On 27 June 2013 23:07, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote: FWIW I've just joined, nudged by this thread. The biggest reason that I might not have got around to doing this wasn't money, member privileges etc., ... just that anything to do with online payments is general a giant pain. Much as I love the work of Wikimedia UK, there's a good chance I'll forget to renew in 12 months unless I'm heavily reminded. The PayPal payment went through pretty smoothly, but I didn't see anything anywhere about signing up by direct debit or other mechanisms. Do you plan to offer something like that, so that the default (for those who choose it) can be continued membership, rather than lapsing after 12 months? Dan

On 27 June 2013 23:27, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote: Thanks, hadn't noticed that. Too late now for this year, I guess. If the goal is to get automatic annual subscriptions for supporters who might have trouble remembering to resubscribe each year, it would be great to have something easier than printing + posting PDF form + waiting to be accepted and acting on subsequent details. Can PayPal offer some kind of "take my money and please keep taking it!" facility? Dan

On 27/06/13 22:41, Dan Brickley wrote: Hence, needs to flagged more widely.... Gordo

On 28/06/13 15:20, Richard Nevell wrote: A URL available to the whole world? Gordo

On 28/06/13 15:31, Stevie Benton wrote: This issue is not about privacy or openness. It is about what a member gets that others do not. At the moment, voting at the AGM comes to mind, paying dues and not much else. Oh, and that warm fuzzy feeling and something to tell the grandchildren about.... Gordo

I basically agree with Katherine, Gordo I'm not sure what benefits you think members should get? Why are you a member? I like the way the page is a sort of a positioning statement regarding what it means for you to - a little description of why people might choose to be a member v. a volunteer v. some other sort of supporter. That doesn't have to be about benefits so much as the level and type of support people want to show, and the kinds of activity they might engage in. Having said that, I think the micro-grants thing is a good benefit which as I understand is only open to members (is that also true of claiming costs?). Cheers Simon From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Katherine Bavage Sent: 28 June 2013 08:12 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership recruitment The page I linked to in my opening email - <http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Membership/Promoting> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Membership/Promoting - discusses this exactly and suggests how we could describe the benefit of membership to potential members. So, to return to Stevie's point, when Gordo, says: "This issue is not about privacy or openness. It is about what a member gets that others do not. At the moment, voting at the AGM comes to mind, paying dues and not much else." (my emphasis) the question that historically we haven't answered is: should members get privileges? How does that square with the fact other wikimedia chapter memberships don't really seem to get specific benefits and privileges? Would it be consistent with what the movement and our chapter in it are trying to achieve? I think the answer is 'probably not'. It's not up to me to decide, but I don't think we can afford to keep getting stuck/vague on this point. It will harm recruitment. I think the descriptions of what people can gain through joining that I laid out on the page sum up why new and established editors would benefit from becoming members without offering them discounts, private emails, special extras etc. I am up for the idea of a lapel pin though - it might be nice for people to have this to demonstrate their support. Katherine Bavage Fundraising Manager Wikimedia UK +44 20 7065 0752 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. On 28 June 2013 15:37, Gordon Joly &lt;gordon.joly(a)pobox.com&gt; wrote: On 28/06/13 15:31, Stevie Benton wrote: Thanks for your email. The membership email is made openly available in accordance with our values. To ask a genuine question, do you think members in general would prefer it to be private and would you prefer it to be private? This issue is not about privacy or openness. It is about what a member gets that others do not. At the moment, voting at the AGM comes to mind, paying dues and not much else. Oh, and that warm fuzzy feeling and something to tell the grandchildren about.... Gordo _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

On 28 June 2013 16:23, Simon Knight &lt;sjgknight(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: engaged activist) is a typical member is a time-honoured fallacy in this discussion. Charles

On 28 June 2013 17:58, Simon Knight &lt;sjgknight(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Technically it's called a "stakeholder analysis", as I learned from Fae a while back. And the office has done one in the past. I think the issue here is the non-activist potential joiners. NB that calling them all volunteers is a bit like missing the point. I think we need to come back to the fact that WMUK is a membership organisation. And get beyond the fact that this is constitutional, plumbed into the charity. Nearly five years in on WMUK Mk II and the shoe is starting to pinch on what that means. This whole discussion is clearly overdue, but now we have a definite structure (Board and staff and volunteers). I think it is a bit much to ask the _members_ to define what they feel about it all, as things stand. Whatever the membership page on the UK Wiki may imply, this list is not "for members" (a point you made) or even "for WMUK". Meetups are not members-only. Basically the niche for members' discussion is still the AGM. Charles

On 28 June 2013 18:20, Charles Matthews &lt;charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com&gt; wrote: Non-members may attend the AGM (part of a a conference which last all day). They may not, however, vote. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

On 30/06/2013 10:38, Gordon Joly wrote: Yes, they were passed without any opposes vote, but not every one of 200-something members voted. KTC -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

On 30/06/13 10:55, Katie Chan wrote: Do you have the exact figures? Gordo

The total number of votes can be inferred as the resolutions were voted on by the same people who participated in the Board election, so 44. My past experience is that when a show of hands produces overwhelming support, it's not deemed necessary to count the "aye" hands. It can even be counterproductive as Aye + Nay + Abstain does not always equal Number of Votes Available. Which leads to a recount. Which is a gross waste of time in an overwhelming-support scenario. On 30 June 2013 23:49, Katie Chan &lt;ktc(a)ktchan.info&gt; wrote:

So, I was away yesterday and am just coming back to this. Can I nudge the discussion back to where it started - are we comfortable with the proposals for how we could describe the reasons why different sets of people (broadly: editors v non editors) would benefit/enjoy being members, AND how we might share these messages appropriately around our events? I found Fabian's point interesting re: "As long as there are enough people to maintain WMUK, why do we need to worry about recruitment? And if there are not enough people, then perhaps there is no need for WMUK?" and linking this to broader movement goals. However, we're not just a chapter, we're a charity, and we have public benefit as a part of that charity's objects. Further, the movement itself has expressed the desire to increase the reach of the projects coverage and participation in content creation. Increasing membership is a valid goal for this organisation because it delivers in all these ways - supporting established editors to network, set the strategy for the charity and receive micro grants, and drawing in new editors from a broader range of perspectives and backgrounds to widen and strengthen the established editing community. Increasing membership isn't contradictory but complementary to the movements broadest and most dearly held goals because it facilitates this. So I'd really appreciate input into and support for this work because I think it will succeed if we all work on it, including constrictive criticism of course :) *Katherine Bavage * *Fundraising Manager * *Wikimedia UK* +44 20 7065 0752 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 1 July 2013 18:46, Katie Chan &lt;ktc(a)ktchan.info&gt; wrote: