Hi Fae
Just to clarify even further(!), the code of conduct you're referring to is
specifically for non-trustee members of Board Committees, which are
currently ARC (Audit and Risk Committee) and GovCom (Governance Committee).
Working groups (and the advocacy group will fall into this category) will
be much less formal than that and whilst I would obviously hope they would
primarily be made up of members of WMUK, I'm not actually sure whether this
would be a specific requirement. I will have to look into this and get back
to you.
Cheers
Lucy
On 2 December 2015 at 13:44, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.
I look forward to seeing an advocacy group working at the beginning of
2016. Unfortunately as there is a new requirement that to take part in
committees you must be a member of WMUK[2], this ensures that I will
be unable to contribute.
Links:
2.
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Committee_Member_Code_of_Conduct/Proposed
Thanks,
Fae
On 2 December 2015 at 13:18, Lucy Crompton-Reid
<lucy.crompton-reid(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Dear Fae
Many thanks for your email and you raise some very valid points. What I
meant in my message was that strategic responsibility for advocacy would
no
longer form part of the communications role, as
we are appointing this
at a
lower level and will no longer have a Head of
External Relations. I
certainly don't mean that I will be taking on or indeed controlling all
advocacy work, as volunteers are (as you've said) crucial in this. As I
mentioned, a working group for advocacy is being set up early next year
and
this will be made up of volunteers, although I
will be involved in these
meetings at least initially. Whilst this group is likely to focus on
public
policy, advocacy happens at many different levels
and in its widest
sense is
about changing public perceptions and awareness
of free and open
knowledge -
in which the role of volunteers as advocates and
ambassadors is, of
course,
absolutely vital.
I totally agree that the staff team needs to focus on meaningful
programmes
that have impact!
Best wishes
Lucy
On 2 December 2015 at 12:23, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Lucy,
>
> Just a couple of years ago, when the number of employees in the UK was
> measured between zero or two, unpaid volunteers like me used to go
> along and sit in on and give views in parliamentary discussions, meet
> and share ideas with other unpaid volunteer representatives from
> advocacy groups such as the Open Knowledge Foundation, Creative
> Commons etc. This no longer seems to happen, nor does it seem
> expected. It is still the norm for open knowledge groups apart from
> WMUK to have unpaid volunteers as their leading advocates and main
> points of contact.
>
> Considering that the FDC has already stated that:[1]
> A. "The FDC is concerned about very low targets for WMUK’s program
work."
> B. "The FDC believes that WMUK's
advocacy work and work on influencing
> policy towards Open Knowledge in the UK and EU has potential."
>
> Would you consider keeping the staff focus firmly on delivering more
> ambitious outcomes in programme work, and stepping back from
> controlling advocacy work yourself? You could try approaching or
> encouraging volunteers, such as the couple of trustees that are seen
> at wikimeets, to take responsibility to push our advocacy for open
> knowledge forward and enthuse some of their fellow UK Wikimedians.
> With volunteers taking an active role, this brings relevance and
> urgency to our volunteer groups and restores the organization to one
> where the volunteers are central and leading change, rather than
> joining projects where employees are the default top of the hierarchy.
>
> In terms of meaningful metrics, if hardly any volunteers are
> interested in finding out more or getting directly involved with
> suggested political or legislative advocacy even with supporting WMUK
> employee time, then it seems a poor strategic choice to just proceed
> with that work regardless.
>
> Links:
> 1.
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2…
>
> Thanks,
> Fae (past trustee and chair for WMUK, no longer a member of WMUK)
>
> On 30 November 2015 at 13:00, Lucy Crompton-Reid
> <lucy.crompton-reid(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> ...
> > on hold while we were awaiting the FDC's recommendations for our
annual
> > grant from the Wikimedia Foundation;
however I'm now hoping to
advertise
> > for
> > a new Communications Co-ordinator in the new year. This post will be
at
> > a
> > lower level than Stevie - mainly for financial reasons - and will
have a
> > slightly different emphasis. The
advocacy work that Stevie was
managing
> > brilliantly will now be led by me, but
will also involve staff from
our
programmes team as well as an advocacy working group
that is being set
up.
...
Lucy
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0991
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.
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.*