I've been thinking a bit more about my post yesterday and reading through the reactions to it - thanks for the responses. I didn't previously appreciate the point about people who can't participate via wiki but can via email.
I guess the key thing I am interested in is to understand what decisions have been made and really what was the rationale for those decisions. We don't have to do these things in haste and I think it's important that we aim to be open and transparent - explaining the decisions that have been made is perhaps just as important as making the right decisions.
I should emphasise, I personally think that the decisions have largely been the right ones - particularly the tight timetable and the small interim Board. I might question some of the more minor details (why 18+ and not 16+; why mandatory CRB checks?; why is it not called Wikimedia UK?) and I think how those running this initiative respond to questions can be seen as an insight to how this venture will develop!
As an attempt at a solution, I've started a page at [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Candidate_FAQs] to answer all these kind of questions and explain. I would appreciate anyone who could contribute - either there or in reply here - and answer these questions.
The questions so far are:
* 1 Why do Board candidates have to be over 18? * 2 Why do Board candidates have to sign the declarations? * 3 Why are Board members required to accept a Criminal Records Bureau check? * 4 Why is the initial Board to consist of only [3]/[5] members? * 5 What are the rules for the election of the initial Board * 6 Why are we hoping to set up a UK Chapter? * 7 Why do we intend to register the UK Chapter as a Charity? * 8 Why have we decided to use a Company Limited by Guarantee structure for the Chapter? * 9 What will be the main tasks for the interim Board? I've answered 1 & 2 myself already, and I'm about to answer 3,4,6,7,8
(5) i think needs some urgent work as nominations close on Saturday and it's not really fair to ask people to stand before they have a good idea about what is expected of them - another email to follow on that!
Andrew Turvey
I would like to answer question 3. The board is to work with members younger than 16 and the possibility of working in schools. Given this, it was felt for the safety of our younger members it would be best to have all board members undergo a CRB. _________________________________________________________________ Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354033/direct/01/
2008/9/9 joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk:
I would like to answer question 3. The board is to work with members younger than 16 and the possibility of working in schools. Given this, it was felt for the safety of our younger members it would be best to have all board members undergo a CRB.
It's complex hard work and time consuming. Leave it out for the initial board.
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 23:00 +0100, geni wrote:
2008/9/9 joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk:
I would like to answer question 3. The board is to work with members younger than 16 and the possibility of working in schools. Given this, it was felt for the safety of our younger members it would be best to have all board members undergo a CRB.
It's complex hard work and time consuming. Leave it out for the initial board.
I'll copy what I wrote on wiki on this question.
The main one, although there were other reasoning, is that one can envisage Wikimedia UK working with(in) a schools environment. The Charity Commission strongly advise prospective charity to have its trustees go through a CRB check if they are likely to work with vulnerable people as a result of being trustee. Note the wording only says that one is willing to submit to one, not necessarily that it will be done. Whether those checks are done will be up to the (initial) board to decide.
KTC
2008/9/9 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 23:00 +0100, geni wrote:
2008/9/9 joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk:
I would like to answer question 3. The board is to work with members younger than 16 and the possibility of working in schools. Given this, it was felt for the safety of our younger members it would be best to have all board members undergo a CRB.
It's complex hard work and time consuming. Leave it out for the initial board.
I'll copy what I wrote on wiki on this question.
The main one, although there were other reasoning, is that one can envisage Wikimedia UK working with(in) a schools environment. The Charity Commission strongly advise prospective charity to have its trustees go through a CRB check if they are likely to work with vulnerable people as a result of being trustee. Note the wording only says that one is willing to submit to one, not necessarily that it will be done. Whether those checks are done will be up to the (initial) board to decide.
I think it's definitely important to have the CRB checks done before registering with the charity commission because they will probably require it once they realise we plan to have child members and work in schools. I would rather not skip it for the interim board because one of their tasks will be processing all the initial membership applications and that means having access to the names, address, email address etc. of children, and I'd rather be on the safe side when handling that kind of information.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/9/9 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 23:00 +0100, geni wrote:
2008/9/9 joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk:
I would like to answer question 3. The board is to work with members younger than 16 and the possibility of working in schools. Given this, it was felt for the safety of our younger members it would be best to have all board members undergo a CRB.
It's complex hard work and time consuming. Leave it out for the initial board.
I'll copy what I wrote on wiki on this question.
The main one, although there were other reasoning, is that one can envisage Wikimedia UK working with(in) a schools environment. The Charity Commission strongly advise prospective charity to have its trustees go through a CRB check if they are likely to work with vulnerable people as a result of being trustee. Note the wording only says that one is willing to submit to one, not necessarily that it will be done. Whether those checks are done will be up to the (initial) board to decide.
