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
2008/9/4 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
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?
Alison doesn't trust us and we don't trust Alison, so it's easiest to just start over.
As you all may or may not be aware, WMUK are going to be having elections to form an interim board, to run WMUK and be responsible for the running of the until the time that the company is formed. Until now, the elections have mostly been arranged by those participating in them, and i feel that this is not particularly a good thing and I wanted to improve the legitimacy of these elections. Following separate discussions with Cary Bass and Tom Dalton the idea that I would like to propose is to have what is effectively an election committee designed to oversee the running of the WMUK elections. The proposed make up of this board is as follows, two representatives from the UK, one person from ChapCom and one from the foundation board, however any of those numbers and where the members are sourced from can change if a consensus for it exists. The role of this committee would be to oversee the elections, ranging from deciding the timetable of events, overseeing the voting stages including the methods and medium the voting will take place in and finally the verifying and announcement of the results. I hope that this would allow the UK board an amount of legitimacy in the running of WMUK in the eyes of the UK community and also the foundation.
If the UK community has no issues I would like to offer my services to organise this. Comments would be grateful. User:Seddon @ en-wiki _________________________________________________________________ Make a mini you and download it into Windows Live Messenger http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354029/direct/01/
Our answer to a proposal from Joseph to be pat of an overseeing body:
We at ChapCom are happy to see your energetic efforts to restart the Wikimedia UK chapter. We are following your progress by three of us being participants of your UK mailgroup. We are prepared to give our support in your work, when and if it is needed. We look at an interim committee as a temporary body where the formalities for being involved could be be kept at minimum. Mostly we have seen it being set up by a group of volunteers. And as we want to see an election to be fully controlled by the involved community, we say no to being part of any overseeing body. If you want though, we could appoint an "advisor" to support you effort. Anders Wennersten on behalf of ChapCom
joseph seddon skrev:
As you all may or may not be aware, WMUK are going to be having elections to form an interim board, to run WMUK and be responsible for the running of the until the time that the company is formed. Until now, the elections have mostly been arranged by those participating in them, and i feel that this is not particularly a good thing and I wanted to improve the legitimacy of these elections. Following separate discussions with Cary Bass and Tom Dalton the idea that I would like to propose is to have what is effectively an election committee designed to oversee the running of the WMUK elections. The proposed make up of this board is as follows, two representatives from the UK, one person from ChapCom and one from the foundation board, however any of those numbers and where the members are sourced from can change if a consensus for it exists.
The role of this committee would be to oversee the elections, ranging from deciding the timetable of events, overseeing the voting stages including the methods and medium the voting will take place in and finally the verifying and announcement of the results. I hope that this would allow the UK board an amount of legitimacy in the running of WMUK in the eyes of the UK community and also the foundation.
If the UK community has no issues I would like to offer my services to organise this.
Comments would be grateful.
User:Seddon @ en-wiki
Win £3000 to spend on whatever you want at Uni! Click here to WIN!
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354032/direct/01/
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
At 17:13 +0200 5/9/08, Anders Wennersten wrote:
Our answer to a proposal from Joseph to be pat of an overseeing body:
We at ChapCom are happy to see your energetic efforts to restart the Wikimedia UK chapter. We are following your progress by three of us being participants of your UK mailgroup. We are prepared to give our support in your work, when and if it is needed. We look at an interim committee as a temporary body where the formalities for being involved could be be kept at minimum. Mostly we have seen it being set up by a group of volunteers. And as we want to see an election to be fully controlled by the involved community, we say no to being part of any overseeing body. If you want though, we could appoint an "advisor" to support you effort. Anders Wennersten on behalf of ChapCom
I came across this model:-
L E M
Leadership, Expertise, Membership...
Gordo
As you all may or may not be aware, WMUK are going to be having elections to form an interim board, to run WMUK and be responsible for the running of the until the time that the company is formed. Until now, the elections have mostly been arranged by those participating in them, and i feel that this is not particularly a good thing and I wanted to improve the legitimacy of these elections. Following separate discussions with Cary Bass and Tom Dalton the idea that I would like to propose is to have what is effectively an election committee designed to oversee the running of the WMUK elections. The proposed make up of this board is as follows, two representatives from the UK, one person from ChapCom and one from the foundation board, however any of those numbers and where the members are sourced from can change if a consensus for it exists.
The role of this committee would be to oversee the elections, ranging from deciding the timetable of events, overseeing the voting stages including the methods and medium the voting will take place in and finally the verifying and announcement of the results. I hope that this would allow the UK board an amount of legitimacy in the running of WMUK in the eyes of the UK community and also the foundation.
If the UK community has no issues I would like to offer my services to organise this. Comments would be grateful. User:Seddon @ en-wiki _________________________________________________________________ Make a mini you and download it into Windows Live Messenger http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354029/direct/01/
Seems a little excessive. This election was never expected to be perfect.
2008/9/5 joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk:
As you all may or may not be aware, WMUK are going to be having elections to form an interim board, to run WMUK and be responsible for the running of the until the time that the company is formed. Until now, the elections have mostly been arranged by those participating in them, and i feel that this is not particularly a good thing and I wanted to improve the legitimacy of these elections. Following separate discussions with Cary Bass and Tom Dalton the idea that I would like to propose is to have what is effectively an election committee designed to oversee the running of the WMUK elections. The proposed make up of this board is as follows, two representatives from the UK, one person from ChapCom and one from the foundation board, however any of those numbers and where the members are sourced from can change if a consensus for it exists.
The role of this committee would be to oversee the elections, ranging from deciding the timetable of events, overseeing the voting stages including the methods and medium the voting will take place in and finally the verifying and announcement of the results. I hope that this would allow the UK board an amount of legitimacy in the running of WMUK in the eyes of the UK community and also the foundation.
If the UK community has no issues I would like to offer my services to organise this. Comments would be grateful.
User:Seddon @ en-wiki ________________________________ Try Facebook in Windows Live Messenger! Try it Now! _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
I see no reason not to aim for it to be as perfect as possible. I am not talking about on the scale that the foundation elections are, simply a small group to ensure that this election is being run as fairly as possible.
