Wikimedia UK - User contributions [en]

User:AndrewRT

2013-05-19T22:11:40Z

AndrewRT: update

[[File:Andrew_Turvey.jpg|right|200px|Me at the 2009 AGM]]
Welcome to my userpage. I am a former member of the Wikimedia UK [[Board]] of Trustees, first [[Initial Board election|elected in September 2008]] and [[Meetings/2009_AGM|re-elected]] in April 2009, [[Meetings/2010_AGM/Minutes#Election_results|April 2010]] and [[Annual_Conference_2011_AGM_Minutes#Announcement_of_the_election_results|April 2011]]. I originally served as Secretary from September 2008 to April 2010, then as Chair from 2010-11 and then Treasurer for 2011-12. I stood down from the board in 2012.

My candidate statement and Q&As for 2011 can be found [[Meetings/2011_election:_Ballot_Instructions#Candidate_Statements|here]] and [[Meetings/2011_election:_Candidate_questions#Andrew_Turvey|here]]. My candidate statements for previous elections are [[Meetings/2010_AGM/Ballot_Instructions#Andrew_Turvey|here]], [[User:AndrewRT/2009 candidate statement|here]] and [[Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Candidate_statements#Andrew_Turvey|here]].

For more details please see [[wikipedia:User:AndrewRT]]

User:AndrewRT

2013-04-26T19:51:15Z

AndrewRT: Reverted edits by Noobypedia (talk) to last revision by AndrewRT

[[File:Andrew_Turvey.jpg|right|200px|Me at the 2009 AGM]]
Welcome to my userpage. I am a former member of the Wikimedia UK [[Board]] of Trustees, first [[Initial Board election|elected in September 2008]] and [[Meetings/2009_AGM|re-elected]] in April 2009, [[Meetings/2010_AGM/Minutes#Election_results|April 2010]] and [[Annual_Conference_2011_AGM_Minutes#Announcement_of_the_election_results|April 2011]]. I originally served as Secretary from September 2008 to April 2010, then as Chair from 2010-11 and then Treasurer for 2011-12. I continue to support the chapter from outside the board.

My candidate statement and Q&As for 2011 can be found [[Meetings/2011_election:_Ballot_Instructions#Candidate_Statements|here]] and [[Meetings/2011_election:_Candidate_questions#Andrew_Turvey|here]]. My candidate statements for previous elections are [[Meetings/2010_AGM/Ballot_Instructions#Andrew_Turvey|here]], [[User:AndrewRT/2009 candidate statement|here]] and [[Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Candidate_statements#Andrew_Turvey|here]].

For more details please see [[wikipedia:User:AndrewRT]]

User talk:AndrewRT

2013-04-26T19:50:32Z

AndrewRT: Reverted edits by Noobypedia (talk) to last revision by AndrewRT

===Lovely Wikipedia===
Thanks for your comment about the '''Lovely Wikipedia''' event. I am not sure about splitting the events. It's a shame we could not discuss it yesterday. I'm sure we'll sort something out soon enough![[User:Harrypotter|Harrypotter]] 00:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
:I've commented on the project page - hope we can meet up to discuss soon. [[Special:Contributions/155.202.254.82|155.202.254.82]] 13:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
===Project Proposals===
... When you have read this comment feel free to delete it so we can keep an upbeat positive note to the new projects.
--[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]] 14:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
:Fair point - I've removed it. Thanks for pointing this out. [[Special:Contributions/155.202.254.82|155.202.254.82]] 15:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

===Name===

No worries mate, my name is actually Joseph anyway but thats besides the point :P I dont know anyone who calls me that anyway. [[Special:Contributions/86.165.83.193|86.165.83.193]] 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

===Poll===
Thanks for coming up with the idea of a Poll. I've moved it to a more appropriate page. It's probably a bit early to conduct a poll at this stage, but that's not to say a fork might not be a good idea a bit further down the line.[[User:Harrypotter|Harrypotter]] 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

===Apologies===

Could you please relay my apologies to the rest of the board for not being able to make to the last board meeting and for not replying to any emails that may have been sent. I had my phone stolen on the weekend and I am currently on a geology field course with my unversity down dorset and devon. I was going to be using my phone to attend the meeting on tuesday but given that it was stolen I have been unable to contact any of the board members. I have finally been able to find a computer that will allow me to edit here but for some reason it wont let me access any of my email addresses. I hope to have some sort of connectivity on saturday but I am unlikely to get a connection until then. I do apologise for any inconvenience this may have cause the board. I hope to catch up soon with anything that may have occured since last week. Any responses in regards to this post may as well be sent to my googlemail email as I am unlikely to read any response until saturday. [[User:Seddon|Seddon]] 20:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

