I feel we have a very real need for the phrase WMUK volunteer. Firstly, as i have mentioned before, I am not sure that the term "volunteer" is the best generic term for WM editors - I feel amateur bet captures the relationship, although indeed often people volunteer for specific tasks.
With WMUK Volunteers I think we can be quite clear about what this means: people who offer to do tasks within the framework of a WMUk programme with out pay.
Please check:
https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_the_Trainers/Agreement_for_trainers
which says:
"Wikimedia UK will ensure that their trainers are adequately covered for public liability insurance when training, facilitating or attending meetings on behalf of Wikimedia UK."
This is quite different from being a WM editor where a person is completely self-directed, not structured in a programme and not protected by insurance - i.e an amateur.
That is why I think using different words is useful: to convey different meanings.
My own view on Wikimania 2014 is that it should be set up as a separate company, with WMUK as a corporate member on the board. Thought needs to go into what is the best form for it: e.g. Community Interest Company might be the most appropriate. This relates to how it is going to be funded.
Having a separate company means that if anything goes wrong, it doesn't take WMUK down with it, nor does it uncontrollably swallow up all WMUK's attention.
all the best
Fabian (User:Leutha)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:26:56 +0000 From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania 2014 in London. Message-ID: CAEgLstTU_C=vMEeUkCrdAcVi2xmG1NHBdP==3oBhxk_U0PuR=w@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 18 March 2013 23:16, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 March 2013 23:10, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
In this case, the bid isn't being submitted by volunteers and members of Wikimedia UK as part of Wikimedia UK.
The bid is funded by WMUK, the bid team are operating out of the WMUK office and the intention is for everything to be booked and paid for in the name of WMUK. Explain to me how this isn't a WMUK bid...
I am unfamiliar with the concept of a "WMUK volunteer". Wikimedian volunteers who happen to be in the UK may have no connection at all to WMUK, and throwing the phrase around is unhelpful.
Charles
On 19/03/13 09:44, fabian@unpopular.org.uk wrote:
My own view on Wikimania 2014 is that it should be set up as a separate company, with WMUK as a corporate member on the board. Thought needs to go into what is the best form for it: e.g. Community Interest Company might be the most appropriate. This relates to how it is going to be funded.
Having a separate company means that if anything goes wrong, it doesn't take WMUK down with it, nor does it uncontrollably swallow up all WMUK's attention.
Yes, and that has to be happening now.... or yesterday.
CIC might be easy. Quicker than forming a charity, eh?
Gordo
On 19 March 2013 10:55, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
CIC might be easy. Quicker than forming a charity, eh?
There's no need for the subsidiary to be a charity. WMUK can act as an intermediary and all the tax advantages can come from WMUK's status.
Donations are made to WMUK, which are tax deductible, WMUK then pays the subsidiary to provide a service (the conference) and then the subsidiary donates any profit it makes to WMUK to eliminate its tax liability. That is entirely legal and above board - you can even find guidance on how to do it on the HMRC website.
My own view on Wikimania 2014 is that it should be set up as a separate company, with WMUK as a corporate member on the board. Thought needs to go into what is the best form for it: e.g. Community Interest Company might be the most appropriate. This relates to how it is going to be funded.
Really that is the *only *conceivable option. Not only is it far and away standard practice (from a risk, organisational and reputational viewpoint), at some point the Wikimania team is likely to need to employ staff (as other bids have done) and that would likely not be appropriate within the WMUK structure.
Tom
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org