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 01:50:40 +0100> From: thomas.holden@gmail.com> To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK election commitee> > Seems a little excessive. This election was never expected to be perfect.> > 2008/9/5 joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk:> > As you all may or may not be aware, WMUK are going to be having elections to> > form> > an interim board, to run WMUK and be responsible for the running of the> > until the> > time that the company is formed. Until now, the elections have mostly been> > arranged> > by those participating in them, and i feel that this is not particularly a> > good thing> > and I wanted to improve the legitimacy of these elections. Following> > separate> > discussions with Cary Bass and Tom Dalton the idea that I would like to> > propose is to> > have what is effectively an election committee designed to oversee the> > running of> > the WMUK elections. The proposed make up of this board is as follows, two> > representatives from the UK, one person from ChapCom and one from the> > foundation> > board, however any of those numbers and where the members are sourced from> > can change if a consensus for it exists.> >> >> > The role of this committee would be to oversee the elections, ranging from> > deciding> > the timetable of events, overseeing the voting stages including the methods> > and> > medium the voting will take place in and finally the verifying and> > announcement of> > the results. I hope that this would allow the UK board an amount of> > legitimacy in the> > running of WMUK in the eyes of the UK community and also the foundation.> >> > If the UK community has no issues I would like to offer my services to> > organise this.> > Comments would be grateful.> >> > User:Seddon @ en-wiki> > ________________________________> > Try Facebook in Windows Live Messenger! Try it Now!> > _______________________________________________> > Wikimedia UK mailing list> > wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK%3E > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l%3E >> >> > _______________________________________________> Wikimedia UK mailing list> wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK%3E http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
_________________________________________________________________ Discover Bird's Eye View now with Multimap from Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354026/direct/01/
2008/9/5 Tom Holden thomas.holden@gmail.com:
Seems a little excessive. This election was never expected to be perfect.
It's not perfection, it's legitimacy. At the moment, it's being organised primarily by some of the candidates, which doesn't look good. Assuming we can find people willing to sit on the committee, it can only be a good thing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tom Holden:
Seems a little excessive. This election was never expected to be perfect.
i agree. while i think an election overseen by a third-party could make sense for a 'real' board, this initial election accords no special privilege to the people who are elected. i'd rather see it be over quickly and the new board move on to doing real work.
- river.
Tom Holden:> > Seems a little excessive. This election was never expected to be perfect.> > i agree. while i think an election overseen by a third-party could make sense> for a 'real' board, this initial election accords no special privilege to the> people who are elected. i'd rather see it be over quickly and the new board> move on to doing real work.> > - river.
What method of voting are we going to use, how are we going to collect the results. It has been discussed on IRC to hold a secret ballot to avoid vote stacking, so if that is the case, we need to create a method that is *secret* and we need to be able to ensure it is fair. Whether or nor we assume good faith in those running for this election, i do not think it is professional for those running for the board to be overseeing this election. Now how this is avoided is down to what we can agree on this list, but i do not think that my concerns are unfounded. There is little reason to stick to the current timetable as much as possible, but there are other issues to be dealt with. _________________________________________________________________ Make a mini you and download it into Windows Live Messenger http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354029/direct/01/
What method of voting are we going to use, how are we going to collect the results. It has been discussed on IRC to hold a secret ballot to avoid vote stacking
My fear isn't vote stacking, it's that the candidates make up a significant portion of the electorate which makes it infeasible for them all to abstain and I would rather not end up sitting on a board with someone that knows I voted against them (and I doubt I'm alone in that), it could be awkward.
I agree with this concern, so a private ballot would be nice if feasible. But if it's going to significantly delay us it's not worth it.
In other news: I'll be off e-mail (mostly) until a week on Monday. If for some strange reason anything urgent needs dealing with, TD has my phone number.
Tom
2008/9/5 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
What method of voting are we going to use, how are we going to collect the results. It has been discussed on IRC to hold a secret ballot to avoid vote stacking
My fear isn't vote stacking, it's that the candidates make up a significant portion of the electorate which makes it infeasible for them all to abstain and I would rather not end up sitting on a board with someone that knows I voted against them (and I doubt I'm alone in that), it could be awkward.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What method of voting are we going to use, how are we going to collect the results. It has been discussed on IRC to hold a secret ballot to avoid vote stacking
My fear isn't vote stacking, it's that the candidates make up a significant portion of the electorate which makes it infeasible for them all to abstain and I would rather not end up sitting on a board with someone that knows I voted against them (and I doubt I'm alone in that), it could be awkward.
If impartiality is what you are after, I would be willing to volunteer myself to help with the election. My time is short so I wouldn't be able to do too much. I can help count votes privately, but I couldn't manage the entire election. Since I'm neither a candidate nor a member of the electorate, it should assuage your concerns. Maybe one or two other impartial members of chapcom could help out here if you need it.
--Andrew Whitworth
Seddon's suggestions seem reasonable. Regarding the comments concerning elections never intending to be totally perfect, that's not to say we have to neither resign ourself to imperfection, nor not try!
2008/9/5 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What method of voting are we going to use, how are we going to collect
the
results. It has been discussed on IRC to hold a secret ballot to avoid vote stacking
My fear isn't vote stacking, it's that the candidates make up a significant portion of the electorate which makes it infeasible for them all to abstain and I would rather not end up sitting on a board with someone that knows I voted against them (and I doubt I'm alone in that), it could be awkward.
If impartiality is what you are after, I would be willing to volunteer myself to help with the election. My time is short so I wouldn't be able to do too much. I can help count votes privately, but I couldn't manage the entire election. Since I'm neither a candidate nor a member of the electorate, it should assuage your concerns. Maybe one or two other impartial members of chapcom could help out here if you need it.
--Andrew Whitworth
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
i'd rather see it be over quickly and the new board move on to doing real work.
My hope is that the committee will stick to the current timetable. If things end up slowing down considerably, then the committee idea will be been a failure, but I'm optimistic.
On Thu, September 4, 2008 22:45, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Alison doesn't trust us and we don't trust Alison, so it's easiest to just start over.
With comments like that I don't need enemies!
However, the real reason I have proposed to not try and keep WER Ltd going (as, indeed, I have already pointed out previously) is that its history over the past 2½ years would almost certainly prove a millstone around the necks of anyone trying to start a new organisation. This has nothing to do with whatever I may or may not think of the people who have so far suggested they want to be involved (my thoughts on which will not be made public)
Regards
Alison
2008/9/5 Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com:
On Thu, September 4, 2008 22:45, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Alison doesn't trust us and we don't trust Alison, so it's easiest to just start over.
With comments like that I don't need enemies!
However, the real reason I have proposed to not try and keep WER Ltd going (as, indeed, I have already pointed out previously) is that its history over the past 2½ years would almost certainly prove a millstone around the necks of anyone trying to start a new organisation. This has nothing to do with whatever I may or may not think of the people who have so far suggested they want to be involved (my thoughts on which will not be made public)
You've already made your thoughts on that public - try to keep up! Remember this comment on foundation-l?
"I have concluded *for myself* that it is in the best interests of WMUK and of the Company of which I am a Director (and would, like the other Directors over the years, continue to retain a liability for the actions of for a period after retiring/resigning) that WER is dissolved rather than 'handed over' to a bunch of people who have not demonstrated any possibility of being suitably qualified."
Thomas,
I think Alison has explained what she meant by that comment: the intention of her Foundation-l comment was that she held concerns a new WER board being "under the cloud of the previous (less successful) board," as opposed to her not trusting the new board and therefore not supporting their replacing her.
At least, that's what I hope it meant. Alternative interpretations are a little more concerning: one would hope that the current board would hold enough trust in the wider WMUK community for them to support members from that community replacing them at the next election.
2008/9/5 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
2008/9/5 Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com:
On Thu, September 4, 2008 22:45, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Alison doesn't trust us and we don't trust Alison, so it's easiest to just start over.
With comments like that I don't need enemies!
However, the real reason I have proposed to not try and keep WER Ltd
going
(as, indeed, I have already pointed out previously) is that its history over the past 2½ years would almost certainly prove a millstone around
the
necks of anyone trying to start a new organisation. This has nothing to
do
with whatever I may or may not think of the people who have so far suggested they want to be involved (my thoughts on which will not be made public)
You've already made your thoughts on that public - try to keep up! Remember this comment on foundation-l?
"I have concluded *for myself* that it is in the best interests of WMUK and of the Company of which I am a Director (and would, like the other Directors over the years, continue to retain a liability for the actions of for a period after retiring/resigning) that WER is dissolved rather than 'handed over' to a bunch of people who have not demonstrated any possibility of being suitably qualified." _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
I think Alison has explained what she meant by that comment: the intention of her Foundation-l comment was that she held concerns a new WER board being "under the cloud of the previous (less successful) board," as opposed to her not trusting the new board and therefore not supporting their replacing her.
I haven't seen that explanation and I don't see how her words can be interpreted in that way. She was pretty clear.
At least, that's what I hope it meant. Alternative interpretations are a little more concerning: one would hope that the current board would hold enough trust in the wider WMUK community for them to support members from that community replacing them at the next election.
Sure, one would have hoped that, but the facts would suggest otherwise.
Alison: would you care to comment as to which interpretation you intended to be drawn from your Foundation-l comment?
2008/9/5 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
I think Alison has explained what she meant by that comment: the
intention
of her Foundation-l comment was that she held concerns a new WER board
being
"under the cloud of the previous (less successful) board," as opposed to
her
not trusting the new board and therefore not supporting their replacing
her.
I haven't seen that explanation and I don't see how her words can be interpreted in that way. She was pretty clear.
At least, that's what I hope it meant. Alternative interpretations are a little more concerning: one would hope that the current board would hold enough trust in the wider WMUK community for them to support members from that community replacing them at the next election.
Sure, one would have hoped that, but the facts would suggest otherwise.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
AGK wrote:
Alison: would you care to comment as to which interpretation you intended to be drawn from your Foundation-l comment?
Does it really matter, or are we having a dead horse flogging exercise?
Back to the topic - while I'd have to be reluctant to support having a full elecomm micromanaging every aspect of the election, some discussion of how to go about it and some oversight may be worthwhile. Given our size, there is no need to go overboard with it, and doing so may be counterproductive.
Martin
2008/9/5 Martin Peeks martinp23@googlemail.com:
AGK wrote:
Alison: would you care to comment as to which interpretation you intended to be drawn from your Foundation-l comment?
Does it really matter, or are we having a dead horse flogging exercise?
A number of us felt considerably insulted by Alison's comments. It makes little or no difference to the chapter, but it makes a difference to us personally.
Back to the topic - while I'd have to be reluctant to support having a full elecomm micromanaging every aspect of the election, some discussion of how to go about it and some oversight may be worthwhile. Given our size, there is no need to go overboard with it, and doing so may be counterproductive.
The election will hopefully be very simple and won't require micromanagement from anyone (it's really just a decision about who does the initial paperwork, there is no significant power involved). Final decisions need to be made about timing, type of voting and suffrage, but for the most part that's been discussed and at least a rough consensus has been formed, so it would just be up to the committee to make that final. My main hope for a committee is that they can handle counting of votes in secret. Without some kind of committee, the election would have to be carried out in public, which would be undesirable.
2008/9/5 Martin Peeks martinp23@googlemail.com:
Back to the topic - while I'd have to be reluctant to support having a full elecomm micromanaging every aspect of the election, some discussion of how to go about it and some oversight may be worthwhile. Given our size, there is no need to go overboard with it, and doing so may be counterproductive.
I'd suggest that a full election bureaucracy may be preemptive instruction creep. (See also [[Second-system effect]].) The problem we always had was getting anyone willing to be on the board at all.
I suggest waiting until you see if you've vastly more people wanting to be in the firing line than is feasible.
- d.
2008/9/6 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/9/5 Martin Peeks martinp23@googlemail.com:
Back to the topic - while I'd have to be reluctant to support having a full elecomm micromanaging every aspect of the election, some discussion of how to go about it and some oversight may be worthwhile. Given our size, there is no need to go overboard with it, and doing so may be counterproductive.
I'd suggest that a full election bureaucracy may be preemptive instruction creep. (See also [[Second-system effect]].) The problem we always had was getting anyone willing to be on the board at all.
I suggest waiting until you see if you've vastly more people wanting to be in the firing line than is feasible.
We're looking for a board of 5 (any more makes getting everyone in the same place at the same time very challenging) and have 10 candidates. Finding people to be on the board is easy, you just never asked.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
We're looking for a board of 5 (any more makes getting everyone in the same place at the same time very challenging) and have 10 candidates. Finding people to be on the board is easy, you just never asked.
I'm a total newcomer and have arrived in the middle of this rather worrying thread. However, I've been around mailing lists to know these things flare up occasionally and, for now, I'll give everyone the benifit of the doubt (that is, this is the *end* of "one of those things").
I've attempted to read the archives but it's so full of confusing messages that refer deeper and deeper into earlier activities here I'm thoroughly confused.
