On 11/19/05, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
At 11:28 -0800 16/11/05, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Cormac Lawler wrote:
Do we want a reporter there though?
I don't think we'd be doing anything very controversial or private, just discussing some rather tedious matters I suppose.
Indeed. Very dull...
But yes, we might not want her there. And she might not want to be there, it'll presumably be quite dull for her, and if she wants to interview community members about the sorts of things that the press does find interesting, it would disrupt us from the actual work at hand.
I was considering the following plan.
Part 1 - 12 noon to 2pm - lunch, interviews, chat, beer...
Part 2 - 2pm to 6pm - formal session (journalists excluded?)
There may be a part 3, but recall that The Royal Oak will close at 6pm.
Gordo
Gordon's plan seems fine to me. Jimbo can turn up whenever he's ready. And i dunno, I was just throwing open the question of whether we wanted a journalist there - no objections so far, so i suppose it's ok..
Cormac
I was considering the following plan.
Part 1 - 12 noon to 2pm - lunch, interviews, chat, beer...
Part 2 - 2pm to 6pm - formal session (journalists excluded?)
There may be a part 3, but recall that The Royal Oak will close at 6pm.
Gordo
Gordon's plan seems fine to me. Jimbo can turn up whenever he's ready. And i dunno, I was just throwing open the question of whether we wanted a journalist there - no objections so far, so i suppose it's ok..
Cormac
If we have two parts as above, then Jimbo and the Journo can do the interview either in the first part (in the meeting room) or the second part (downstairs in the pub).
Part 1 is informal - lunch, beer, chat.
Part 2 is formal business. Anybody can join in. The business of the meeting is to set up the Charity.
Part 3 - Suggest we go to "The George". This is an historic pub, frequented by Shakespeare and Dickens! Or maybe the Pommelers Rest, near Tower Bridge, which is 100% non-smoking.
"...London's only surviving galleried coaching inn."
Page updated.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
Regards,
I have made explicit that single agenda item is the formation (and incorporation) of "Wikimedia UK" leading to Charity Status. Draft Memorandum of Association and draft Articles of Association will be discussed. They are online at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
See
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK#Next_meeting
for details of the venue. Formal business from 2pm.
No doubt there may be other stuff to discuss under "Any Other Business".
Regards,
At 12:27 +0000 25/11/05, Gordon Joly wrote:
I have made explicit that single agenda item is the formation (and incorporation) of "Wikimedia UK" leading to Charity Status. Draft Memorandum of Association and draft Articles of Association will be discussed. They are online at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
See
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK#Next_meeting
for details of the venue. Formal business from 2pm.
No doubt there may be other stuff to discuss under "Any Other Business".
See
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK/November_27th_meeting_in_London
for emerging reports, images, etc.
At 09:30 +0000 28/11/05, Gordon Joly wrote:
At 12:27 +0000 25/11/05, Gordon Joly wrote:
I have made explicit that single agenda item is the formation (and incorporation) of "Wikimedia UK" leading to Charity Status. Draft Memorandum of Association and draft Articles of Association will be discussed. They are online at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
See
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK#Next_meeting
for details of the venue. Formal business from 2pm.
No doubt there may be other stuff to discuss under "Any Other Business".
See
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK/November_27th_meeting_in_London
for emerging reports, images, etc.
There seems no reason to avoid "educational charity" LoopZilla 12:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I have just spoken to the Charities Commission. Reporting all "educational charities" is the same as any other charity. The Deportments for Education and Skills http://www.dfes.gov.uk/ is not involved. Schools which are charities would report to their governing body, such as the LEA.
Gordo
P.S.
I also phoned a company which sets up Charities, for a fee of 135 squid. This fee covers the preparation of Memorandum and the Articles of Association, so it not be worth spending this. They would, however, cast yet another experienced eye over our work. Anyroad, the summary of their service can be found here:
http://www.duport.co.uk/company-formation/charity-companies.htm
I've set up a page on Meta to discuss the company name issue - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK/Company_name as this is something that needs to be agreed on and nobody has yet come up with anything brilliant.
I'm sorry I couldn't be there yesterday - please could those who were there explain a bit more what the issue is/was with incorporating as "Wikimedia UK", as it is not clear to me from what's posted to date what the issues is/are. Otherwise we might suggest alternatives that fall prey to the same trap!
