Following on from comments on the Thread "AoA Discussion Thread (AGM quorum and voting, allowing internet board meetings, age limits, delegation)"
There are two questions here: age limit for trustees and age limit for members. I sugest they are linked so we should take them here.
As detailed here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Candidate_FAQs#Why_do_Board..., because we've decided to set ourselves up as a Company Limited by Guarantee, we cannot have any director-trustees under the age of 16. We could only have 16 and 17 year old trustees as long as the Charity Commission was happy that they "understands their duties and responsibilities" and they had no cause for concern that the charity was being mismanaged.
Generally, I think our default should be to be as open and inclusive as we can be, except where there are good reasons otherwise. We decided to restrict the initial Board to 18, partly because the issue was raised too late in the day to change the rules. However, we did say the issue would be reopened for subsequent boards.
My suggestion is that we allow anyone 16 or over can stand for the Board but have the election rules worded such that a majority of the Board at all times must be over 18.
For members, I'm not aware of any legal restrictions on the age of members and I don't see any advantage in introducing one. Can anyone think of any good reasons to restrict age? For me, if someone has the nouse to set up an account on wikimedia and participate, i think they would be able to constructuvely participate in the chapter and so should be welcomed in.
What do others think?
For members, I'm not aware of any legal restrictions on the age of members and I don't see any advantage in introducing one. Can anyone think of any good reasons to restrict age? For me, if someone has the nouse to set up an account on wikimedia and participate, i think they would be able to constructuvely participate in the chapter and so should be welcomed in.
If we accept under-16 members, then we probably want to make sure that their parents countersign the membership application (or otherwise indicate that they support their child joining the organization). That's not a show-stopper, though.
Mike
2008/10/3 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
For members, I'm not aware of any legal restrictions on the age of members and I don't see any advantage in introducing one. Can anyone think of any good reasons to restrict age? For me, if someone has the nouse to set up an account on wikimedia and participate, i think they would be able to constructuvely participate in the chapter and so should be welcomed in.
If we accept under-16 members, then we probably want to make sure that their parents countersign the membership application (or otherwise indicate that they support their child joining the organization). That's not a show-stopper, though.
I can't find anything saying that's necessary (although I can't find anything explicitly saying it isn't, either). Some companies limited by guarantee do seem to have a minimum age (usually 18), but it doesn't seem to be a standard requirement. Minors are allowed to enter into legally binding agreements, but I can't find the details of what kind of agreements are allowed and what aren't.
2008/10/3 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
For members, I'm not aware of any legal restrictions on the age of members and I don't see any advantage in introducing one. Can anyone think of any good reasons to restrict age? For me, if someone has the nouse to set up an account on wikimedia and participate, i think they would be able to constructuvely participate in the chapter and so should be welcomed in.
What do others think?
Wouldn't under 16s trigger more data protection issues?
2008/10/3 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/10/3 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
For members, I'm not aware of any legal restrictions on the age of members and I don't see any advantage in introducing one. Can anyone think of any good reasons to restrict age? For me, if someone has the nouse to set up an account on wikimedia and participate, i think they would be able to constructuvely participate in the chapter and so should be welcomed in.
What do others think?
Wouldn't under 16s trigger more data protection issues?
Not that I know of. Someone on the board was researching data protection requirements, they should investigate this as well.
On 3 Oct 2008, at 13:08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/10/3 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/10/3 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
For members, I'm not aware of any legal restrictions on the age of members and I don't see any advantage in introducing one. Can anyone think of any good reasons to restrict age? For me, if someone has the nouse to set up an account on wikimedia and participate, i think they would be able to constructuvely participate in the chapter and so should be welcomed in.
What do others think?
Wouldn't under 16s trigger more data protection issues?
Not that I know of. Someone on the board was researching data protection requirements, they should investigate this as well.
I am also unaware of any additional requirements for under-16's personal information under the DPA.
Mike
Sorry I have been away from things very busy with college work and that and missed out on what was going on. From my point of view the CRB checks would then have to be brought in if we had under 16's. Although like wikipedia where you can sign up at any age there is no physical contact with the other users unless there is wikimania or something and even then it is tightly organised. Just a thought anyway.