However, if this really is the *end* of "one of those things" and present an opportunity for improvement then it's possible I may be a candidate for what I /think/ this board is for. We'll come to my credentials later if its appropriate, for now please induldge me and any other newsomers to this list.
So, trying to move forwards I have a few questions (and I've made them deliberately general, please be as complete in your answers as you can)...
a) What is this board needed for?
b) What are the objectives of the structure the board will oversee?
c) What is expected of individual members of the board?
I'm pretty sure the answers to those will lead to more questions, but lets start with just those three.
Ross
However, if this really is the *end* of "one of those things" and present an opportunity for improvement then it's possible I may be a candidate for what I /think/ this board is for. We'll come to my credentials later if its appropriate, for now please induldge me and any other newsomers to this list.
So, trying to move forwards I have a few questions (and I've made them deliberately general, please be as complete in your answers as you can)...
a) What is this board needed for?
b) What are the objectives of the structure the board will oversee?
c) What is expected of individual members of the board?
I'm pretty sure the answers to those will lead to more questions, but lets start with just those three.
Take a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0 you should find some answers to your questions there. I'm happy to answer any questions you still have afterwards.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
However, if this really is the *end* of "one of those things" and present an opportunity for improvement then it's possible I may be a candidate for what I /think/ this board is for. We'll come to my credentials later if its appropriate, for now please induldge me and any other newsomers to this list.
So, trying to move forwards I have a few questions (and I've made them deliberately general, please be as complete in your answers as you can)...
a) What is this board needed for?
b) What are the objectives of the structure the board will oversee?
c) What is expected of individual members of the board?
I'm pretty sure the answers to those will lead to more questions, but lets start with just those three.
Take a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0 you should find some answers to your questions there. I'm happy to answer any questions you still have afterwards.
Sure, I read that (should have pointed that out, sorry).
However, all it says is "we're going to set up a company (limited by guarentee) to do stuff related to a set of objectives that are still freely editable by anyone".
I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm certainly a big fan of openness and community led developments. However, I'm also realistic (and reasonably knowledgable) about what it takes to create a succesful social enterprise.
Either the above linked document has less detail than exists in the minds of the people on this list, or the cart is, at present, before the horse.
Ross
Sure, I read that (should have pointed that out, sorry).
However, all it says is "we're going to set up a company (limited by guarentee) to do stuff related to a set of objectives that are still freely editable by anyone".
I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm certainly a big fan of openness and community led developments. However, I'm also realistic (and reasonably knowledgable) about what it takes to create a succesful social enterprise.
Either the above linked document has less detail than exists in the minds of the people on this list, or the cart is, at present, before the horse.
It's a chapter of the foundation, it will do the same sorts of things as others chapters do. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Summaries for some ideas about what that includes. I really don't get why everyone is making such a big deal about having a list of objectives when we all know what chapters do, this isn't a new concept.
Maybe it's not a new concept for you, but there seems to be several new and confused readers to this mailing list. Assuming that everyone here follows all that has been going on makes an ass of you and me. :)
2008/9/6 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
Sure, I read that (should have pointed that out, sorry).
However, all it says is "we're going to set up a company (limited by guarentee) to do stuff related to a set of objectives that are still freely editable by anyone".
I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm certainly a big fan of openness and community led developments. However, I'm also realistic (and reasonably knowledgable) about what it takes to create a succesful social enterprise.
Either the above linked document has less detail than exists in the minds of the people on this list, or the cart is, at present, before the horse.
It's a chapter of the foundation, it will do the same sorts of things as others chapters do. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Summaries for some ideas about what that includes. I really don't get why everyone is making such a big deal about having a list of objectives when we all know what chapters do, this isn't a new concept.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
At 22:41 +0100 6/9/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Sure, I read that (should have pointed that out, sorry).
However, all it says is "we're going to set up a company (limited by guarentee) to do stuff related to a set of objectives that are still freely editable by anyone".
I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm certainly a big fan of openness and community led developments. However, I'm also realistic (and reasonably knowledgable) about what it takes to create a succesful social enterprise.
Either the above linked document has less detail than exists in the minds of the people on this list, or the cart is, at present, before the horse.
It's a chapter of the foundation, it will do the same sorts of things as others chapters do. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Summaries for some ideas about what that includes. I really don't get why everyone is making such a big deal about having a list of objectives when we all know what chapters do, this isn't a new concept.
Indeed.
***** Wikimedia Deutschland, founded in June 2004, was the first Wikimedia chapter. It has more than 400 members, an office with 1.5 full time employees, and an annual budget of ~300k EUR. *****
Gordo
Gordon Joly wrote:
At 22:41 +0100 6/9/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Sure, I read that (should have pointed that out, sorry). However, all it says is "we're going to set up a company (limited by guarentee) to do stuff related to a set of objectives that are still freely editable by anyone".
I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm certainly a big fan of openness and community led developments. However, I'm also realistic (and reasonably knowledgable) about what it takes to create a succesful social enterprise.
Either the above linked document has less detail than exists in the minds of the people on this list, or the cart is, at present, before the horse.
It's a chapter of the foundation, it will do the same sorts of things as others chapters do. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Summaries for some ideas about what that includes. I really don't get why everyone is making such a big deal about having a list of objectives when we all know what chapters do, this isn't a new concept.
Indeed.
Wikimedia Deutschland, founded in June 2004, was the first Wikimedia chapter. It has more than 400 members, an office with 1.5 full time employees, and an annual budget of ~300k EUR.
Wikimedia UK v1 failed and it wasn't a new concept then either.
I don't want to throw oil on the fire. I wasn't around then and my next line is not intended to open up wounds, but I have to ask it (rhetorically at this point, I hope that candidate statements will address this important quesiton clearly and concisely)...
Is there to be a repeat of past errors here?
I'll switch back to lurking mode and try and decide how to vote when the time comes.
Ross
On Sat, September 6, 2008 23:20, Thomas Dalton wrote:
It failed long before it actually got to the point of doing anything. I don't know if they had plans for what to do once they were set up, but they never needed them.
Would you please stop disparaging all the hard work done by various people in setting up and running the original WMUK!
WMUK did a lot of things, and very successfully too as even a little research would show. I realise you would like to think we were all useless, but we weren't.
Oh, and in response to On Sat, September 6, 2008 22:46, Gordon Joly wrote:
To date, no funds have been raised in the UK, with or without the income tax recovered. Hence, fund raising over the past two years was all USA based.
again, I do wish people wouldn't keep trying to state things as facts which they do not know about. WMUK *did* receive funds, and these were used in part-payment of the start-up and operating debts.
