Who is the current Membership Secretary? I was a bit confused by the current roster as to who currently handles membership things.
Tom
You should raise any questions about membership with Richard. He has access and knows what's what.
Fae -- http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags
Thanks Fae :)
Tom
On 3 January 2012 12:41, Fae faenwp@gmail.com wrote:
You should raise any questions about membership with Richard. He has access and knows what's what.
Fae
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
From the board side of things, I'm the person to talk to - but Richard's dealing with the day-to-day work with the membership database now.
Thanks, Mike
On 3 Jan 2012, at 12:43, Thomas Morton wrote:
Thanks Fae :)
Tom
On 3 January 2012 12:41, Fae faenwp@gmail.com wrote: You should raise any questions about membership with Richard. He has access and knows what's what.
Fae
http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 3 January 2012 14:05, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
From the board side of things, I'm the person to talk to - but Richard's dealing with the day-to-day work with the membership database now.
Template:Membership on the Wikimedia UK wiki directs Membership Secretary to Andrew Turvey's page, however.
Charles
Yup; this is what confused me :)
Tom
On 3 January 2012 16:29, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.comwrote:
On 3 January 2012 14:05, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
From the board side of things, I'm the person to talk to - but Richard's dealing with the day-to-day work with the membership database now.
Template:Membership on the Wikimedia UK wiki directs Membership Secretary to Andrew Turvey's page, however.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 3 January 2012 16:32, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Yup; this is what confused me :)
You may not be alone. The Board role of responsibility for the running of
the membership administrative task has clearly separated from the implementation; and all the website has to say about it is that the Membership Secretary has access to the database. I asked a Board member a little while ago who has responsibility for the UK wiki pages on membership. I still don't know the answer to that one.
Charles
On 3 January 2012 16:29, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Template:Membership on the Wikimedia UK wiki directs Membership Secretary to Andrew Turvey's page, however.
Charles
It's a wiki; anyone can fix it, hint. ;-)
Fae
On 3 Jan 2012, at 16:34, Fae wrote:
On 3 January 2012 16:29, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Template:Membership on the Wikimedia UK wiki directs Membership Secretary to Andrew Turvey's page, however.
Charles
It's a wiki; anyone can fix it, hint. ;-)
Fixed. The reason for the confusion was that the role was transferred from the treasurer to the secretary a few months back, and it hadn't been updated on-wiki...
Thanks, MIke
On 3 January 2012 16:34, Fae faenwp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 January 2012 16:29, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Template:Membership on the Wikimedia UK wiki directs Membership
Secretary to
Andrew Turvey's page, however.
Charles
It's a wiki; anyone can fix it, hint. ;-)
Not a fair comment, actually. See http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reports_11Jun11 . And my other reply in this thread.
Charles
On 03/01/2012 16:34, Fae wrote:
It's a wiki; anyone can fix it, hint.;-)
Fae
One of the most important aspects of a membership organization is the membership. In this case, we are members of a registered charity.
The organization (and here, I mean the Trustees) should pay attention to membership, renewals, and maintaining communications etc.
I find any flippancy disturbing....
Gordo
Please get this into perspective. Membership is important as is having a good web site with up to date links. Can we just fix it? We are working together
Roger
On 3 January 2012 18:22, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 16:34, Fae wrote:
It's a wiki; anyone can fix it, hint.;-)
Fae
One of the most important aspects of a membership organization is the membership. In this case, we are members of a registered charity.
The organization (and here, I mean the Trustees) should pay attention to membership, renewals, and maintaining communications etc.
I find any flippancy disturbing....
Gordo
--
Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com http://www.joly.org.uk/ Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 3 January 2012 18:33, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
Please get this into perspective. Membership is important as is having a good web site with up to date links. Can we just fix it? We are working together
Roger, please note that while Mike's answer may have been as helpful as
was possible in the circumstances, it did not answer the question. Therefore the ball is in the Board's court here. If then status of the membership secretary is minuted and on the wiki, then it does not show up in a Google custom search, is all I can say. Gordon is quite right to take a dim view of the matter; so do I.
Charles
On 03/01/2012 18:33, Roger Bamkin wrote:
Please get this into perspective. Membership is important as is having a good web site with up to date links. Can we just fix it? We are working together
Yes, that is the same membership that was called to an EGM that was only just quorate.
