Dear all,
There is a brief write-up of the Board's two-day-long face-to-face meeting last weekend, up on our blog: http://bit.ly/jTHRLi
Key highlights are;
- we're going ahead with advertising for two staff, a Chapter Manager and an Office Manager
- we've committed ourselves to participating in the 2011 Wikimedia Fundraiser
- we did a lot of useful work that's necessary for the development of a long-term strategy - we'll share this with you guys shortly (we're waiting for the notes to be typed up!)
There will be more details on all of this soon, but we thought it was best to share what we have now rather than wait.
Regards,
Chris
On 15/06/2011 20:03, Chris Keating wrote:
Dear all,
There is a brief write-up of the Board's two-day-long face-to-face meeting last weekend, up on our blog: http://bit.ly/jTHRLi
Key highlights are;
- we're going ahead with advertising for two staff, a Chapter Manager
and an Office Manager
- we've committed ourselves to participating in the 2011 Wikimedia
Fundraiser
- we did a lot of useful work that's necessary for the development of
a long-term strategy - we'll share this with you guys shortly (we're waiting for the notes to be typed up!)
There will be more details on all of this soon, but we thought it was best to share what we have now rather than wait.
Any news of registered charity status?
Gordo
In addition to the charity status already mentioned (which is extremely concerning in its absence), I'm concerned about the budget. Recruiting just a CEO (or whatever they end up being called - please don't forget that "Chapter Manager" was agreed as a placeholder name by the last board and shouldn't be used as the final name without a lot of thought. I still think a more standard name that outsiders will understand is needed) and an office manager and then letting the CEO handle the recruitment of the rest of the staff was originally my preferred strategy. I changed my mind when I saw how much money we were making in the last fundraiser and realised that we needed to speed things up.
If you go along with your preferred strategy, especially getting off to such a slow start (I know that's partly the fault of the last board, and take my share of the blame, but the new board was formed 2 months ago and hasn't moved particularly fast so far), then you are going to massively underspend on budget. What is the plan to deal with that? The charity commission aren't going to be impressed if we're raising lots of money and not spending it.
On 15 June 2011 20:03, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all, There is a brief write-up of the Board's two-day-long face-to-face meeting last weekend, up on our blog: http://bit.ly/jTHRLi
Key highlights are;
- we're going ahead with advertising for two staff, a Chapter Manager and an
Office Manager
- we've committed ourselves to participating in the 2011 Wikimedia
Fundraiser
- we did a lot of useful work that's necessary for the development of a
long-term strategy - we'll share this with you guys shortly (we're waiting for the notes to be typed up!)
There will be more details on all of this soon, but we thought it was best to share what we have now rather than wait.
Regards,
Chris
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
To deal with these points one by one;
* Charity status - a bit of a change of tack here. We are seeking a meeting with the Charity Commission to work out some issues face to face, and the objective is to submit a revised application in August.
* Recruitment - We're recruiting the Chapter Manager position and the Office Manager position. The logic is that the senior post will have a very heavy input into the development of our staff structure, which is as it should be - while there is an obvious workload for the Office Manager to get on with.
* Budget/underspend - yes, we will be underspent on staff, we're overspending on some other areas (for instance, the Opportunity Fund, where we haven't yet said no to a proposal from an individual for money to make something cool happen).
The way we are working is to look at the long-term development of the organisation. Thinking "OMG we have money we must spend it now!" is not the right way to take decisions. The Charity Commission says charities need to spend money "reasonably promptly" to fulfill their objects and that is what we intend to do, but "reasonably promptly" does not require us to spend money within 12 months of receipt.
We need to develop an outline 2012 Budget by October 1st (this is one of the fundraiser deadlines). In doing so we will take into account the likely 2011 underspend. Speaking personally, if I think we have a level of reserves that is too high as we enter 2012, I will suggest we make a further transfer to the Foundation.
Hope this helps,
Chris
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
In addition to the charity status already mentioned (which is extremely concerning in its absence), I'm concerned about the budget. Recruiting just a CEO (or whatever they end up being called - please don't forget that "Chapter Manager" was agreed as a placeholder name by the last board and shouldn't be used as the final name without a lot of thought. I still think a more standard name that outsiders will understand is needed) and an office manager and then letting the CEO handle the recruitment of the rest of the staff was originally my preferred strategy. I changed my mind when I saw how much money we were making in the last fundraiser and realised that we needed to speed things up.