Alison
2008/9/7 Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com:
On Sat, September 6, 2008 23:20, Thomas Dalton wrote:
It failed long before it actually got to the point of doing anything. I don't know if they had plans for what to do once they were set up, but they never needed them.
Would you please stop disparaging all the hard work done by various people in setting up and running the original WMUK!
WMUK did a lot of things, and very successfully too as even a little research would show. I realise you would like to think we were all useless, but we weren't.
You keep saying this, but have yet to give any examples beyond some PR work (which David did prior to the chapter's creation).
Oh, and in response to On Sat, September 6, 2008 22:46, Gordon Joly wrote:
To date, no funds have been raised in the UK, with or without the income tax recovered. Hence, fund raising over the past two years was all USA based.
again, I do wish people wouldn't keep trying to state things as facts which they do not know about. WMUK *did* receive funds, and these were used in part-payment of the start-up and operating debts.
Your start up got as far as incorporation, which carries a fee of £30 if memory serves. That's a trivial amount of income for over 2 years. Any other income you got you wasted, so I would keep quiet about that if I were you.
On Sun, September 7, 2008 01:27, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Your start up got as far as incorporation, which carries a fee of £30 if memory serves. That's a trivial amount of income for over 2 years. Any other income you got you wasted, so I would keep quiet about that if I were you.
You muddled up an expenditure with an income there. I'd keep quiet about that if I were you (which I am grateful I am not)
Alison
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Alison Wheeler <wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com
wrote:
On Sun, September 7, 2008 01:27, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Your start up got as far as incorporation, which carries a fee of £30 if memory serves. That's a trivial amount of income for over 2 years. Any other income you got you wasted, so I would keep quiet about that if I were you.
You muddled up an expenditure with an income there. I'd keep quiet about that if I were you (which I am grateful I am not)
Alison
Way to take the high ground and be mature, Alison. Do we really have to degenerate into jabs and other childish comments?
~ Paul Williams ~ [[m:User:Skenmy]]
2008/9/7 Paul Williams paul@skenmy.com:
Way to take the high ground and be mature, Alison. Do we really have to degenerate into jabs and other childish comments?
Hear, hear!
Listen, Thomas and Alison, what is going on here is making both of you look rather infantile - it is apparent if not obvious that the relation between you has turned into a minor feud and, instead of proving to each other that the old team was useless resp. the new team will be useless, I suggest that you just stop communicating with each other. Seriously. The start of a new Wikimedia UK will only be hindered by such controversies (and yes, I know, both of you feel insulted by the respective other, but drawing this out won't help anyone!)
Best wishes, Michael (not saying this as part of ChapCom, to prevent misunderstandings)
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
On Sun, September 7, 2008 01:27, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Your start up got as far as incorporation, which carries a fee of £30 if memory serves. That's a trivial amount of income for over 2 years. Any other income you got you wasted, so I would keep quiet about that if I were you.
You muddled up an expenditure with an income there. I'd keep quiet about that if I were you (which I am grateful I am not)
I think he means you had to have an income of £30 to cover that expenditure.
2008/9/7 Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com:
On Sun, September 7, 2008 01:27, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Your start up got as far as incorporation, which carries a fee of £30 if memory serves. That's a trivial amount of income for over 2 years. Any other income you got you wasted, so I would keep quiet about that if I were you.
You muddled up an expenditure with an income there. I'd keep quiet about that if I were you (which I am grateful I am not)
You've said the company has debts, that means your income must have been less than your expenditure. An upper bound on your expenditure is therefore an upper bound on your income. I should have explained that in greater detail, I apologise.
Now, Alison, please either leave us alone to get on with what you proved incapable of or do something constructive like telling us what actually went wrong so we can avoid your mistakes. The fact that you haven't already done that tells me you either don't actually want us to succeed, or that nothing actually went wrong and the reason you never got anywhere is simply because you couldn't be bothered to get off your backside and do anything. I have had enough of your arrogant, deceitful and spiteful attitude and intend to have nothing further to do with you until you do something to help and I suggest everyone else does likewise. Goodbye.
Nobody here knows me and therefore I won't be missed if I just slip away, but before I do I will make one last plea.
Can everyone please be civil and constructive. If that is not possible then the is *zero* chance of building the kind of community I (and I assume many others) would like to be a part of.
Ross
2008/9/7 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:
Nobody here knows me and therefore I won't be missed if I just slip away, but before I do I will make one last plea.
Can everyone please be civil and constructive. If that is not possible then the is *zero* chance of building the kind of community I (and I assume many others) would like to be a part of.
Ross
Eh most of us are fairly civil and constructive. Hopefully once we get the show on the road we will have more outlets for that constructiveness.
I'm sorry to see you leave, Ross, if that is indeed what you are doing.
2008/9/7 geni geniice@gmail.com
2008/9/7 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:
Nobody here knows me and therefore I won't be missed if I just slip away, but before I do I will make one last plea.
Can everyone please be civil and constructive. If that is not possible then the is *zero* chance of building the kind of community I (and I assume many others) would like to be a part of.
Ross
Eh most of us are fairly civil and constructive. Hopefully once we get the show on the road we will have more outlets for that constructiveness.
-- geni
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
AGK wrote:
I'm sorry to see you leave, Ross, if that is indeed what you are doing.
No - not yet. Pretty damn close though I have to say. I intend to lurk a while longer yet, it's clear from the archives there is a momentum here. I just don't want to see that momentum wasted with public displays of negative emotion - email is not a good medium for that.
Ross
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.
Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:59 AM, Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.ukwrote:
AGK wrote:
I'm sorry to see you leave, Ross, if that is indeed what you are doing.
No - not yet. Pretty damn close though I have to say. I intend to lurk a while longer yet, it's clear from the archives there is a momentum here. I just don't want to see that momentum wasted with public displays of negative emotion - email is not a good medium for that.
Ross
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
2008/9/8 Ian A. Holton poeloq@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?
At 04:19 +0100 8/9/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/9/8 Ian A. Holton poeloq@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.
Gordo
geni wrote:
Eh most of us are fairly civil and constructive. Hopefully once we get the show on the road we will have more outlets for that constructiveness.
I'm sure it's usually a lovely place to be.
It's unfortunate that I came here in response to someone inviting participation on an external list. If others have landed at this time they may have left already - without speaking up.
Ross
Ross Gardler wrote:
Nobody here knows me and therefore I won't be missed if I just slip away, but before I do I will make one last plea.
