v1 was setting up we envisaged some
> substantial donations being made to WMUK and I don't see that being any
> less likely this time around. As a general rule, companies don't like
> giving money to unincorporated individuals as there is a whole lot of
> risk; they want a 'body corporate' which has to be public about everything
> where an unincorporated association can keep just about everything
> private.
Yes, we've also considered it and quickly set it aside, for much the
same reasons and others.
.....
I'm glad it appears these things have been adequately considered. It begs the question, though, why not just revive the old company, elect a new board and keep going where it left off?
Andrew
2008/9/8 Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com>:
> At 04:19 +0100 8/9/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>2008/9/8 Ian A. Holton <poeloq(a)gmail.com>:
>> > I know what Ross means. I've been lurking around here a little while longer
>>> and have been moderately active on the list and the London meetups and must
>>> say that it got slightly chaotic.
>>>
>> > There was and is, if not even more than before, a lot of momentum, but also
>>> a lot of emotion. Especially comments like "I don't trust Alison and
>>> vice-versa" is uncalled for on a public, archived mailinglist.
>>
>>Somebody asked a question, that was the answer. Would you prefer a
>>lack of transparency in favour of everyone being all luvvy-duvvy?
>>
>
> I think the word is respect.
Respect is earned.
2008/9/8 Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com>:
> At 14:13 +0100 8/9/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Respect is earned.
>>
>
> In that case we disagree.
I pity you, I really do. You're going to have one hell of a life
letting people treat you like dirt and respecting them all the same...
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> At 12:51 +0200 7/9/08, Ian A. Holton wrote:
> >And how exactly do we build a community? I was kind of expecting a
> >few good ideas :P
>
> Let us discuss this over a beer next Sunday, eh?
>
> Gordo
>
I'd love to, but I'm not sure I'm going to be able to afford a roundtrip
flight from Beijing to London just for this discussion ;-)
I moved away from London and back to Beijing in June, which is why I'm not
active with the London meetups anymore and just lurk here.
Ian
[[User:Poeloq]]
>>I fail to see the problem. Could you elaborate?
>>
>
> Sure. If by "membership structure" you mean several hundred
> "members", as we would expect, will we all be "guarantor members" of
> the company (and then the charity later)?
It will be up to the individual members under the current plan. If
people want the legal liability (all £1 of it!) in exchange for a
vote, they become a guarantor member, if not they just become a
supporting member (which is how the last incarnation intended it to
be, I believe).
Alison mentioned something about it being legally questionable to
charge for guarantor membership, although my personal research
suggests she may possibly have been mistaken (it's not at all clear, I
think someone will have to actually enquire with the charities
commission about that one). If that is the case, then guarantor
membership and supporting membership will be independent of eachother,
if not then guarantor membership will probably be a subset of
supporting membership (we'll need to discuss that in detail at some
point - there will probably need to be room for exceptions since some
people may be so involved it's stupid for them not to have a vote, but
not be able to afford membership).