How is it an effective use of the charity's resources to effectively duplicate perfectly good business cards, and then to spend money on postage to get said perfectly good cards back, then spend yet more money on postage to send the new ones out?
Where is the logic in this, and why is it being done at the insistence of a single trustee? I'm sick of board members making mountains out of molehills and then vetoing decisions. Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk To: Cc: Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2012, 14:12 Subject: Business cards
All,
I'm afraid there's a problem with the business cards: one of the board has objected to the titles on the cards. I'm afraid I need to recall the cards you've been sent, and issue you new ones... Could you pop them in the post to FREEPOST WIKIPEDIA please? I'll have new ones in the post to you inside a week.
A bit of a pain, but it's important to keep everyone happy. Like I said, I should have new ones to you in a week or so.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer%C2%A0 Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/%C2%A0and @wikimediauk
On 10 August 2012 04:16, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
How is it an effective use of the charity's resources to effectively duplicate perfectly good business cards, and then to spend money on postage to get said perfectly good cards back, then spend yet more money on postage to send the new ones out?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law_of_Triviality
- d.
An individual trustee shouldn't have the power the overrule the staff on how to implement a decision, unless that trustee was specifically named in the board's decision as being responsible (and if that were the case, they should have reviewed them in advance). On Aug 10, 2012 4:16 AM, "HJ Mitchell" hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
How is it an effective use of the charity's resources to effectively duplicate perfectly good business cards, and then to spend money on postage to get said perfectly good cards back, then spend yet more money on postage to send the new ones out?
Where is the logic in this, and why is it being done at the insistence of a single trustee? I'm sick of board members making mountains out of molehills and then vetoing decisions.
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
*From:* Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk *To:* *Cc:* Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk *Sent:* Thursday, 9 August 2012, 14:12 *Subject:* Business cards
All,
I'm afraid there's a problem with the business cards: one of the board has objected to the titles on the cards. I'm afraid I need to recall the cards you've been sent, and issue you new ones... Could you pop them in the post to FREEPOST WIKIPEDIA please? I'll have new ones in the post to you inside a week.
A bit of a pain, but it's important to keep everyone happy. Like I said, I should have new ones to you in a week or so.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Nice discussion guys but...
There *was *a technical issue that was rightly pointed out that did present a possible risk to the charity. So rather than take the risk poor Richard had to sort this out.
Cock up rather conspiracy really.
I do agree through that self destruction of the card makes sense, unless you want more business for the post office.
So please let's leave Richard to get the replacements done AND
please contribute to the debate on what we do in the real world:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2013_Activity_Plan/Ideas
Jon
On 10 August 2012 09:31, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
An individual trustee shouldn't have the power the overrule the staff on how to implement a decision, unless that trustee was specifically named in the board's decision as being responsible (and if that were the case, they should have reviewed them in advance). On Aug 10, 2012 4:16 AM, "HJ Mitchell" hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
How is it an effective use of the charity's resources to effectively duplicate perfectly good business cards, and then to spend money on postage to get said perfectly good cards back, then spend yet more money on postage to send the new ones out?
Where is the logic in this, and why is it being done at the insistence of a single trustee? I'm sick of board members making mountains out of molehills and then vetoing decisions.
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
*From:* Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk *To:* *Cc:* Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk *Sent:* Thursday, 9 August 2012, 14:12 *Subject:* Business cards
All,
I'm afraid there's a problem with the business cards: one of the board has objected to the titles on the cards. I'm afraid I need to recall the cards you've been sent, and issue you new ones... Could you pop them in the post to FREEPOST WIKIPEDIA please? I'll have new ones in the post to you inside a week.
A bit of a pain, but it's important to keep everyone happy. Like I said, I should have new ones to you in a week or so.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
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
On 10 August 2012 10:00, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
There was a technical issue that was rightly pointed out that did present a possible risk to the charity.