I think it's definitely important to have the CRB checks done before registering with the charity commission because they will probably require it once they realise we plan to have child members and work in schools. I would rather not skip it for the interim board because one of their tasks will be processing all the initial membership applications and that means having access to the names, address, email address etc. of children, and I'd rather be on the safe side when handling that kind of information.
For the record CRB checks are not time consuming. There are plenty of companies out there that will do them for a filled form and a £50 (approx.) cheque. A couple of years ago my wife was using a charity that would do it for youth oriented not-for-profits for about £15. I can't recall the name of that charity right now but would be happy to look it up when required.
Ross
For the record CRB checks are not time consuming. There are plenty of companies out there that will do them for a filled form and a £50 (approx.) cheque. A couple of years ago my wife was using a charity that would do it for youth oriented not-for-profits for about £15. I can't recall the name of that charity right now but would be happy to look it up when required.
I did a little research and it looks like we could do it for free. The CRB doesn't charge a fee for volunteers so it's just a matter of finding a handling agent that won't charge a fee, and they seem to exist.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Ross Gardler wrote:
For the record CRB checks are not time consuming. There are plenty of companies out there that will do them for a filled form and a £50 (approx.) cheque. A couple of years ago my wife was using a charity that would do it for youth oriented not-for-profits for about £15. I can't recall the name of that charity right now but would be happy to look it up when required.
Ross
Actually, although they /should/ not be time consumiong, I have a friend who had to wait 4 months for a CRB check (she needed it as a volunteer for a local holiday playscheme). Although this isn't the norm, it's far from unusual.
Chris
2008/9/10 Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org:
Actually, although they /should/ not be time consumiong, I have a friend who had to wait 4 months for a CRB check (she needed it as a volunteer for a local holiday playscheme). Although this isn't the norm, it's far from unusual.
Yeah, especially at the start of the academic year - remember a few years ago there was a great panic in early August when they tried to recheck all teachers?
FWIW, I think mine took a good month, possibly two, to clear. Applying isn't hard, getting a timely response might be.
FWIW, I think mine took a good month, possibly two, to clear. Applying isn't hard, getting a timely response might be.
I think generally it's pretty quick, it's when there are complications that it takes a while (if you've lived in lots of different areas of the country or under different names, so there are lots of different records that need checking, for example).
2008/9/9 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
why is it not called Wikimedia UK?
Being on the Chapcom, this is a question I'm actually qualified to answer. Even though groups are called "chapters" of the Wikimedia foundation, we try to make sure that they are all independent (but mutually supportive) organizations. To slice hairs, you are not a "child organization of the WMF", but instead you are an individual organization with common aims as the WMF (along with a few additional rights such as the use of trademarks and the right to represent the WMF to the press, etc). So, calling yourself "Wikimedia UK" overemphasizes and misrepresents your relationship to the WMF, and that's discouraged.
We do recommend that groups organize and incorporate legally prior to applying for chapter status. Calling yourself "Wikimedia UK" before you are accepted as a chapter seems to be a bit of a gamble. If we (chapcom) feel that you've set yourself up in the wrong way, by being too institutionally dependent on the WMF for instance, we might not approve your chapter application anyway. (On a related note, you should definitely run your bylaws and some other organizational details past the chapcom before you do anything legally binding, just in case you've made a decision that we don't approve of, which is admittedly rare).
--Andrew Whitworth
At 18:02 -0400 9/9/08, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
2008/9/9 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
why is it not called Wikimedia UK?
Being on the Chapcom, this is a question I'm actually qualified to answer. Even though groups are called "chapters" of the Wikimedia foundation, we try to make sure that they are all independent (but mutually supportive) organizations. To slice hairs, you are not a "child organization of the WMF", but instead you are an individual organization with common aims as the WMF (along with a few additional rights such as the use of trademarks and the right to represent the WMF to the press, etc). So, calling yourself "Wikimedia UK" overemphasizes and misrepresents your relationship to the WMF, and that's discouraged.
We do recommend that groups organize and incorporate legally prior to applying for chapter status. Calling yourself "Wikimedia UK" before you are accepted as a chapter seems to be a bit of a gamble. If we (chapcom) feel that you've set yourself up in the wrong way, by being too institutionally dependent on the WMF for instance, we might not approve your chapter application anyway. (On a related note, you should definitely run your bylaws and some other organizational details past the chapcom before you do anything legally binding, just in case you've made a decision that we don't approve of, which is admittedly rare).
--Andrew Whitworth
Surely it is all to do with the trademark?
Gordo
2008/9/9 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
Being on the Chapcom, this is a question I'm actually qualified to answer. Even though groups are called "chapters" of the Wikimedia foundation, we try to make sure that they are all independent (but mutually supportive) organizations. To slice hairs, you are not a "child organization of the WMF", but instead you are an individual organization with common aims as the WMF (along with a few additional rights such as the use of trademarks and the right to represent the WMF to the press, etc).