If you go along with your preferred strategy, especially getting off to such a slow start (I know that's partly the fault of the last board, and take my share of the blame, but the new board was formed 2 months ago and hasn't moved particularly fast so far), then you are going to massively underspend on budget. What is the plan to deal with that? The charity commission aren't going to be impressed if we're raising lots of money and not spending it.
On 15 June 2011 20:03, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all, There is a brief write-up of the Board's two-day-long face-to-face
meeting
last weekend, up on our blog: http://bit.ly/jTHRLi
Key highlights are;
- we're going ahead with advertising for two staff, a Chapter Manager and
an
Office Manager
- we've committed ourselves to participating in the 2011 Wikimedia
Fundraiser
- we did a lot of useful work that's necessary for the development of a
long-term strategy - we'll share this with you guys shortly (we're
waiting
for the notes to be typed up!)
There will be more details on all of this soon, but we thought it was
best
to share what we have now rather than wait.
Regards,
Chris
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
While there is no absolute requirement to spend money within a year, there is a requirement to justify your reserves. Having big reserves just because you didn't get around to spending it isn't going to sit very well. Transferring more to the WMF is an option, but we don't want to end up with raising funds for the WMF looking like our primary mission (that wouldn't necessarily preclude charity status, but it would complicate things - it may also not sit well with the membership). The big question is, is transferring the funds to the WMF going to further our mission better than spending it ourselves in a rush? That's not easy to answer...
On 20/06/2011, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
To deal with these points one by one;
- Charity status - a bit of a change of tack here. We are seeking a meeting
with the Charity Commission to work out some issues face to face, and the objective is to submit a revised application in August.
- Recruitment - We're recruiting the Chapter Manager position and the Office
Manager position. The logic is that the senior post will have a very heavy input into the development of our staff structure, which is as it should be
- while there is an obvious workload for the Office Manager to get on with.
- Budget/underspend - yes, we will be underspent on staff, we're
overspending on some other areas (for instance, the Opportunity Fund, where we haven't yet said no to a proposal from an individual for money to make something cool happen).
The way we are working is to look at the long-term development of the organisation. Thinking "OMG we have money we must spend it now!" is not the right way to take decisions. The Charity Commission says charities need to spend money "reasonably promptly" to fulfill their objects and that is what we intend to do, but "reasonably promptly" does not require us to spend money within 12 months of receipt.
We need to develop an outline 2012 Budget by October 1st (this is one of the fundraiser deadlines). In doing so we will take into account the likely 2011 underspend. Speaking personally, if I think we have a level of reserves that is too high as we enter 2012, I will suggest we make a further transfer to the Foundation.
Hope this helps,
Chris
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
In addition to the charity status already mentioned (which is extremely concerning in its absence), I'm concerned about the budget. Recruiting just a CEO (or whatever they end up being called - please don't forget that "Chapter Manager" was agreed as a placeholder name by the last board and shouldn't be used as the final name without a lot of thought. I still think a more standard name that outsiders will understand is needed) and an office manager and then letting the CEO handle the recruitment of the rest of the staff was originally my preferred strategy. I changed my mind when I saw how much money we were making in the last fundraiser and realised that we needed to speed things up.
If you go along with your preferred strategy, especially getting off to such a slow start (I know that's partly the fault of the last board, and take my share of the blame, but the new board was formed 2 months ago and hasn't moved particularly fast so far), then you are going to massively underspend on budget. What is the plan to deal with that? The charity commission aren't going to be impressed if we're raising lots of money and not spending it.
On 15 June 2011 20:03, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all, There is a brief write-up of the Board's two-day-long face-to-face
meeting
last weekend, up on our blog: http://bit.ly/jTHRLi
Key highlights are;
- we're going ahead with advertising for two staff, a Chapter Manager
and
an
Office Manager
- we've committed ourselves to participating in the 2011 Wikimedia
Fundraiser
- we did a lot of useful work that's necessary for the development of a
long-term strategy - we'll share this with you guys shortly (we're
waiting
for the notes to be typed up!)
