All, I've started off a page on Meta defining who can be a member, what details they will need to provide, and what the valid reasons for rejecting membership are. The page is at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Membership This is a _very initial draft_ at present, and none of it is set in stone. Suggestions and comments are more than welcome. Prior to the first General Meeting, I think (based off other people's comments/suggestions) that we're probably best off sticking with just Guarantor Membership, with a membership fee of £0. Membership fees can then be decided on by the Members at the first General Meeting, as can the other levels of membership. The concern with this is that we won't have any operating funds from membership prior to the General Meeting. Would this sit well with everyone? It would obviously need to be agreed at a Board Meeting, following consensus on the mailing list. Mike

Further comments having actually read the page: Membership should be open to non-residents, especially if they have some connection to the UK (non-resident UK citizen, for example). The use of proxies means having non-resident members doesn't make it harder to find a quorum. I also see no reason to restrict it to over 16s. Under 16s can't be on the board, but they can be members as far as I'm aware (I've read the appropriate Act and didn't see anything in there about age restrictions on members). I also don't know of a requirement for a parent's signature, but it probably wouldn't hurt - the £1 liability probably wouldn't be binding without one, but that's just a nominal amount anyway. It should probably be made clear that the register of members will be made available to anyone with a good reason for asking (that's a legal requirement, I don't remember the definition of "good reason"). "Guarantor" isn't a class of membership, it's just an adjective we use to make it clear we're talking about legal membership of the company rather than being a "supporting member" as v1.0 called it (I think it's been agreed that we should rename that "friend" if we have a similar concept to avoid confusion). I believe holding membership details for 10 years is, indeed, a legal requirement. I don't know of any requirement to keep hold of the actual application form, though. I'm not sure it's a good idea to explicitly restrict the reasons the board can refuse membership. We already have an appeals process, so just let the board use their discretion about what is in the best interests of the charity. It may also be good to add "not disrupt the charity" to "not bring the charity into disrepute".

Tom, On 30 Oct 2008, at 18:11, Thomas Dalton wrote: This was a mistake on my part: I thought that guarantor membership had to have the same requirements as directors of the Board. If this is not the case, then great. I've removed both restrictions from the page. At the very least, it's good practice, and lets us know that the legal guardian of the child supports their application. Good point. I don't think you even need a good reason; if you're a member you're entitled to look, otherwise you may have to pay a fee but you're still entitled to look, unless the company applies to the court to get an exemption. I've put this onto the page, with a ref to the appropriate section of the companies act. I've tried to clarify this on the page. I viewed the application form as being the membership details. In my opinion, it would certainly be a good idea to keep the bit of paper with the member's signature around, in case we ever need to prove that they applied to be, and are, a member. It also removes the requirement to keep all of their information in the register of members, which as said above can be viewed by all on request. I've rephrased this to make it more permissive. Thanks, Mike

I was rather assuming we'd be able to blag a room for free from a university or similar. -----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 30 October 2008 17:58 To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership "Rules" 2008/10/30 Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net>et>: The major downside to not charging a membership fee prior to the general meeting is that there are no funds with which to hold the general meeting. We're hoping for a good turnout which really requires hiring a room. I think there's a good chance of getting 20-30 people, maybe more, and you fit those kinds of numbers round a table in a pub. I think we need to hire a function room in a pub or hotel, which is going to cost money (I honestly don't know what the going rate for such rooms is). I was interested in trying to make the AGM a one day conference about all things wiki with the AGM somewhere in the middle, although it may be best to leave that for future AGMs and keep the first one simple. If you don't charge for membership at first, then you need to make it clear that membership fees will most likely be due as soon as the AGM finishes and membership will be terminated if they aren't paid with the day frame set down in the Articles (30 days? or was it 60?). (I don't think there is a legal requirement to make that clear, but I do think it's important to do so anyway.) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

Is there any lee-way for doing a Ted Bauder request - (too much pain from wikiprojects or we kill ya) and reinventing yourself time and time again? I have never been banned, but have chosen to start afresh 8 times in 6 years - I have 43 live articles I created still live. Think I'm out of cocoon soon - but there must be hundreds of admins and editors who disappear? Ooops - What I meant to say is that some editors have had undeclared editorial names, have come back as a different persona, edited and certainly never been tribune to a check, would they still be allowed in the V2.0 UK? Would I have to declare all my pevious names? Would I have to say why I left and reverted to other names?

On 30 Oct 2008, at 17:58, Thomas Dalton wrote: This is true. The alternative to charging membership fees up front is to ask for donations, either from the members/interested parties or from the appropriate suppliers. I like your idea of having a one-day wiki conference, but I think that it's best to have a simple first AGM; perhaps this is something that could be done a couple of months after the first AGM as a separate event for the first time? Part of the reason for not charging for membership fees from the start was that it gives the next board freedom to choose how they want to do membership periods: they could for example have a single period for annual membership, running e.g. from 1 January to the end of December (although that's not the best timeframe from a getting- money-off-people point of view). That's easier to administrate. It could, I guess, do that regardless by asking for a top-up fee, or just extending the existing member's membership period until they became synchronous. Fundamentally, this is something I'd like input on from the community: - What does the community think with requiring membership fees from the start? Good or bad? - If good, then what sort of level should they be at? - Should they be for a full year, or up to the next AGM? Thanks, Mike

2008/10/31 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>: Agreed. Up until now we've just required people to express an interest, but it's time to require an actual commitment now, I think. What would be "premium" about them? I think the fee should be more than £10. Maybe £10 for concessions, £20 full? I agree, full year. If the general meeting or new board decide to reduce the fee, then people can be refunded or have their membership extended or something. If they decide to increase it, then early supporters get a discount. I don't see a need to have everyone's membership begin and end at the same time. The membership secretary can send out a batch of renewals once a month or something.

2008/10/31 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>: I would rather have a single membership rate and then sell merchandise separately, it seems simpler. (And, it avoids "I'm a premium member, you're not, so I'm automatically right!" arguments - I expect such arguments are unlikely, but best to avoid them anyway.)