Chris > Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:04:06 +0100> From: geniice@gmail.com> To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Age limits> > 2008/10/3 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:> > For members, I'm not aware of any legal restrictions on the age of members> > and I don't see any advantage in introducing one. Can anyone think of any> > good reasons to restrict age? For me, if someone has the nouse to set up an> > account on wikimedia and participate, i think they would be able to> > constructuvely participate in the chapter and so should be welcomed in.> >> > What do others think?> > Wouldn't under 16s trigger more data protection issues?> > > -- > geni> > _______________________________________________> Wikimedia UK mailing list> wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK%3E http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l _________________________________________________________________ Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354033/direct/01/
2008/10/3 Chris Wood hot20024@hotmail.com:
Sorry I have been away from things very busy with college work and that and missed out on what was going on. From my point of view the CRB checks would then have to be brought in if we had under 16's. Although like wikipedia where you can sign up at any age there is no physical contact with the other users unless there is wikimania or something and even then it is tightly organised. Just a thought anyway.
Someone is researching CRBs, hopefully they'll be able to clear this up. I spoke to someone at the charity commission about it and the physical contact requirements only apply if you are alone with children, that should never be the case at wikimania or AGMs, they are pretty public events. (Also, Wikimania is a WMF event, so I don't think WM UK would be liable for any of it.)
On 3 Oct 2008, at 13:12, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/10/3 Chris Wood hot20024@hotmail.com:
Sorry I have been away from things very busy with college work and that and missed out on what was going on. From my point of view the CRB checks would then have to be brought in if we had under 16's. Although like wikipedia where you can sign up at any age there is no physical contact with the other users unless there is wikimania or something and even then it is tightly organised. Just a thought anyway.
Someone is researching CRBs, hopefully they'll be able to clear this up. I spoke to someone at the charity commission about it and the physical contact requirements only apply if you are alone with children, that should never be the case at wikimania or AGMs, they are pretty public events. (Also, Wikimania is a WMF event, so I don't think WM UK would be liable for any of it.)
In terms of membership, then no contact is needed - just handling of addresses etc. I would ditto what Thomas says regarding Wikimania's and AGM's: they're more public events, so CRB checks of directors shouldn't be needed (I fail to see why every adult in the room wouldn't need to be checked otherwise).
Mike
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:04 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/3 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
For members, I'm not aware of any legal restrictions on the age of members and I don't see any advantage in introducing one. Can anyone think of any good reasons to restrict age? For me, if someone has the nouse to set up an account on wikimedia and participate, i think they would be able to constructuvely participate in the chapter and so should be welcomed in.
What do others think?
Wouldn't under 16s trigger more data protection issues?
Presumably no more than having supporting members under 16, which I expect we plan to do.
2008/10/3 Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:04 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/3 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
For members, I'm not aware of any legal restrictions on the age of members and I don't see any advantage in introducing one. Can anyone think of any good reasons to restrict age? For me, if someone has the nouse to set up an account on wikimedia and participate, i think they would be able to constructuvely participate in the chapter and so should be welcomed in.
What do others think?
Wouldn't under 16s trigger more data protection issues?
Presumably no more than having supporting members under 16, which I expect we plan to do.
We still need to discuss whether there will even be a distinction between guarantor and supporting members. At the moment, I can't find a reason for one.
2008/10/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2008/10/3 Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:04 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/3 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
For members, I'm not aware of any legal restrictions on the age of members and I don't see any advantage in introducing one. Can anyone think of any good reasons to restrict age? For me, if someone has the nouse to set up an account on wikimedia and participate, i think they would be able to constructuvely participate in the chapter and so should be welcomed in.
What do others think?
Wouldn't under 16s trigger more data protection issues?
Presumably no more than having supporting members under 16, which I expect we plan to do.
We still need to discuss whether there will even be a distinction between guarantor and supporting members. At the moment, I can't find a reason for one.
You can accept cash donations from geni. You cannot have a guarantor member called "geni".
You can accept cash donations from geni. You cannot have a guarantor member called "geni".
True, if we want to give some form of membership to people that want to completely hide their real names we would need a less official type of member. However, while guarantor members real names do need to be made available to the public on request, there is no need to link those names to pseudonyms - pseudonyms can be kept private. Someone could go through the list of names and try and work out by a process of elimination who you are, but I think they would struggle, at least once the list of members gets reasonably large. Also, we don't have to give membership to every donor, people can just donate money and then that's the end of our relationship with them.
