Wikimedia UK has been invited to send one or two representatives to a meeting of all the chapters in Berlin from 3-5 April 2009. Given our finances, the Board decided that we wouldn't be able to finance this but the German Wikimedia has agreed to look into funding the travel and accommodation costs for one or possibly two people.
They have asked that chapters send representatives who are members of the Board. However, we've pencilled in 28 March for our AGM when the new Board will be elected and we will have to book the flight tickets before the AGM.
We would like to ask people their suggestions as to the best way forward. Should we restrict it to current Board members, or is it reasonable to say that anyone who puts themself forward as a candidate would be acceptable to go?
Is there anyone on this list who would be interested in going?
Please let me know what you think,
regards,
Andrew Turvey Secretary Wikimedia UK Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL, United Kingdom.
2009/2/10 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
We would like to ask people their suggestions as to the best way forward. Should we restrict it to current Board members, or is it reasonable to say that anyone who puts themself forward as a candidate would be acceptable to go?
It's probably worth pointing out that at the moment less than 7 people have expressed an interest in standing for the 7 seats on the board, so chances are good that anyone that stands will get elected (they would still need 50% support, of course, but I don't think anyone is unpopular enough to fail that requirement in an uncontested election).
That said, is anyone on this list thinking of standing that hasn't mentioned it already?
I think it's important that we decide who to send sooner rather than later (tickets get more expensive as time goes on, for a start). That means if we're going to send a current board member we need one that can guarantee they'll be available on those dates (if memory serves, only one current board member that is intending to stand again has said they could make it, and that was only a "probably").
Is there anyone on this list who would be interested in going?
As I said on IRC last week, I'll volunteer. It's during my Easter holiday, so I'll have no problem attending.
At 20:47 +0000 10/2/09, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/10 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
We would like to ask people their suggestions as to the best way forward. Should we restrict it to current Board members, or is it reasonable to say that anyone who puts themself forward as a candidate would be acceptable to go?
It's probably worth pointing out that at the moment less than 7 people have expressed an interest in standing for the 7 seats on the board, so chances are good that anyone that stands will get elected (they would still need 50% support, of course, but I don't think anyone is unpopular enough to fail that requirement in an uncontested election).
That said, is anyone on this list thinking of standing that hasn't mentioned it already?
I think it's important that we decide who to send sooner rather than later (tickets get more expensive as time goes on, for a start). That means if we're going to send a current board member we need one that can guarantee they'll be available on those dates (if memory serves, only one current board member that is intending to stand again has said they could make it, and that was only a "probably").
Is there anyone on this list who would be interested in going?
As I said on IRC last week, I'll volunteer. It's during my Easter holiday, so I'll have no problem attending.
Why are there seven seats on the board? I can see why there might be seven roles, but why seven people?
Gordo
On Feb 10, 10:38 pm, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
Why are there seven seats on the board? I can see why there might be seven roles, but why seven people?
Gordo
Just out of interest, which other number would you have prefered? Keep the current 5 or expand to 9?
Andrew
2009/2/10 AndrewRT raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
Just out of interest, which other number would you have prefered? Keep the current 5 or expand to 9?
Five to seven at a *maximum*. Parkinson wrote a good essay on this.
- d.
2009/2/10 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/2/10 AndrewRT raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
Just out of interest, which other number would you have prefered? Keep the current 5 or expand to 9?
Five to seven at a *maximum*. Parkinson wrote a good essay on this.
...which was, for those interested, rediscussed in 'New Scientist' a week or three ago. (Eight is apparently a terrible number)
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/2/10 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/2/10 AndrewRT raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
Just out of interest, which other number would you have prefered? Keep the current 5 or expand to 9?
Five to seven at a *maximum*. Parkinson wrote a good essay on this.
...which was, for those interested, rediscussed in 'New Scientist' a week or three ago. (Eight is apparently a terrible number)
online anywhere? :-)
2009/2/11 Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/2/10 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/2/10 AndrewRT raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
Just out of interest, which other number would you have prefered? Keep the current 5 or expand to 9?
Five to seven at a *maximum*. Parkinson wrote a good essay on this.
...which was, for those interested, rediscussed in 'New Scientist' a week or three ago. (Eight is apparently a terrible number)
online anywhere? :-)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126901.300-explaining-the-curse-of-w...
2009/2/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126901.300-explaining-the-curse-of-w...
It's nice to note, that article links to Wikipedia! (The last sentence links to our article on the English Civil War.) Even New Scientist endorses us.
At 23:20 +0000 10/2/09, David Gerard wrote:
2009/2/10 AndrewRT raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
Just out of interest, which other number would you have prefered? Keep the current 5 or expand to 9?
Five to seven at a *maximum*. Parkinson wrote a good essay on this.
- d.
Indeed.
Gordo
On Feb 10, 8:47 pm, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
It's probably worth pointing out that at the moment less than 7 people have expressed an interest in standing for the 7 seats on the board,
I don't think we should assume that this will remain the case. Out of the five current Board members one has indicated he's going to step down, one (me) has said he will continue and the other three have said they'll probably stand again. Two people from outside the board at the IRC meeting last week said they planned to stand making six already, and nominations haven't even officially opened yet!
Add in the two other people - Kate and Skemny - who stood last time and might do so again, also the five Board members of WMUKv1 some of whom might now want to stand again plus of course anyone else we manage to engage between now and then, and I think we'll probably end up with more than 7.
Andrew
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org