The problem, then, is Richard's wording in his email. Recalling them because of a mistake that was pointed out by a board member is different from recalling them because a board member objected. Given the way it was described, I think our reaction was entirely understandable.
On 10 August 2012 12:06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The problem, then, is Richard's wording in his email. Recalling them because of a mistake that was pointed out by a board member is different from recalling them because a board member objected. Given the way it was described, I think our reaction was entirely understandable.
Still blatant bikeshedding, nevertheless.
- d.
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:10, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 August 2012 12:06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The problem, then, is Richard's wording in his email. Recalling them because of a mistake that was pointed out by a board member is different from recalling them because a board member objected. Given the way it was described, I think our reaction was entirely understandable.
Still blatant bikeshedding, nevertheless.
Since we're on the topic, I regret to inform everyone that our nuclear reactor project is significantly delayed due to disagreement about the design and deployment strategy of the cooling rods, and there's a growing consensus to change direction completely and go with wind turbines instead. In good news, though, I understand that lots of progress is being made with the bike shed, although it's beyond my ken to understand all of the details there...
Thanks, Mike
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Which goes to show the unanticipated problem of electing trustees who know everything about nuclear reactors and nothing about sheds.
It's not my fault my degree in theoretical physics was missing the cycling module :(
-- Rexx
On 10 August 2012 13:22, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:10, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 August 2012 12:06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The problem, then, is Richard's wording in his email. Recalling them because of a mistake that was pointed out by a board member is different from recalling them because a board member objected. Given the way it was described, I think our reaction was entirely understandable.
Still blatant bikeshedding, nevertheless.
Since we're on the topic, I regret to inform everyone that our nuclear reactor project is significantly delayed due to disagreement about the design and deployment strategy of the cooling rods, and there's a growing consensus to change direction completely and go with wind turbines instead. In good news, though, I understand that lots of progress is being made with the bike shed, although it's beyond my ken to understand all of the details there...
Thanks, Mike
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
This is all very interesting, but for all the emails, isn't actually addressing my point. Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, 10 August 2012, 16:23 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Business cards
Which goes to show the unanticipated problem of electing trustees who know everything about nuclear reactors and nothing about sheds.
It's not my fault my degree in theoretical physics was missing the cycling module :(
-- Rexx
On 10 August 2012 13:22, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:10, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 August 2012 12:06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The problem, then, is Richard's wording in his email. Recalling them because of a mistake that was pointed out by a board member is different from recalling them because a board member objected. Given the way it was described, I think our reaction was entirely understandable.
Still blatant bikeshedding, nevertheless.
Since we're on the topic, I regret to inform everyone that our nuclear reactor project is significantly delayed due to disagreement about the design and deployment strategy of the cooling rods, and there's a growing consensus to change direction completely and go with wind turbines instead. In good news, though, I understand that lots of progress is being made with the bike shed, although it's beyond my ken to understand all of the details there...
Thanks, Mike
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
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
I think Jon has addressed your point. On Aug 10, 2012 4:31 PM, "HJ Mitchell" hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
This is all very interesting, but for all the emails, isn't actually addressing my point.
Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
*From:* rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk *To:* UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Friday, 10 August 2012, 16:23 *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Business cards
Which goes to show the unanticipated problem of electing trustees who know everything about nuclear reactors and nothing about sheds.
It's not my fault my degree in theoretical physics was missing the cycling module :(
-- Rexx
On 10 August 2012 13:22, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:10, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 August 2012 12:06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The problem, then, is Richard's wording in his email. Recalling them because of a mistake that was pointed out by a board member is different from recalling them because a board member objected. Given the way it was described, I think our reaction was entirely understandable.
Still blatant bikeshedding, nevertheless.
Since we're on the topic, I regret to inform everyone that our nuclear reactor project is significantly delayed due to disagreement about the design and deployment strategy of the cooling rods, and there's a growing consensus to change direction completely and go with wind turbines instead. In good news, though, I understand that lots of progress is being made with the bike shed, although it's beyond my ken to understand all of the details there...