There will be more details on all of this soon, but we thought it was
best
to share what we have now rather than wait.
Regards,
Chris
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
While there is no absolute requirement to spend money within a year, there is a requirement to justify your reserves. Having big reserves just because you didn't get around to spending it isn't going to sit very well.
Yes, this is the case.
However, the Charities Commission is quite used to charities which are going through the same transition that we are.
They're also used to charities which have a very large level of reserves. My current employer managed to build up reserves of £20 million during the noughties (plus a few million more in local branch accounts). I'm doing my best to run that down. ;-)
Chris
The big question is, is transferring the funds to the WMF going to further our mission better than spending it ourselves in a rush? That's not easy to answer..
I don't know, I think it's fairly simple :) I've always been a big fan of spending through the startup phase (sensibly, not in a frivolous sense). We are in an interesting place with this underspend - because the earmarked expenditure will have to happen in future years (using future fundraising).
That's brilliant IMO because it effectively gives us a chunk of money now to spend on "nice to have" things.
I suggest considering a "fire sale" later in the year once the amount of the underspend is better known - literally assign half of the spare cash (or w/e can be spared) to whatever ideas the Chapter agrees would be useful things to do/have. I tend to mean "big" ideas here, stuff that it too expensive for the normal program of expenditure but would be really useful/helpful to have.
Random off-hand ideas: - rapidly expanding the coverage of the library/reference service (my preference :)) - Related to the above; invest in logins for some of the subscription data services (JSTOR etc.) - Put some money into kick-starting the education techniques - Fund some bigger GLAM events
I don't know, people probably have better ideas than me.
But basically; the money is there to be spent, if we can think of useful things to spend it on we should do so :)
(how much underspend is there likely to be?)
Tom
On 20 June 2011 13:42, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
I suggest considering a "fire sale" later in the year once the amount of the underspend is better known - literally assign half of the spare cash (or w/e can be spared) to whatever ideas the Chapter agrees would be useful things to do/have. I tend to mean "big" ideas here, stuff that it too expensive for the normal program of expenditure but would be really useful/helpful to have.
The problem is finding the time to do those big ideas. The reason the previous board decided to hire lots of staff is because we had lots of money and very little time. Hiring staff is the best way to convert money into time. If there are volunteers wanting to organise big events themselves, I'm sure WMUK can fund them, but there tend not to be such volunteers. That's why hiring an events organiser was a good plan - they can do a lot of the time consuming work of organising events and leave the volunteers to just do the interesting bits.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
While there is no absolute requirement to spend money within a year, there is a requirement to justify your reserves. Having big reserves just because you didn't get around to spending it isn't going to sit very well. Transferring more to the WMF is an option, but we don't want to end up with raising funds for the WMF looking like our primary mission (that wouldn't necessarily preclude charity status, but it would complicate things - it may also not sit well with the membership). The big question is, is transferring the funds to the WMF going to further our mission better than spending it ourselves in a rush? That's not easy to answer...
Well, one way to spend money in order to directly support the UK community's goals would be, once you have a chapter manager, to hire an agency or contractor to run an awareness campaign (Posters at public transportation outlets, radio and telivision ads, etc.) to get other people to contribute in Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects and get the face of the community out there, like Wikimedia Deutschland did. Even though this doesn't feed Wikimedia UK's membership and activities persay, an effective awareness campaign gets people ready and thinking about other types of engagement, such as the Education and GLAM stuffs and the annual fundraiser (it helps that people know there is a local group of volunteers not just the US Foundation, I would imagine), and also gets other organizations talking about Wikipedia.
Alex Stinson User:Sadads
Hey all.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Alex Stinson stinsoad@dukes.jmu.eduwrote:
Well, one way to spend money in order to directly support the UK community's goals would be, once you have a chapter manager, to hire an agency or contractor to run an awareness campaign (Posters at public transportation outlets, radio and telivision ads, etc.) to get other people to contribute in Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects and get the face of the community out there, like Wikimedia Deutschland did.