Thanks
Scott
--- Chris McKenna cmckenna@sucs.org wrote:
I've set up a page on Meta to discuss the company name issue - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK/Company_name as this is something that needs to be agreed on and nobody has yet come up with anything brilliant.
-- Chris 'Awkward' McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes, but with the heart
Antoine de Saint Exupery
___________________________________________________________ WIN ONE OF THREE YAHOO! VESPAS - Enter now! - http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/features/competitions/vespa.html
On 28/11/05, Scott Keir scottkeir@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I'm sorry I couldn't be there yesterday - please could those who were there explain a bit more what the issue is/was with incorporating as "Wikimedia UK", as it is not clear to me from what's posted to date what the issues is/are. Otherwise we might suggest alternatives that fall prey to the same trap!
Basically, we want to trade (operate) as Wikimedia UK. However, we want to do so /by permission of the Foundation/ - they hold the name, and so we probably need their permission to avoid nasty legal tangles.
We can't incorporate as Wikimedia UK, though, because: a) the Foundation can't grant permission to use the name until the company exists b) if someone takes over the company later, by whatever means, we want the Foundation to be able to stop them using the Wikimedia name.
The latter strongly means that you don't want to have it actually named Wikimedia UK, but rather something innocuous. There's no problems with taking an organisation of whatever name and allowing them to operate under another, so long as it's made clear it's an "assumed name". We'd use "Wikimedia UK" this way, as I understand it.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 11/28/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/11/05, Scott Keir scottkeir@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I'm sorry I couldn't be there yesterday - please could those who were there explain a bit more what the issue is/was with incorporating as "Wikimedia UK", as it is not clear to me from what's posted to date what the issues is/are. Otherwise we might suggest alternatives that fall prey to the same trap!
Basically, we want to trade (operate) as Wikimedia UK. However, we want to do so /by permission of the Foundation/ - they hold the name, and so we probably need their permission to avoid nasty legal tangles.
We can't incorporate as Wikimedia UK, though, because: a) the Foundation can't grant permission to use the name until the company exists b) if someone takes over the company later, by whatever means, we want the Foundation to be able to stop them using the Wikimedia name.
Yes, but I still don't get it. Are there, apart from this twist (a) that we have not resolved (which of the chicken or the egg...) any other /legal/ reasons why the company cannot be called Wikimedia UK? Because we could agree that the agreement to use the name be signed on the same day as the Company is founded for example, or signed between the founders of Wikimedia UK and the Foundation, to be carried on to the organisation etc. There are many ways to do that I am sure.
OK for b), although I believe that is a double edge thing. If the company Tralala (since it's not Wikimedia UK ;-) ) is taken over, and they're in trade/partnership/whatever with someone/a company/an organisation, it seems harder to me for the Wikimedia Foundation to claim anything from this company. Whereas being able to take the name away makes it harder for Tralala to continue any trade in the name of the Wikisomethingorother.
So I ask my question again, are there any other legal implications that I might not be aware of that *really* prevent the company from being called Wikimedia UK?
Cheers,
Delphine -- ~notafish
On 28/11/05, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
We can't incorporate as Wikimedia UK, though, because: a) the Foundation can't grant permission to use the name until the company exists b) if someone takes over the company later, by whatever means, we want the Foundation to be able to stop them using the Wikimedia name.
Yes, but I still don't get it. Are there, apart from this twist (a) that we have not resolved (which of the chicken or the egg...) any other /legal/ reasons why the company cannot be called Wikimedia UK? Because we could agree that the agreement to use the name be signed on the same day as the Company is founded for example, or signed between the founders of Wikimedia UK and the Foundation, to be carried on to the organisation etc. There are many ways to do that I am sure.
The other problem with a), which I didn't mention, is that it would mean the company is beholden to a *foreign* organisation. I don't know if this would make a difference - I don't think anyone did - but it does seem like another potential pitfall, and minimising any possible problems is always a good thing.
OK for b), although I believe that is a double edge thing. If the company Tralala (since it's not Wikimedia UK ;-) ) is taken over, and they're in trade/partnership/whatever with someone/a company/an organisation, it seems harder to me for the Wikimedia Foundation to claim anything from this company. Whereas being able to take the name away makes it harder for Tralala to continue any trade in the name of the Wikisomethingorother.
David Gerard had some quite useful comments about the temptations involved in giving this little company such a potentially profitable name as Wikimedia UK, though I can't seem to remember the actual case he mentioned.