Thanks, Mike
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 10 August 2012 16:31, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
This is all very interesting, but for all the emails, isn't actually addressing my point.
No, it's dismissing your point as trivial, which it is.
- d.
Which is why you hired a Chief Executive who used to run a cycling charity, surely!
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
On 10 August 2012 16:23, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Which goes to show the unanticipated problem of electing trustees who know everything about nuclear reactors and nothing about sheds.
It's not my fault my degree in theoretical physics was missing the cycling module :(
-- Rexx
On 10 August 2012 13:22, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:10, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 August 2012 12:06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The problem, then, is Richard's wording in his email. Recalling them because of a mistake that was pointed out by a board member is different from recalling them because a board member objected. Given the way it was described, I think our reaction was entirely understandable.
Still blatant bikeshedding, nevertheless.
Since we're on the topic, I regret to inform everyone that our nuclear reactor project is significantly delayed due to disagreement about the design and deployment strategy of the cooling rods, and there's a growing consensus to change direction completely and go with wind turbines instead. In good news, though, I understand that lots of progress is being made with the bike shed, although it's beyond my ken to understand all of the details there...
Thanks, Mike
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
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
==Cycling Module Refresher== *Nuclear Cycle *Diesel Cycle *Carnot Cycle *Carbon Cycle *Water Cycle *Tri Cycle .... I told you we were going to need a bigger shed ~~~~
On 10 August 2012 16:23, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Which goes to show the unanticipated problem of electing trustees who know everything about nuclear reactors and nothing about sheds.
It's not my fault my degree in theoretical physics was missing the cycling module :(
-- Rexx
On 10 August 2012 13:22, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
On 10 Aug 2012, at 12:10, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 August 2012 12:06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The problem, then, is Richard's wording in his email. Recalling them because of a mistake that was pointed out by a board member is different from recalling them because a board member objected. Given the way it was described, I think our reaction was entirely understandable.
Still blatant bikeshedding, nevertheless.
Since we're on the topic, I regret to inform everyone that our nuclear reactor project is significantly delayed due to disagreement about the design and deployment strategy of the cooling rods, and there's a growing consensus to change direction completely and go with wind turbines instead. In good news, though, I understand that lots of progress is being made with the bike shed, although it's beyond my ken to understand all of the details there...
Thanks, Mike
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
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
On 10 August 2012 16:23, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Which goes to show the unanticipated problem of electing trustees who know everything about nuclear reactors and nothing about sheds.
AIUI, we've elected at least some trustees with purported experience of running a charity and/or running a volunteer organisation...
That sounds more bitey than I intended. Have a ;-)
On 10 August 2012 10:00, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Nice discussion guys but...
There was a technical issue that was rightly pointed out that did present a possible risk to the charity.
How so? (I did ask the what the issue was, in private email CCd to all the board, yesterday, but have not yet had a response from any of them)
So rather than take the risk poor Richard had to sort this out.
He has my sympathy.
Cock up rather conspiracy really.
Accepted; but no less irritating.
On 10 Aug 2012, at 19:58, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 10 August 2012 10:00, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Nice discussion guys but...
There was a technical issue that was rightly pointed out that did present a possible risk to the charity.
How so? (I did ask the what the issue was, in private email CCd to all the board, yesterday, but have not yet had a response from any of them)
As I understand it, the main issue surrounds how the titles on these business cards interact with our liability insurance, since having specific titles increases the risk of volunteers being viewed as being staff members and hence us being more liable for their actions.
So rather than take the risk poor Richard had to sort this out.
He has my sympathy.
Mine too.
Cock up rather conspiracy really.
Accepted; but no less irritating.
Ditto.