Just replying to my own message to bring it to the top again.
Can everyone please be civil and constructive. If that is not possible then the is *zero* chance of building the kind of community I (and I assume many others) would like to be a part of.
I'm amazed that even my plea for civility has degenerated into an argument.
Ross
Ross Gardler wrote:
Can everyone please be civil and constructive. If that is not possible then the is *zero* chance of building the kind of community I (and I assume many others) would like to be a part of.
I'm amazed that even my plea for civility has degenerated into an argument.
Indeed, it's a very sorry state of affairs indeed, and I have to say that I'm quite disappointed that Tom D., who I had hoped would be able to turn the organisation around from the bickering, disorganised, disrespectful mess it *appeared* (key word) to me before. Alas he seems to be continuing in the vein of old.
Unless things change quickly with the way this organisation is publicly managed, I don't think it can nor should claim to represent the interests of UK Wikimedians. Indeed, it's losing credibility as a serious org. very quickly, in my eyes at the very least.
In short, "Drop the stick and step away from the dead horse" (WP:FLOG).
Now, I have some questions about this new organisation. Not much information seems to have been forthcoming thus far on the ML (or has been hidden in bickering!), so first I'd ask that the interim board provide (say) weekly reports to us on progress, whether or not there is anything to report, during this initial phase of high momentum. Questions:
- Where are we now? - Who is involved at the moment and in what capacity? - What are their plans for the chapter, both short-term and long-term?
Apologies if these have been answered already, but as I say, things have been rather drowned out thus far..
Martin.
Too pessimistic an attitude. We should be looking at how to improve as an organisation, and identifying areas that we need to work on. I care not who implements the ideas of the wider UK wikimedia community; only that things go uphill from here.
2008/9/8 Martin Peeks martinp23@googlemail.com
Ross Gardler wrote:
Can everyone please be civil and constructive. If that is not possible then the is *zero* chance of building the kind of community I (and I assume many others) would like to be a part of.
I'm amazed that even my plea for civility has degenerated into an
argument.
Indeed, it's a very sorry state of affairs indeed, and I have to say that I'm quite disappointed that Tom D., who I had hoped would be able to turn the organisation around from the bickering, disorganised, disrespectful mess it *appeared* (key word) to me before. Alas he seems to be continuing in the vein of old.
Unless things change quickly with the way this organisation is publicly managed, I don't think it can nor should claim to represent the interests of UK Wikimedians. Indeed, it's losing credibility as a serious org. very quickly, in my eyes at the very least.
In short, "Drop the stick and step away from the dead horse" (WP:FLOG).
Now, I have some questions about this new organisation. Not much information seems to have been forthcoming thus far on the ML (or has been hidden in bickering!), so first I'd ask that the interim board provide (say) weekly reports to us on progress, whether or not there is anything to report, during this initial phase of high momentum. Questions:
- Where are we now?
- Who is involved at the moment and in what capacity?
- What are their plans for the chapter, both short-term and long-term?
Apologies if these have been answered already, but as I say, things have been rather drowned out thus far..
Martin.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
AGK wrote:
Too pessimistic an attitude. We should be looking at how to improve as an organisation, and identifying areas that we need to work on. I care not who implements the ideas of the wider UK wikimedia community; only that things go uphill from here.
Likewise - indeed there will be an opportunity to decide who leads the organisation when the elections take place!
However the current situation helps things not a bit.
Martin
2008/9/8 Martin Peeks martinp23@googlemail.com
Ross Gardler wrote:
Can everyone please be civil and constructive. If that is not possible then the is *zero* chance of building the kind of community I (and I assume many others) would like to be a part of.
I'm amazed that even my plea for civility has degenerated into an
argument.
Indeed, it's a very sorry state of affairs indeed, and I have to say that I'm quite disappointed that Tom D., who I had hoped would be able to turn the organisation around from the bickering, disorganised, disrespectful mess it *appeared* (key word) to me before. Alas he seems to be continuing in the vein of old.
Unless things change quickly with the way this organisation is publicly managed, I don't think it can nor should claim to represent the interests of UK Wikimedians. Indeed, it's losing credibility as a serious org. very quickly, in my eyes at the very least.
In short, "Drop the stick and step away from the dead horse" (WP:FLOG).
Now, I have some questions about this new organisation. Not much information seems to have been forthcoming thus far on the ML (or has been hidden in bickering!), so first I'd ask that the interim board provide (say) weekly reports to us on progress, whether or not there is anything to report, during this initial phase of high momentum. Questions:
- Where are we now?
- Who is involved at the moment and in what capacity?
- What are their plans for the chapter, both short-term and long-term?
Apologies if these have been answered already, but as I say, things have been rather drowned out thus far..
Martin.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
2008/9/8 AGK agkwiki@googlemail.com:
Too pessimistic an attitude. We should be looking at how to improve as an organisation, and identifying areas that we need to work on. I care not who implements the ideas of the wider UK wikimedia community; only that things go uphill from here.
Well said. At the moment, it's just getting the paperwork done. For that, you just need people dedicated to getting the job done, nothing else really matters until we're up and running (the interim board will only be in place for a few months). Of course, I don't think things can go downhill from here - we're at the start of a long climb, but I think the view from the top will be magnificent! (Too poetic? ;))
Ooops,
Martin Peeks wrote:
Now, I have some questions about this new organisation. Not much information seems to have been forthcoming thus far on the ML (or has been hidden in bickering!), so first I'd ask that the interim board provide (say) weekly reports to us on progress, whether or not there is anything to report, during this initial phase of high momentum. Questions:
- Where are we now?
- Who is involved at the moment and in what capacity?
- What are their plans for the chapter, both short-term and long-term?
Oh, I see:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0 !
Very nice.
"Who is involved at the moment and in what capacity?" - just so I can get it clear in my head, anyone able to give a quick summary there?
Martin
Apologies if these have been answered already, but as I say, things have been rather drowned out thus far..
Martin.
2008/9/8 Martin Peeks martinp23@googlemail.com:
- Where are we now?
In the process of sorting out an interim board.
- Who is involved at the moment and in what capacity?
Well you can see the page history at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0
We may get someone formal to run the elections but at a pinch I can do it.
Beyond that the answer is anyone who wants to be and in the capacity they feel like doing the work for.
- What are their plans for the chapter, both short-term and long-term?
Short term get is set up
Long term supporting wikipedia and other wikimedia projects through fundraiseing and effective use of the trademarks (being slightly more official wikipedia people has the capacity to open a lot of doors).
