Sending to the list as this discussion shouldn’t be private. Unless we start getting
significant numbers of “too much traffic” complaints, we should be discussing everything
publically. (Sorry guys, I don’t mean to be an arse…)
Reply to the below, apologies if this sounds a little adversarial, I’m just trying to keep
us focussed on what’s important:
#1 That was not a formal election and we are not at this point a formal board. Lets leave
the bureaucracy behind until it’s legally necessary.
#2 Assigning positions beyond those mandated by law (that is to say, secretary) at this
point is a bit of a waste of time. We’re a small board and it will generally be more
efficient to assign jobs on a case by case basis until after the AGM at which point many
of us may no longer be on the board and WMUK can start doing what it was set up to do.
Lets not play the “handing out basically meaningless roles” game.
#3 Weekly meetings are fine, but they must not become an excuse for delaying decision
making until the next meeting. This list and general IRC should be fine for most of the
required discussions. The only circumstance when we should be forced to retreat to
meetings for decisions is when someone on the board objects to the consensus decision and
a board vote is necessary.
#4 This can wait a while. Once everything is squared with chapters committee we’ll get an
internal wiki and at that point someone can ask JamesF nicely to transfer the domain.
(This has been much discussed already.)
#5 The MoA and AoA are what we need to discuss. They’ve been talked about a fair bit on
this list already, and I got the impression that we’d agreed that we want to basically
replicate the changes made by Alison to the original template. If someone (Tango? Alison?)
has a list of these changes we can discuss them one by one in the meeting. We also need to
discuss the objectives. The objectives list here
is currently those of WMUK 1.0
with a few that I shoved on the front last month. None of these have really been
discussed. We certainly won’t make a final decision at the meeting (not least because
everything has to be run past my tame-barrister and any other legal advice we’re getting),
but there’s no reason we can’t have a good bash at a draft by the end of it.
The only other thing to discuss is whether there are any strong objections to the voting
tallies becoming public. Perhaps this will have to be our first board vote (though since
the mini-“electoral commission” are completely independent of us they are not at all
obliged to listen to anything we decide on the matter).
From: Andrew Turvey [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 01 October 2008 22:30
To: Kwan Ting Chan; Michael Peel; Mickey Conn; Tom Holden
Subject: WMUK Agenda
Mickey Conn <mickey.conn(a)gmail.com> said:
Some suggestions for the agenda:
*Chair, Secretary and Treasurer positions
*Time and date of next meeting
What else do we need to ensure we cover?
I think that's the main focus captured
#1 I think we should formally note the election results
#2 Positions - we've got five people so we could share the load into five jobs:
Chair - organising meetings, communicating with community
Secy - communicating with Companies House, Tax authorities
Treasurer - open bank account, fund raising
Membership - promoting membership and processing applications
Communications - responding to external queries
#3 Timetable / Next meeting
I've suggested some changes here:
Suggest we also set up a schedule of future meetings (weekly?)
#3 Board operations
Before we get down to discussing substantive business, I suggest we take some time
to agree some guidelines on how we're going to be open with the community. My
- Meetings open to the community (facility to go in camera if necessary)
- Times published in advance
- Agendas published in advance
- Issues discussed with community on mail list / meta before coming to Board
- Minutes of Decisions with reasons published on meta (minus confidential info if
#4 WMUK v1
Suggest we mandate someone to discuss transfering things over from them (e.g. website)
There hasn't really been much discussion on these, and I personally haven't had a
chance to read them in depth. Hence I suggest our discussion on the Mem&Arts at this
meeting should be limited to high level principles (e.g. being a CLG) and mandate someone
(the secretary?) to lead a discussion on meta / the email list on the main decisions to be
made and then bring it back for decision to the next meeting
There's my tu'p'orth
What do you think?