I think, to my mind, the issue is cost effectiveness. Do we really need more British Wikipedia editors/Wikimedians? How many people are there in the UK who would contribute, but don't know of the possibilities? These are tough questions.
Since this thread includes some of the activity formerly known as "brainstorming", can I suggest simple technological projects as providing a good cost-return ratio? I can't be the only student with programming knowledge, and we come cheap by comparison to an advertising campaign. Even bigger projects where proper professional help was required still look positively inexpensive to me. Of course the problem with this rests in being able to think of good ideas for "apps" -- whether little things that help people contribute, bigger projects and/or show-pieces that highlight what we've already got -- but it's a starting point. I can't be the first to suggest this, so if someone could point me in the direction of a suitable wiki page / mailing list post that would be good too :)
Of course I would like to see hackday too, but since I'm in no position to organise it I can't really criticise.
Just my thoughts - feel free to ignore!
Harry (User:Jarry1250)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 13:44, Alex Stinson stinsoad@dukes.jmu.edu wrote:
Well, one way to spend money in order to directly support the UK community's goals would be, once you have a chapter manager, to hire an agency or contractor to run an awareness campaign (Posters at public transportation outlets, radio and telivision ads, etc.) to get other people to contribute in Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects and get the face of the community out there, like Wikimedia Deutschland did.
I'm not wild about ads aimed at the general public on TV or billboards etc. I think we might consider more niche audiences. If we wanted to target photographers to get them to contribute to Commons, maybe an ad in Amateur Photographer or similar outlets could work.
As part of an upcoming GLAM event, we have been trying to find people who are interested in doing translation work into any of the languages of India (Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu etc.). If ensuring that Wikimedia UK doesn't end up being 'Wikimedia British English' were considered an important goal, perhaps we could attempt small-scale advertising (maybe £500 a pop) in magazines read by multilingual readers.
Advertising doesn't mean putting a big TV advert up in the middle of Coronation Street. It can be aimed towards a very niche set of participants we want to draw in, perhaps to rectify systemic bias issues.[1]
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 12:38 +0100, Chris Keating wrote:
- Budget/underspend - yes, we will be underspent on staff, we're
overspending on some other areas (for instance, the Opportunity Fund, where we haven't yet said no to a proposal from an individual for money to make something cool happen).
The way we are working is to look at the long-term development of the organisation. Thinking "OMG we have money we must spend it now!" is not the right way to take decisions. The Charity Commission says charities need to spend money "reasonably promptly" to fulfill their objects and that is what we intend to do, but "reasonably promptly" does not require us to spend money within 12 months of receipt.
Liam and John will be able to provide some "spend opportunities" at the meeting in York. Galleries and Museums Scotland (GMS) were very receptive in this afternoon's meeting.
I've also had interest expressed by the Edinburgh Linux Users' Group (EdLUG) and the Libraries And Museum Professionals (LAMP) group with Edinburgh University; they'd be most interested in any proposals on presentations - for example, on MediaWiki and how they could use it (I noted GMS using SharePoint...).
Liam and John will be able to provide some "spend opportunities" at the meeting in York. Galleries and Museums Scotland (GMS) were very receptive in this afternoon's meeting.
I've also had interest expressed by the Edinburgh Linux Users' Group (EdLUG) and the Libraries And Museum Professionals (LAMP) group with Edinburgh University; they'd be most interested in any proposals on presentations - for example, on MediaWiki and how they could use it (I noted GMS using SharePoint...).
Very glad to hear it :-)
As I said earlier in the thread - we have not yet turned down a request for funding from a community member who has come to us with a plan and the enthusiasm to make it happen themselves. We are overspent on our "opportunity fund" and proposals to increase the overspend in this area are definitely welcomed. :-D
Chris
On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 19:49 +0100, Chris Keating wrote:
Very glad to hear it :-)
As I said earlier in the thread - we have not yet turned down a request for funding from a community member who has come to us with a plan and the enthusiasm to make it happen themselves. We are overspent on our "opportunity fund" and proposals to increase the overspend in this area are definitely welcomed. :-D
Chris, from the EdLUG point of view, any really geeky person we can provide who can talk about the MediaWiki server farms would be very, very welcome (Would Brion like a visit to Edinburgh?). For the LAMP people, someone who could evangelise MW in preference to Sharepoint is going to be of interest. They'd have taken a presentation from Witty Lama if we'd had more notice, and more schedule flexibility.