Gordo
On 3 January 2012 22:01, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 18:33, Roger Bamkin wrote:
Please get this into perspective. Membership is important as is having a good web site with up to date links. Can we just fix it? We are working together
Yes, that is the same membership that was called to an EGM that was only just quorate.
Where did you get that idea? It says in the minutes (http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/EGM_2011/Minutes) that 26 people voted in person and 24 by proxy out of 212 members at the time. That's 24%. The quorum for a general meeting is 10% (http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association 7.2(b)).
On 03/01/2012 22:07, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 3 January 2012 22:01, Gordon Jolygordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 18:33, Roger Bamkin wrote:
Please get this into perspective. Membership is important as is having a good web site with up to date links. Can we just fix it? We are working together
Yes, that is the same membership that was called to an EGM that was only just quorate.
Where did you get that idea? It says in the minutes (http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/EGM_2011/Minutes) that 26 people voted in person and 24 by proxy out of 212 members at the time. That's 24%. The quorum for a general meeting is 10% (http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association 7.2(b)).
My apologies. I don't know where I got the idea from.
Gordo
On 03/01/2012 22:07, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 3 January 2012 22:01, Gordon Jolygordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 18:33, Roger Bamkin wrote:
Please get this into perspective. Membership is important as is having a good web site with up to date links. Can we just fix it? We are working together
Yes, that is the same membership that was called to an EGM that was only just quorate.
Where did you get that idea? It says in the minutes (http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/EGM_2011/Minutes) that 26 people voted in person and 24 by proxy out of 212 members at the time. That's 24%. The quorum for a general meeting is 10% (http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association 7.2(b)).
Maybe I was thinking of the 2011 AGM. Since I cannot find the figures, perhaps you could assist?
Gordo
On 3 January 2012 22:30, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
Maybe I was thinking of the 2011 AGM. Since I cannot find the figures, perhaps you could assist?
I don't remember any concerns about quorums at any of the general meetings (I've attended all of them). I've looked through the minutes of all the meetings (which are here, for future reference: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_Meetings). The 2009 AGM had 24 members, which was far more than 10% of the total membership at the time. The 2010 AGM had 15 members, which might have been close to 10% - I'm not sure how many members we had at the time. The 2011 AGM minutes don't have the attendance numbers in (just X's - someone better find their notes and fill in the X's before the next AGM so we can approve the minutes), but the room was pretty much full and there were at least a few proxies, so I don't imagine there was a problem.
So, the one that looks like it was closest to being inquorate was the 2010 AGM. I've taken a look through the history of the chapter's table on meta and found this:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_chapters&diff=2268...
It's an update of the number of members from 71 to "~150" made in January 2011. That suggests that there were less than 150 members in April 2010, so the 2010 meeting was quorate and probably by quote a lot.
Thanks for this. I am glad to hear that General Meetings are well attended. I assume I heard a remark in a Wikimeet or read an email (and hence my incorrect statement). I was not able to attend the EGM in 2011, and sent in a proxy vote.
Gordo
On 04/01/2012 00:05, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 3 January 2012 22:30, Gordon Jolygordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
Maybe I was thinking of the 2011 AGM. Since I cannot find the figures, perhaps you could assist?
I don't remember any concerns about quorums at any of the general meetings (I've attended all of them). I've looked through the minutes of all the meetings (which are here, for future reference: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_Meetings). The 2009 AGM had 24 members, which was far more than 10% of the total membership at the time. The 2010 AGM had 15 members, which might have been close to 10%
- I'm not sure how many members we had at the time. The 2011 AGM
minutes don't have the attendance numbers in (just X's - someone better find their notes and fill in the X's before the next AGM so we can approve the minutes), but the room was pretty much full and there were at least a few proxies, so I don't imagine there was a problem.
So, the one that looks like it was closest to being inquorate was the 2010 AGM. I've taken a look through the history of the chapter's table on meta and found this:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_chapters&diff=2268...
It's an update of the number of members from 71 to "~150" made in January 2011. That suggests that there were less than 150 members in April 2010, so the 2010 meeting was quorate and probably by quote a lot.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Perhaps someone just went off the number of members in the room, not realising that those present by proxy counted towards quorum.