I describe them to people as "sort of an official fan club - rights to use the name, but no money sent back up or whatever."
So, calling yourself "Wikimedia UK" overemphasizes and misrepresents your relationship to the WMF, and that's discouraged.
Though the organisation will trade under that name! But yes, it shouldn't be its real name.
(This is also so that, in the event of a chapter dying or going rogue, the Foundation can revoke its trademark licence [WMUK v1 had a 3-month notice period] and assign it to a viable new organisation.)
(On a related note, you should definitely run your bylaws and some other organizational details past the chapcom before you do anything legally binding, just in case you've made a decision that we don't approve of, which is admittedly rare).
This is a hard part in that every country's laws are different, yes :-)
- d.
So, calling yourself "Wikimedia UK" overemphasizes and misrepresents your relationship to the WMF, and that's discouraged.
Though the organisation will trade under that name! But yes, it shouldn't be its real name.
It will trade under the name *once it has an agreement with WMF* - that's the key point. It's needs another name before then.
(This is also so that, in the event of a chapter dying or going rogue, the Foundation can revoke its trademark licence [WMUK v1 had a 3-month notice period] and assign it to a viable new organisation.)
A 3-month notice period? So the contract between WM UK v1 and WMF wasn't the same one as Delphine has a copy of online (which is for a year and it automatically renewed each year unless someone stops it)? That should make things simpler for the new chapter if the old hasn't finished going through all the bureaucracy of winding up by the time we're ready to sign up with WMF.
2008/9/10 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
A 3-month notice period? So the contract between WM UK v1 and WMF wasn't the same one as Delphine has a copy of online (which is for a year and it automatically renewed each year unless someone stops it)? That should make things simpler for the new chapter if the old hasn't finished going through all the bureaucracy of winding up by the time we're ready to sign up with WMF.
I'd have to double-check the contract to answer that, I might be wrong! But it doesn't matter, 3 months or annual renewal or whatever - the point being a mechanism such that the WMF can pull the plug if the chapter dies or goes rogue, but can't do so with no notice.
- d.
2008/9/10 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/9/10 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
A 3-month notice period? So the contract between WM UK v1 and WMF wasn't the same one as Delphine has a copy of online (which is for a year and it automatically renewed each year unless someone stops it)? That should make things simpler for the new chapter if the old hasn't finished going through all the bureaucracy of winding up by the time we're ready to sign up with WMF.
I'd have to double-check the contract to answer that, I might be wrong! But it doesn't matter, 3 months or annual renewal or whatever - the point being a mechanism such that the WMF can pull the plug if the chapter dies or goes rogue, but can't do so with no notice.
It's just a matter of how long it takes. If the contract is the one that's online, then the WMF can't unilaterally revoke WM UK v1.0's chapter status for another 10 months or so (I can't see this being an issue, since I don't think anyone wants it to retain chapter status, but it is a theoretical stumbling block).
2008/9/10 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
It's just a matter of how long it takes. If the contract is the one that's online, then the WMF can't unilaterally revoke WM UK v1.0's chapter status for another 10 months or so (I can't see this being an issue, since I don't think anyone wants it to retain chapter status, but it is a theoretical stumbling block).
I see no barrier to cancelling the arrangement by mutual agreement. (Delphine?)
- d.
2008/9/10 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/9/10 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
It's just a matter of how long it takes. If the contract is the one that's online, then the WMF can't unilaterally revoke WM UK v1.0's chapter status for another 10 months or so (I can't see this being an issue, since I don't think anyone wants it to retain chapter status, but it is a theoretical stumbling block).
I see no barrier to cancelling the arrangement by mutual agreement. (Delphine?)
Precisely - it's only were it unilateral that there would be a problem, so, like I say, I can't see it being an issue. I believe any contract can be cancelled if all the parties agree (it would be a strange law if they couldn't). For the WMF to serve in the role of an overseer to make sure the new board doesn't go rouge (which was what we were discussing before we went off topic!), they need to be able to revoke it unilaterally.
On Wed, September 10, 2008 13:15, Thomas Dalton wrote:
A 3-month notice period? So the contract between WM UK v1 and WMF wasn't the same one as Delphine has a copy of online (which is for a year and it automatically renewed each year unless someone stops it)?
Both are correct. The Contract between WER and WMF is on a rolling annual basis, however it has a both-sides-option cancellation clause which entails a three-month notice.
A couple of other things: Firstly (as has been partially noticed by some but not made explicit) this talk of the first Board being an "interim" one is misleading. The first Board have full management powers over the Company and are not, in that respect, any different to subsequent Boards. Those people named as signatories to the founding of the Company are that first Board.
