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(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

> 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..

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.

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...).

In addition to the charity status already mentioned (which is extremely concerning in its absence),

On 22 June 2011 09:58, Martin Poulter <infobomb(a)gmail.com> wrote: priority- our take 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(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

I agree, but the membership should still be kept up-to-date on where things stand.

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.

On 24 June 2011 13:09, Chris Keating<chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

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 22/06/2011 09:58, Martin Poulter wrote: Many thanks. Looking out for timescales, outlook, snags, changes in legislation and the rest. Gordon -- Gordon Joly gordon.joly(a)pobox.com http://www.joly.org.uk/ Don't Leave Space To The Professionals! _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org