2008/9/8 Martin Peeks martinp23@googlemail.com:
Now, I have some questions about this new organisation. Not much information seems to have been forthcoming thus far on the ML (or has been hidden in bickering!), so first I'd ask that the interim board provide (say) weekly reports to us on progress, whether or not there is anything to report, during this initial phase of high momentum. Questions:
- Where are we now?
- Who is involved at the moment and in what capacity?
- What are their plans for the chapter, both short-term and long-term?
Apologies if these have been answered already, but as I say, things have been rather drowned out thus far..
Weekly reports don't seem to me like a successfull strategy for two reasons:
1) If there isn't anything to report in a given week, people are going to be dismayed 2) People will scrape and scrounge to report *anything*, even if it's not really news, just so they don't look like they're not doing anything 3) It doesn't get the larger community involved in the process at all.
I've seen weekly meetings used to far greater effect. Wikimedia Canada was having weekly IRC meetings until they set up milestones and elected a steering committee. Now the steering committee meets regularly through some conference call software (dont remember the name of it) and they hold public IRC meetings regularly but at longer intervals.
Having a meeting instead of just a report gives you the ability to divvy up necessary tasks to willing volunteers who otherwise wouldn't know that such a task even existed. IRC is a great and easily accessible venue for this. I don't know if #Wikimedia-uk exists yet or not of freenode, but it would be trivial to have it set up if not.
--Andrew Whitworth
Weekly reports don't seem to me like a successfull strategy for two reasons:
- If there isn't anything to report in a given week, people are going
to be dismayed 2) People will scrape and scrounge to report *anything*, even if it's not really news, just so they don't look like they're not doing anything 3) It doesn't get the larger community involved in the process at all.
I've seen weekly meetings used to far greater effect. Wikimedia Canada was having weekly IRC meetings until they set up milestones and elected a steering committee. Now the steering committee meets regularly through some conference call software (dont remember the name of it) and they hold public IRC meetings regularly but at longer intervals.
Having a meeting instead of just a report gives you the ability to divvy up necessary tasks to willing volunteers who otherwise wouldn't know that such a task even existed. IRC is a great and easily accessible venue for this. I don't know if #Wikimedia-uk exists yet or not of freenode, but it would be trivial to have it set up if not.
My thinking for making sure things keep moving and people know where we are is to have a detailed timetable (the provisional one can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Timeline ). That way you don't need a report every week you just need a report every time you reach a date on the timeline saying whether you've achieved that milestone or not and if not why not and what you intend to do about it (I've divided all the tasks into small enough chunks that it will soon become obvious if things are getting behind schedule).
Weekly public meetings may be useful once we're up and running, but I don't think there will be a great deal for the community at large to do at first. There should almost certainly be regular board meetings on IRC (weekly or biweekly probably) and I see no reason that those shouldn't be readable by anyone (except when discussing things like individual membership applications that contain confidential information). While the board are handling the paperwork, the rest of the community can be working on longer term plans, that could be done through weekly meetings, but I don't think it's the best way (keeping everything on meta, or a dedicated wiki, would make it accessible to everyone regardless of when they can be online).
Indeed, it's a very sorry state of affairs indeed, and I have to say that I'm quite disappointed that Tom D., who I had hoped would be able to turn the organisation around from the bickering, disorganised, disrespectful mess it *appeared* (key word) to me before. Alas he seems to be continuing in the vein of old.
Sometimes you have to deal with people on their own terms. I hope I haven't been disrespectful to anyone that's actually making a constructive contribution (which is the vast majority) and if I have, I apologise. Sometimes it is difficult to switch back and forth between dealing with people that only respond to being yelled at and dealing with everyone else - I do try, but I think I may fail at times, and I'm sorry about that.
Unless things change quickly with the way this organisation is publicly managed, I don't think it can nor should claim to represent the interests of UK Wikimedians. Indeed, it's losing credibility as a serious org. very quickly, in my eyes at the very least.
It's not really managed at all at this point, everything is being done by consensus. Everyone that wants to be involved will be able to vote for the board who will start actually managing things. If you don't think I'm up to the job, there are plenty of other candidates - I won't hold it against you if you don't vote for me. I'll help where I can in whatever capacity I'm wanted.
At 01:09 +0100 7/9/08, Alison Wheeler wrote:
On Sat, September 6, 2008 23:20, Thomas Dalton wrote:
It failed long before it actually got to the point of doing anything. I don't know if they had plans for what to do once they were set up, but they never needed them.
Would you please stop disparaging all the hard work done by various people in setting up and running the original WMUK!
WMUK did a lot of things, and very successfully too as even a little research would show. I realise you would like to think we were all useless, but we weren't.
Yes, Alison. There was a great effort and a lot of hard work.
Oh, and in response to On Sat, September 6, 2008 22:46, Gordon Joly wrote:
To date, no funds have been raised in the UK, with or without the income tax recovered. Hence, fund raising over the past two years was all USA based.
again, I do wish people wouldn't keep trying to state things as facts which they do not know about. WMUK *did* receive funds, and these were used in part-payment of the start-up and operating debts.
Alison
I stand corrected. I was referring the normal funds drives that appear on the front page of Wikipedia.
Gordo
Is there to be a repeat of past errors here?
I'll switch back to lurking mode and try and decide how to vote when the time comes.
Ross
There must be lessons to be learned, surely?
Gordo
2008/9/6 Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk:
Either the above linked document has less detail than exists in the minds of the people on this list, or the cart is, at present, before the horse.
Ross
Remember we are dealing with the context that the previous board failed. There are no shortage of things the board could do and we will probably start compiling big lists of them to keep people interested once the board is elected but for the moment we are focusing on getting a board and can actually do the initial setup in place. After two years of initial setup not happening we are not too interested in anything that will distract from that goal.
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk wrote:
So, trying to move forwards I have a few questions (and I've made them deliberately general, please be as complete in your answers as you can)...
a) What is this board needed for?
b) What are the objectives of the structure the board will oversee?
c) What is expected of individual members of the board?
a) I'm no expert in UK legal matters, but typically a board is a required component of a corporation (even non-profit ones). Prior to incorporation, such a board would serve as a sort of "steering committee" and will help to guide and direct the organization of the group.
b) The board at this stage will typically be in charge of overseeing the creation of bylaws, articles of incorporation, applications for corporate status, etc. They will also help to organize and oversee drives for formal membership. Also, the board will arrange and oversee any general meetings that the group decides to hold. There are probably a few other tasks that I'm missing that the board will want to play a part in.
c) Depends on how much the group wants to do, and how soon they want it to be done by. For many chapters, board members don't do a lot of work: they participate in discussions (IRC, mailing list, etc), and are typically required to attend any formal meetings. Beyond that, they must be willing to wade through the bog of government bureaucracy to help form the chapter. This requires a certain willingness to learn legal issues, if not a prior familiarity of them.