Secondly, the AoA and MoA we developed in 2005 were specifically put together for the purpose and they and the agreement (contract) with the WMF were the first to be developed properly too (the latter then being used as a basis for other Chapters formal agreements). As such ComCom shouldn't have any issue with re-accepting them so long as nothing major is changed.
Alison
2008/9/10 Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com:
On Wed, September 10, 2008 13:15, Thomas Dalton wrote:
A 3-month notice period? So the contract between WM UK v1 and WMF wasn't the same one as Delphine has a copy of online (which is for a year and it automatically renewed each year unless someone stops it)?
Both are correct. The Contract between WER and WMF is on a rolling annual basis, however it has a both-sides-option cancellation clause which entails a three-month notice.
Ok, that makes sense - we were just talking at slightly cross purposes.
A couple of other things: Firstly (as has been partially noticed by some but not made explicit) this talk of the first Board being an "interim" one is misleading. The first Board have full management powers over the Company and are not, in that respect, any different to subsequent Boards. Those people named as signatories to the founding of the Company are that first Board.
Indeed. I've been trying to use the phrase "initial board", rather than "interim board", but it hasn't entirely stuck.
Secondly, the AoA and MoA we developed in 2005 were specifically put together for the purpose and they and the agreement (contract) with the WMF were the first to be developed properly too (the latter then being used as a basis for other Chapters formal agreements). As such ComCom shouldn't have any issue with re-accepting them so long as nothing major is changed.
Unfortunately, the Charities Act 2006 and Companies Act 2006 have changed a few things and the charities commission has published new models. In order to make charity registration as smooth as possible, we need to use the new models (with a few minor modifications, I expect), and we'll just have to accept the hassle of getting them approved by ChapCom again.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, the Charities Act 2006 and Companies Act 2006 have changed a few things and the charities commission has published new models. In order to make charity registration as smooth as possible, we need to use the new models (with a few minor modifications, I expect), and we'll just have to accept the hassle of getting them approved by ChapCom again.
You'll need to resubmit them in any case. The Chapcom has learned from it's mistakes in the past, just as some organizers in the UK are learning from mistakes made. Bylaws which have been accepted without problems in the past might get held up now if they don't meet our current criteria.
So long as we are talking about change, We've also reduced the amount of "hassle" it takes for new bylaws to be accepted. We've got a quicker turnaround now then we have throughout most of the committee's history, and are able to offer much more specific advice and requirements for you to implement. Also, the fact that Michael Bimmler, myself, and others have been active here on this list has been part of our relatively new proactive guidance methods that we're using to help avoid problems long before the bylaws get submitted to chapcom. Trust me, we're the least of your worries.
--Andrew Whitworth
2008/9/10 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
So long as we are talking about change, We've also reduced the amount of "hassle" it takes for new bylaws to be accepted. We've got a quicker turnaround now then we have throughout most of the committee's history, and are able to offer much more specific advice and requirements for you to implement. Also, the fact that Michael Bimmler, myself, and others have been active here on this list has been part of our relatively new proactive guidance methods that we're using to help avoid problems long before the bylaws get submitted to chapcom. Trust me, we're the least of your worries.
Indeed. Think of getting through the Charities Commission as a sort of puzzle quest ...
- d.
Indeed. Think of getting through the Charities Commission as a sort of> puzzle quest ...>
Well in that case I'm gonna aim to become a level 50 Necromancer.
Seddon _________________________________________________________________ Make a mini you and download it into Windows Live Messenger http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354029/direct/01/
2008/9/10 joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk:
Indeed. Think of getting through the Charities Commission as a sort of puzzle quest ...
Well in that case I'm gonna aim to become a level 50 Necromancer.
More like the sort of text adventure where you get killed by a falling rock 10ft from your goal because you didn't know to put the peanut butter on the string to lure the mouse to gnaw through it and release the rock early three hours before.
I always hated those text adventure games.
- d.
There was a good one based on bad puns around twenty five years ago. Working out that the "Koala tea of Merci" was not strained (the tea strainer made it poisonous, for those who don't know the Merchant of Venice) probably dropped me a couple of places in Maths finals....
Boz
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:19 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/10 joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk:
Indeed. Think of getting through the Charities Commission as a sort of puzzle quest ...
Well in that case I'm gonna aim to become a level 50 Necromancer.
More like the sort of text adventure where you get killed by a falling rock 10ft from your goal because you didn't know to put the peanut butter on the string to lure the mouse to gnaw through it and release the rock early three hours before.
I always hated those text adventure games.
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
2008/9/10 Andrew Cates Andrew@soschildren.org:
There was a good one based on bad puns around twenty five years ago. Working out that the "Koala tea of Merci" was not strained (the tea strainer made it poisonous, for those who don't know the Merchant of Venice) probably dropped me a couple of places in Maths finals....
And that's why you have a doctorate and I don't ;-p
- d.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org