If we are going to have a less official form of member I suggest not using the word "member" to avoid confusion, "friend" is better.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/3 Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:04 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/3 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
For members, I'm not aware of any legal restrictions on the age of members and I don't see any advantage in introducing one. Can anyone think of any good reasons to restrict age? For me, if someone has the nouse to set up an account on wikimedia and participate, i think they would be able to constructuvely participate in the chapter and so should be welcomed in.
What do others think?
Wouldn't under 16s trigger more data protection issues?
Presumably no more than having supporting members under 16, which I expect we plan to do.
We still need to discuss whether there will even be a distinction between guarantor and supporting members. At the moment, I can't find a reason for one.
Well, I suppose the distinction is really that one is about governance of the organisation, the other about fundraising and developing a consistent income stream -- making sure that donors from 2008 go on to donate in 2009 as well. I don't know whether this is worth doing -- in any case, it wouldn't be necessary to make the decision immediately.
My other reasoning was that it was my understanding from someone's post to this list that it is not allowed to charge for guarantor membership -- is this correct?
Well, I suppose the distinction is really that one is about governance of the organisation, the other about fundraising and developing a consistent income stream -- making sure that donors from 2008 go on to donate in 2009 as well. I don't know whether this is worth doing -- in any case, it wouldn't be necessary to make the decision immediately.
I think the best way to get donors to keep donating is to set up direct debits, then they have to make a concious decision to stop rather than a concious decision to keep going. I did a minimal amount of research into direct debits and it looks like there are a fair few hoops to jump through to prove you're trustworthy enough to be able to take money out of other people's accounts, someone should do some proper research into it (perhaps ask the people in the bank while setting up the account).
I think the only reason to have the two separate is if we expect a significant number of people to be in one group but not the other (the occasional exception can be made on a case-by-case basis).
My other reasoning was that it was my understanding from someone's post to this list that it is not allowed to charge for guarantor membership -- is this correct?
So say the people involved in v1.0, but I can't find any mention of such a rule anywhere and the model docs (and, in fact, the v1.0 docs) include a bit about the board setting membership fees (in the bit about Rules) and a bit about terminating people's membership if they don't pay up within 6 months of money coming due (in the bit about membership). I spoke to James about it and he was going to take a look at the documents to see if I was misinterpreting something, but he hasn't got back to me yet.
Following on from being a garantor member you have to be 18. If for instance you are 16 and want to have a contract phone you have to be 18 or have your parents/carers be garantor. This therefore means that you should not allow under 18s to be garantor members as they are not legally responsible should the company go into liquidation.
Chris
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 17:36:49 +0100 From: thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Age limits
Well, I suppose the distinction is really that one is about governance of the organisation, the other about fundraising and developing a consistent income stream -- making sure that donors from 2008 go on to donate in 2009 as well. I don't know whether this is worth doing -- in any case, it wouldn't be necessary to make the decision immediately.
I think the best way to get donors to keep donating is to set up direct debits, then they have to make a concious decision to stop rather than a concious decision to keep going. I did a minimal amount of research into direct debits and it looks like there are a fair few hoops to jump through to prove you're trustworthy enough to be able to take money out of other people's accounts, someone should do some proper research into it (perhaps ask the people in the bank while setting up the account).
I think the only reason to have the two separate is if we expect a significant number of people to be in one group but not the other (the occasional exception can be made on a case-by-case basis).
My other reasoning was that it was my understanding from someone's post to this list that it is not allowed to charge for guarantor membership -- is this correct?
So say the people involved in v1.0, but I can't find any mention of such a rule anywhere and the model docs (and, in fact, the v1.0 docs) include a bit about the board setting membership fees (in the bit about Rules) and a bit about terminating people's membership if they don't pay up within 6 months of money coming due (in the bit about membership). I spoke to James about it and he was going to take a look at the documents to see if I was misinterpreting something, but he hasn't got back to me yet.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
_________________________________________________________________ Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354033/direct/01/
2008/10/6 Chris Wood hot20024@hotmail.com:
Following on from being a garantor member you have to be 18. If for instance you are 16 and want to have a contract phone you have to be 18 or have your parents/carers be garantor. This therefore means that you should not allow under 18s to be garantor members as they are not legally responsible should the company go into liquidation.
What is your source for this information? I can't find anything on the Companies House website, the Charity Commission website or anywhere else saying you need parents to sign something when child members join.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org