Just to be clear, the Board are giving charity status the highest priority- you can take that as given. However, we're very concerned not to "show our hand" by discussing those negotiations more widely. In that respect, the lack of detail in public communications is a sign of how seriously we take the issue.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
In addition to the charity status already mentioned (which is extremely concerning in its absence),
On 22 June 2011 09:58, Martin Poulter infobomb@gmail.com wrote:
Just to be clear, the Board are giving charity status the highest priority- you can take that as given. However, we're very concerned not to "show our hand" by discussing those negotiations more widely. In that respect, the lack of detail in public communications is a sign of how seriously we take the issue.
I'm not sure I like the idea of viewing the charity application as being adversarial. The CC aren't out to get us, they just need to be helped to understand what we do and realise that it is charitable. We should be being open with the CC, not trying to bluff them.
Nor do I like the idea of viewing the charity application as being adversarial, and no, the CC aren't out to get us. That wasn't what I was trying to imply. However, it is a negotiation process, involving third parties as well as us and the CC. There are different possible angles to take - some productive; some counter-productive - and while those discussions are definitely being had, it doesn't necessarily help for them to be public discussions. I don't think it would be wise to publicly discuss "snags", for example.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 22 June 2011 09:58, Martin Poulter infobomb@gmail.com wrote:
Just to be clear, the Board are giving charity status the highest
priority-
you can take that as given. However, we're very concerned not to "show
our
hand" by discussing those negotiations more widely. In that respect, the lack of detail in public communications is a sign of how seriously we
take
the issue.
I'm not sure I like the idea of viewing the charity application as being adversarial. The CC aren't out to get us, they just need to be helped to understand what we do and realise that it is charitable. We should be being open with the CC, not trying to bluff them.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 23 June 2011 09:56, Martin Poulter infobomb@gmail.com wrote:
Nor do I like the idea of viewing the charity application as being adversarial, and no, the CC aren't out to get us. That wasn't what I was trying to imply. However, it is a negotiation process, involving third parties as well as us and the CC. There are different possible angles to take - some productive; some counter-productive - and while those discussions are definitely being had, it doesn't necessarily help for them to be public discussions. I don't think it would be wise to publicly discuss "snags", for example.
Sure, but you can keep the membership informed about what you are doing in general terms. You don't need to go into detail about what arguments you are or aren't using, you just need to tell us what's going on. Saying "it's a top priority, trust us" isn't particularly convincing when it's been over a year since we got the response from the charity commission to our initial application and it looks like very little has been done since then. (I'm aware that most of that year was on my watch, not yours, and that lots of things have been and are happening, but that hasn't been communicated to the membership.)
The charity status will be resolved in time, I am sure. I have been involved in a number of educational charities, and it is just a matter of patience.
On funding, there is plenty to do, let us not be desperate to dispose of funds that we may well need later on. For example I am trying to get more involved in the (possibly doomed) attempt to save Stamford Museum, and one thing that has come to my mind is that mirroring the museum on line would be a worthwhile effort. This could be done either by throwing money at it, or by selectively working with a mixture of volunteer and paid effort, and building a procedure that would allow the process to be replicated elsewhere. I prefer the latter. One a project like this blossoms, though, the costs multiply. The same would apply to, for example, schools out-reach. If we pilot a programme in year one, say one or two volunteers visiting a dozen schools each, with expenses of maybe £100 per visit, then £2,400 will hardly dent the coffers. But year two we might have twenty or thirty volunteers, and be running the program at £36,000 pa.
On 24 June 2011 11:38, Richard Farmbrough richard@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:
The charity status will be resolved in time, I am sure. I have been involved in a number of educational charities, and it is just a matter of patience.
I agree, but the membership should still be kept up-to-date on where things stand.
On funding, there is plenty to do, let us not be desperate to dispose of funds that we may well need later on.
