To reply to Harry's points: 
(i) Should we enforce more checks on prospective members?
Yes, although "enforce" is the wrong word. Perhaps "check that they are real people who will support our objects and haven't given a fake address" would be a better way of putting it. We have a duty to ensure that the members of the charity are actual people, and not, for example, someone's cats who have a vote in order to swing elections one way or another.
(ii) Should we enforce more checks on members before we let them vote at AGMs, whether in person or by proxy?
No. Once a member, it's too late - you have the right to vote (even if you're a cat, I suspect). Checks really need to be done before members are approved.

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.




On 19 November 2012 15:19, Harry Burt <harryaburt@gmail.com> wrote:
Aren't there really two points here:
(i) Should we enforce more checks on prospective members?
(ii) Should we enforce more checks on members before we let them vote at AGMs, whether in person or by proxy?

I think the legal question is a good one. Are charities required to do neither/either/both? Legal issues aside, surely (ii) but not (i) is the easiest by quite a margin.

Harry

--
Harry Burt (User:Jarry1250)


On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Katherine Bavage <katherine.bavage@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Hi All,

At the board meeting on Saturday a valid point was made that currently the verification process for membership applications doesn't really prove a barrier to fraudulent or duplicate applications. 

I'd like to look at ways of improving this, so as we aim to expand our membership numbers we're also making sure fairness is enshrined in a checking process that means people can only have one vote. 

If people pay their membership fee with Paypal, this isn't so much of a problem, as having a verified paypal account has already required this person to link their identity to their postal address - but we want to be as open as possible and so there will be people who give us 'a form and a fiver'. 

What checking processes do we think would be acceptable without being invasive/onerous? At a basic level, we should be confirming that the applicant is the named person at the address given. 

Please flag up concerns, suggestions for services or resources we can use, and so on. It may be that we can't completely eliminate the risk of fraudulent applications, but we can make it more difficult and provide a measure or reassurance that no individual has more power than any other by being able to vote twice etc .

Thanks!

--
Katherine Bavage 
Fundraising Manager 
Wikimedia UK

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org