BTW - we could have had a full board decision on this recall, but I think that really would have been bikeshedding and unnecessary. However, there is an upcoming (9 Sept) board decision on the broader strategy (which includes, as a subsection, the formal approval of issuing business cards to volunteers) - see, and please comment on (and/or edit directly), the proposed policy at: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Representing_Wikimedia_UK
Thanks, Mike
On 11 August 2012 22:22, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
As I understand it, the main issue surrounds how the titles on these business cards interact with our liability insurance, since having specific titles increases the risk of volunteers being viewed as being staff members and hence us being more liable for their actions.
That's odd. I have, as an RSPB volunteer, an RSPB name badge with my role (actually, more than one, for different roles), as well as RSPB clothing. It's never been an issue.
Has this been checked with the insurers?
BTW - we could have had a full board decision on this recall, but I think that really would have been bikeshedding and unnecessary.
Fair enough; but as has already been noted, Richard's email seemed to imply a veto by a single trustee.
However, there is an upcoming (9 Sept) board decision on the broader strategy (which includes, as a subsection, the formal approval of issuing business cards to volunteers) - see, and please comment on (and/or edit directly), the proposed policy at: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Representing_Wikimedia_UK
Shouldn't that have happened before cards were ordered?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
On 11 August 2012 22:22, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
As I understand it, the main issue surrounds how the titles on these business cards interact with our liability insurance, since having specific titles increases the risk of volunteers being viewed as being staff members and hence us being more liable for their actions.
That doesn't make sense to me... being considered staff would generally give them greater protection under the insurance, which is a good thing. Whether you are a liable for their actions or not has nothing to do with insurance... Can you give an example of a situation where this would come up?
Of course not. This typifies the doomsday mentality that seems to paralyse the board when it comes to delegating anything or to anyone who isn't a trustee representing (or even being seen to possibly represent) the chapter. Harry Mitchell
Phone: 024 7698 0977 Skype: harry_j_mitchell
________________________________ From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, 11 August 2012, 22:43 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Business cards
On 11 August 2012 22:22, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
As I understand it, the main issue surrounds how the titles on these business cards interact with our liability insurance, since having specific titles increases the risk of volunteers being viewed as being staff members and hence us being more liable for their actions.
That doesn't make sense to me... being considered staff would generally give them greater protection under the insurance, which is a good thing. Whether you are a liable for their actions or not has nothing to do with insurance... Can you give an example of a situation where this would come up?
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
We turn a blind eye to the actions of our trustee's pretty effectively and they really do represent the chapter so I see no reason why the same cannot apply to our members. Seddon Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 01:06:46 +0100 From: hjmitchell@ymail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Business cards
Of course not. This typifies the doomsday mentality that seems to paralyse the board when it comes to delegating anything or to anyone who isn't a trustee representing (or even being seen to possibly represent) the chapter. Harry Mitchell http://enwp.org/User:HJ Phone: 024 7698 0977 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 024 7698 0977 end_of_the_skype_highlightingSkype: harry_j_mitchell From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, 11 August 2012, 22:43 Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Business cards
On 11 August 2012 22:22, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
As I understand it, the main issue surrounds how the titles on these business cards interact with our liability insurance, since having specific titles increases the risk of volunteers being viewed as
being staff members and hence us being more liable for their actions.
That doesn't make sense to me... being considered staff would generally give them greater protection under the insurance, which is a good thing. Whether you are a liable for their actions or not has nothing to do with insurance... Can you give an example of a situation where this would come up?
_______________________________________________ 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
On 11/08/12 22:22, Michael Peel wrote:
As I understand it, the main issue surrounds how the titles on these business cards interact with our liability insurance, since having specific titles increases the risk of volunteers being viewed as being staff members and hence us being more liable for their actions.
Why should volunteers not have the same cover as staff? For example, at training events?
We assume this is simply public liability (and not professional indemnity)?
Gordo
On 10 August 2012 10:00, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
please let's leave Richard to get the replacements done
What's happening with these, please?
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org