Speaking as a Teller for the three meetings in question, I never really had any concerns about quorum at any of them, above and beyond the normal level where it's the first thing you keep an eye on. Certainly for the EGM I was relaxed about quorum being met from as early as 27th September, 19 days before the meeting.
10% really isn't an onerous requirement with proxy votes counting.
On 4 January 2012 09:08, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
Thanks for this. I am glad to hear that General Meetings are well attended. I assume I heard a remark in a Wikimeet or read an email (and hence my incorrect statement). I was not able to attend the EGM in 2011, and sent in a proxy vote.
Gordo
On 04/01/2012 00:05, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 3 January 2012 22:30, Gordon Jolygordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
Maybe I was thinking of the 2011 AGM. Since I cannot find the figures, perhaps you could assist?
I don't remember any concerns about quorums at any of the general meetings (I've attended all of them). I've looked through the minutes of all the meetings (which are here, for future reference: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_Meetings). The 2009 AGM had 24 members, which was far more than 10% of the total membership at the time. The 2010 AGM had 15 members, which might have been close to 10%
- I'm not sure how many members we had at the time. The 2011 AGM
minutes don't have the attendance numbers in (just X's - someone better find their notes and fill in the X's before the next AGM so we can approve the minutes), but the room was pretty much full and there were at least a few proxies, so I don't imagine there was a problem.
So, the one that looks like it was closest to being inquorate was the 2010 AGM. I've taken a look through the history of the chapter's table on meta and found this:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_chapters&diff=2268...
It's an update of the number of members from 71 to "~150" made in January 2011. That suggests that there were less than 150 members in April 2010, so the 2010 meeting was quorate and probably by quote a lot.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com http://www.joly.org.uk/ Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 04/01/2012 10:19, James Farrar wrote:
Perhaps someone just went off the number of members in the room, not realising that those present by proxy counted towards quorum.
Speaking as a Teller for the three meetings in question, I never really had any concerns about quorum at any of them, above and beyond the normal level where it's the first thing you keep an eye on. Certainly for the EGM I was relaxed about quorum being met from as early as 27th September, 19 days before the meeting.
10% really isn't an onerous requirement with proxy votes counting.
Thanks James. Very good to hear your reporting of those meetings and your views.
Gordo
Dear Gordon Joly and Charles Matthews,
I apologise unreservedly.
Having just had two staff members and seven trustees in a three hour telecon using our evening going through detailed processes and plans for WMUK, I can assure you that we certainly do pay attention, as you might pick up from the trustees taking the time to promptly respond here in addition to this meeting. If I need to repeat this point in all correspondence on wikimediauk-l and avoid any impression of flippancy, I am prepared to take that approach rather than a light handed one that may be subject to any possible misinterpretation.
Thank you, Fae -- http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags
On 3 January 2012 18:22, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 16:34, Fae wrote:
It's a wiki; anyone can fix it, hint.;-)
Fae
One of the most important aspects of a membership organization is the membership. In this case, we are members of a registered charity.
The organization (and here, I mean the Trustees) should pay attention to membership, renewals, and maintaining communications etc.
I find any flippancy disturbing....
Gordo
--
Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com http://www.joly.org.uk/ Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Fae,
Thanks for putting this in context.
Gordo
On 03/01/2012 22:51, Fae wrote:
Dear Gordon Joly and Charles Matthews,
I apologise unreservedly.
Having just had two staff members and seven trustees in a three hour telecon using our evening going through detailed processes and plans for WMUK, I can assure you that we certainly do pay attention, as you might pick up from the trustees taking the time to promptly respond here in addition to this meeting. If I need to repeat this point in all correspondence on wikimediauk-l and avoid any impression of flippancy, I am prepared to take that approach rather than a light handed one that may be subject to any possible misinterpretation.
Thank you, Fae -- http://enwp.org/user_talk:fae Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/faetags
On 3 January 2012 18:22, Gordon Jolygordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 03/01/2012 16:34, Fae wrote:
It's a wiki; anyone can fix it, hint.;-)
Fae
One of the most important aspects of a membership organization is the membership. In this case, we are members of a registered charity.
The organization (and here, I mean the Trustees) should pay attention to membership, renewals, and maintaining communications etc.
I find any flippancy disturbing....
Gordo
--
Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com http://www.joly.org.uk/ Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org