--Andrew Whitworth
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk wrote:
So, trying to move forwards I have a few questions (and I've made them deliberately general, please be as complete in your answers as you can)...
a) What is this board needed for?
b) What are the objectives of the structure the board will oversee?
c) What is expected of individual members of the board?
a) I'm no expert in UK legal matters, but typically a board is a required component of a corporation (even non-profit ones). Prior to incorporation, such a board would serve as a sort of "steering committee" and will help to guide and direct the organization of the group.
Sure - but that's not what I meant (see my other mail in reply to Thomas for clarification).
b) The board at this stage will typically be in charge of overseeing the creation of bylaws, articles of incorporation, applications for corporate status, etc. They will also help to organize and oversee drives for formal membership. Also, the board will arrange and oversee any general meetings that the group decides to hold. There are probably a few other tasks that I'm missing that the board will want to play a part in.
OK that all sounds fine, and is very helpful, thanks.
I'm still concerned that it appears that people are expected to sign up to a legal entity that does not yet have any defined objectives. Maybe I'm misreading something, maybe this board is an interim step to the final legal entities board?
c) Depends on how much the group wants to do, and how soon they want it to be done by. For many chapters, board members don't do a lot of work: they participate in discussions (IRC, mailing list, etc), and are typically required to attend any formal meetings. Beyond that, they must be willing to wade through the bog of government bureaucracy to help form the chapter. This requires a certain willingness to learn legal issues, if not a prior familiarity of them.
Again, helpful, thank you.
Ross
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk wrote:
I'm still concerned that it appears that people are expected to sign up to a legal entity that does not yet have any defined objectives. Maybe I'm misreading something, maybe this board is an interim step to the final legal entities board?
My impression is that what is currently being discussed is a committee that will work towards incorporation. At the point of corporation, there would be a board appointed.
I believe that the current discussion is about the former, not yet the latter. I presume discussion of the composition of the latter will be part of the interim committee's function.
If this is not accurate, perhaps someone would be kind enough to correct me. If it is accurate, perhaps people could refrain from calling it a "board" until that term is more technically accurate and less confusing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sam Korn:
My impression is that what is currently being discussed is a committee that will work towards incorporation. At the point of corporation, there would be a board appointed.
not exactly. this election is to choose the initial board of the company, who will set up the company (incorporation, bank account, tax-exempt status, etc), and then another election will be held to choose another board, who will become the actual board of Wikimedia UK.
the committee working towards incorporation is everyone on this mailing list ;-)
- river.
2008/9/6 Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk wrote:
I'm still concerned that it appears that people are expected to sign up to a legal entity that does not yet have any defined objectives. Maybe I'm misreading something, maybe this board is an interim step to the final legal entities board?
My impression is that what is currently being discussed is a committee that will work towards incorporation. At the point of corporation, there would be a board appointed.
I believe that the current discussion is about the former, not yet the latter. I presume discussion of the composition of the latter will be part of the interim committee's function.
If this is not accurate, perhaps someone would be kind enough to correct me. If it is accurate, perhaps people could refrain from calling it a "board" until that term is more technically accurate and less confusing.
You're close. What we're electing now is the initial board. They will do all the paperwork of getting incorporated and will be the initial board of the company (you have to submit the details of the initial board along with the rest of the documents when applying for corporate status). They will then get charitable status, set up a bank account, sort out the agreement with WMF and process membership applications. Once they've done that (hopefully by the end of the year or the very beginning of next year, but that's only if nothing goes wrong) they will organise an AGM (Annual General Meeting, a yearly meeting that almost all companies have which all members/shareholders are invited to and are allowed to vote at). At that AGM, all the initial board will resign and a new board will be elected by the membership (the members of the initial board can stand for re-election if they want to). That new board will then have a functioning framework which they can use to start actually doing the activities of the chapter.
At 23:05 +0100 6/9/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/9/6 Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gardler@oucs.ox.ac.uk wrote:
I'm still concerned that it appears that people are expected to sign up to a legal entity that does not yet have any defined objectives. Maybe I'm misreading something, maybe this board is an interim step to the final legal entities board?
My impression is that what is currently being discussed is a committee that will work towards incorporation. At the point of corporation, there would be a board appointed.
I believe that the current discussion is about the former, not yet the latter. I presume discussion of the composition of the latter will be part of the interim committee's function.
If this is not accurate, perhaps someone would be kind enough to correct me. If it is accurate, perhaps people could refrain from calling it a "board" until that term is more technically accurate and less confusing.
You're close. What we're electing now is the initial board. They will do all the paperwork of getting incorporated and will be the initial board of the company (you have to submit the details of the initial board along with the rest of the documents when applying for corporate status). They will then get charitable status, set up a bank account, sort out the agreement with WMF and process membership applications. Once they've done that (hopefully by the end of the year or the very beginning of next year, but that's only if nothing goes wrong) they will organise an AGM (Annual General Meeting, a yearly meeting that almost all companies have which all members/shareholders are invited to and are allowed to vote at). At that AGM, all the initial board will resign and a new board will be elected by the membership (the members of the initial board can stand for re-election if they want to). That new board will then have a functioning framework which they can use to start actually doing the activities of the chapter.
There are no shareholders in a company limited by guarantee (since there are no shares issued).
The discussion of who should be the guarantor members has been going on as long as I remember! Some charities limit that membership to the trustees, and some do not, and I am a member and a trustee of both types of charity.
Gordo
At 12:53 +0100 5/9/08, Alison Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, September 4, 2008 22:45, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Alison doesn't trust us and we don't trust Alison, so it's easiest to just start over.
With comments like that I don't need enemies!
However, the real reason I have proposed to not try and keep WER Ltd going (as, indeed, I have already pointed out previously) is that its history over the past 2½ years would almost certainly prove a millstone around the necks of anyone trying to start a new organisation. This has nothing to do with whatever I may or may not think of the people who have so far suggested they want to be involved (my thoughts on which will not be made public)
Regards
Alison
Agreed: companies have a history, just like people...
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org