Basically, if Tralala Limited gets taken over by People We Don't Like, then the Foundation can just cut them off; remove the name, and they can go and do whatever they want, but we can't be held morally responsible for them nor can they claim to be operating for or with the foundation. The actual wikimedia people can then go off, form Lalala Limited instead, sign another agreement with the Foundation to use the name, and we start over again.
However, if "Wikimedia UK Limited" gets filled with cranks, it becomes hard for a) the Foundation to disown them or b) to take away the name and give it to the sane chapter. And then things get messy...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Andrew Gray wrote:
David Gerard had some quite useful comments about the temptations involved in giving this little company such a potentially profitable name as Wikimedia UK, though I can't seem to remember the actual case he mentioned.
The Church of Scientology tried to mount a hostile takeover of the National Association for Mental Health in the UK in the '60s - flooded them with membership applications then tried to vote their own guys on board. Took it all the way through court to try to get their way.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/rolph/chr.htm
Basically, if Tralala Limited gets taken over by People We Don't Like, then the Foundation can just cut them off; remove the name, and they can go and do whatever they want, but we can't be held morally responsible for them nor can they claim to be operating for or with the foundation. The actual wikimedia people can then go off, form Lalala Limited instead, sign another agreement with the Foundation to use the name, and we start over again. However, if "Wikimedia UK Limited" gets filled with cranks, it becomes hard for a) the Foundation to disown them or b) to take away the name and give it to the sane chapter. And then things get messy...
Indeed. JamesF's original suggestion was WikiPersonages UK, *specifically* because it was an awful name no-one would want.
- d.
FWIW, my images from yesterday are currently up on my fotopicaccount at http://arkady.fotopic.net/c777773.html. I know that ideally I ought to have put them up on Commons; however there are 131 images and quite frankly I'm buggered if I'm going to upload 131 images one by one. I've stated in the comments section on the page that the images are licensed under the GDFL however.
They came out pretty well considering they were taken without flash, using a pint glass and a beer mat in lieu of a tripod! Next time I'll be sure to bring my proper tripod however. ;-)
Regards, Arkady
At 21:11 +0000 28/11/05, David Gerard wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
David Gerard had some quite useful comments about the temptations involved in giving this little company such a potentially profitable name as Wikimedia UK, though I can't seem to remember the actual case he mentioned.
The Church of Scientology tried to mount a hostile takeover of the National Association for Mental Health in the UK in the '60s - flooded them with membership applications then tried to vote their own guys on board. Took it all the way through court to try to get their way.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/rolph/chr.htmBasically, if Tralala Limited gets taken over by People We Don't Like, then the Foundation can just cut them off; remove the name, and they can go and do whatever they want, but we can't be held morally responsible for them nor can they claim to be operating for or with the foundation. The actual wikimedia people can then go off, form Lalala Limited instead, sign another agreement with the Foundation to use the name, and we start over again. However, if "Wikimedia UK Limited" gets filled with cranks, it becomes hard for a) the Foundation to disown them or b) to take away the name and give it to the sane chapter. And then things get messy...
Indeed. JamesF's original suggestion was WikiPersonages UK, *specifically* because it was an awful name no-one would want.
- d.
Yes. Or you lock down the Company by
1) Not having any members
or
2) Having a very restricted number.
We then assume the Trustees (Directors) will not be susceptible to "take over".
John (jguk) made some very clear points about what happens at creation (e.g. First Subscribers). He then talked about the Trustees creating membership levels to suit.
My suggestion is 5 to 8 Trustees, 50 voting members maximum, and an unlimited non-voting membership.
An alternative might be to have a larger number of Trustees to start, or after the first AGM.
Perhaps the "First Subscribers" could work on this and bring it all to the first AGM? I would suggest we have the first AGM as soon as possible, certainly with 12 months, and hopefully a lot sooner!
At 12:21 +0000 28/11/05, Chris McKenna wrote:
I've set up a page on Meta to discuss the company name issue - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK/Company_name as this is something that needs to be agreed on and nobody has yet come up with anything brilliant.
-- Chris 'Awkward' McKenna
cmckenna@sucs.org www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
The name of the company should be chosen with care, but recall that once the company has been created, it will apply to the Wikimedia Foundation to use "Wikimedia UK" for trading and also other names and logos as appropriate.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org