We can expect revenue to increase substantially over the next few years, so we really don't need to save money to spend in those years. It's also not sustainable - if we use this years money to fund extra projects (particularly long-term projects like the one you mention) next year, what will we do the year after? Apart from a prudent reserve, the general principle that funds should be spend promptly is a good one. It's not immutable, certainly, but there should be a very good reason for deviating from it.
I agree, but the membership should still be kept up-to-date on where things stand.
I quite agree
On funding, there is plenty to do, let us not be desperate to dispose of funds that we may well need later on.
We can expect revenue to increase substantially over the next few years, so we really don't need to save money to spend in those years. It's also not sustainable - if we use this years money to fund extra projects (particularly long-term projects like the one you mention) next year, what will we do the year after? Apart from a prudent reserve, the general principle that funds should be spend promptly is a good one. It's not immutable, certainly, but there should be a very good reason for deviating from it.
I agree with this as well, but observe that a big plan to spend lots of money over the long term is something that takes time to develop if it is to be effective.
On 24 June 2011 13:09, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with this as well, but observe that a big plan to spend lots of money over the long term is something that takes time to develop if it is to be effective.
Sure, but if the plan isn't going to be ready until next year, then pay for it out of next year's budget. There is no need to keep this year's budget back for it.
I think there's a number of factors that should be taken into account. Firstly the money is donated to be used, so in the medium term outgoings *should* match incomings. Secondly any organisation should have a reasonable contingency reserve, we are not talking about the situation here where (like some charities, that have been castigated by the Charities Commission, among others) we would have a cash reserve equivalent to 20 years turnover. Thirdly, as a start-up, we cannot predicate too much on the first years figures. Fourthly it is common for spending to overshoot projections and income to undershoot. Fifthly income and expenditure are both "lumpy" in different ways, a proper accounting system may well deal with this in terms of accruals, but nonetheless cash-flow still has to work.
As the organisation needs to budget a year ahead, and has no guarantee of income it is not, perhaps, unreasonable - and certainly sustainable - to budget expenditure based on the predicted cash balance at the beginning of the year. To do otherwise risks making financial commitments with no certainty of being able to fund them.
On 24/06/2011 17:45, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 24 June 2011 13:09, Chris Keatingchriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with this as well, but observe that a big plan to spend lots of money over the long term is something that takes time to develop if it is to be effective.
Sure, but if the plan isn't going to be ready until next year, then pay for it out of next year's budget. There is no need to keep this year's budget back for it.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 26 June 2011 13:17, Richard Farmbrough richard@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:
As the organisation needs to budget a year ahead, and has no guarantee of income it is not, perhaps, unreasonable - and certainly sustainable - to budget expenditure based on the predicted cash balance at the beginning of the year. To do otherwise risks making financial commitments with no certainty of being able to fund them.
We chose our financial year to start on 1 February so that we would know the results of the fundraiser (which is where we get 99% of our revenue) before the budget was finalised. The budget the previous board came up with was based on the actual amount of money we had available to spend.
On 24/06/2011 11:38, Richard Farmbrough wrote:
The charity status will be resolved in time, I am sure. I have been involved in a number of educational charities, and it is just a matter of patience.
Since what epoch have we been asked to have patience?
Gordo
On 22/06/2011 09:58, Martin Poulter wrote:
Just to be clear, the Board are giving charity status the highest priority- you can take that as given.
Many thanks. Looking out for timescales, outlook, snags, changes in legislation and the rest.
Gordon
To summarise - your board are giving this a high priority, but there is no "magic bullet" of just spending money on lawyers or working harder. Wikimedia Australia have been reliably informed that they need an act of Parliament to get their charity status. Hopefully we can avoid this but there are few precedents.
The ideas that we have for spending money require management, description and the necessary volunteers to staff them. The board cannot be reasonably be expected to supply all, or any, of these but they do have an obligation to make sure that they all exist. As Chris has noted we have refused few (if any) applications. You guys have the power to spend money faster if you can find the time to justify how we can spend money with credible objectives.
cheers Roger Bamkin On 22 June 2011 20:35, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 22/06/2011 09:58, Martin Poulter wrote:
Just to be clear, the Board are giving charity status the highest priority- you can take that as given.
Many thanks. Looking out for timescales, outlook, snags, changes in legislation and the rest.
Gordon
--
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
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org