===Good job===
Keep the good work up, I'm hopeful all will go well here. I'm new to here, but not Wikimedia, returning after a long break from it! --[[User:Kexford|Kexford]] 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
:Many thanks - great to hear! We're always very keen for help so please let me know if there's anything specific you are able to help with. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

===[[Liverpool Library Wikimedia Presentation Day]]===
Your feedback would be much appreciated here. --[[User:Kexford|Kexford]] 09:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

==Freedom of information request==
Please see my note [[Talk:2012_Activity_Plan#Freedom_of_information_request|here]]. Were you involved in the 26 September letter to UKCC? Please let me know. Thanks. [[User:Peter Damian|Peter Damian]] 09:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
: Peter, Thanks for your note. I haven't seen the link - not sure if it's been moved. I'm afraid Wikimedia UK is not a public organisation so the Freedom of Information Act does not apply. Nonethless, we have adopted openness as a core principle we would like to achieve so may be able to agree to your request. All correspondence with the Charity Commission has been approved by the Board of Trustees prior to sending it (minor email acknowledgements excepting) and I have been a Trustee since the founding of Wikimedia UK. Regards. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 13:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

== AGM resolutions ==

Hi. Could you please publish any legal advice you have received regarding the two resolutions you have just proposed? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 00:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
:I will check with the lawyers and do this, but you may be expecting a bit too much! [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 10:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

== Just a note on wiki maintenance... ==

Hi Andrew, just FYI, it's worth checking "what links here" after you move a page, just to make sure the move isn't leaving behind a chain of redirects redirecting to redirects (I happened to notice a couple of double redirects left behind from the move of [[Conflict of Interest Policy]]). Best, [[User:HJ Mitchell|'''Harry Mitchell''']] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|Penny for your thoughts? ]] 06:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
:Cheers for the nudge Harry. enwp has a bot that does it itself, so I'm used to not bothering but of course I have to here! [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 10:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Water cooler

2013-04-26T19:48:14Z

AndrewRT: /* Test */ re test

Water cooler

2013-04-26T19:47:58Z

AndrewRT: /* 2013-18 Five Year Plan, first draft. */ test

EGM 2013/Resolutions

2013-03-06T23:16:25Z

AndrewRT: link to current version

These are a set of draft resolutions which have been drafted by our lawyers Stone King, which would if passed bring into effect parts of the Governance Review recommendations, specifically those which would affect the 2013 AGM elections, and also fulfill the longstanding commitment to review the voting system we use. Comments are very welcome, whether on the drafting of these motions, or on substantive alternatives that the EGM ought to consider. The comments already there in italics are Stone King's commentary. I have not reviewed these changes in detail myself yet, I wanted to get them up here as soon as possible for public discussion. The Board will decide what motions to put to the EGM in time for the formal deadline for the meeting. It would also be sensible to move an amendment to the [[Election Rules]] at the same time. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 20:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The current wording is shown at [[Articles of Association]]. A marked up version of this page showing variations from the United Kingdom Charity Commission's Model constitution is shown at [[Articles of Association/Mark up]]

==Number of Directors==
1) Article 14.3 shall be amended to read:
The number of Directors shall be not less than three and not more than 11 (unless otherwise determined by ordinary resolution).

==Composition of the Board==
2) Article 14.4 shall be amended to read:

Ordinarily, the Directors shall comprise 7 Elected Directors elected by the charity in accordance with Article 17.1 and 3 additional, Co-opted Directors appointed by the Board in accordance with Article 17.2. From time to time, in the interests of the charity, a further fourth Co-opted Trustee may be appointed by the Board in the same way, provided at all times that the total number of Directors shall not exceed the maximum specified at Article 14.3.

''Comment: Provides for a further fourth Co-opted Director to be appointed by the Board, from time to time, in the interests of the charity, to fill up to the maximum 11 Directors; otherwise there will ordinarily be 10 Directors.''

3) Article 16 shall be amended to read:

16.1 Elected Directors shall retire from office at the second Annual General Meeting since their last appointment, unless by the close of the meeting there are insufficient Directors to hold a quorate meeting of the Directors.

16.2 Co-opted Directors shall retire from office after two years from the date of their appointment and become eligible for reappointment, in accordance with Article 17.2, if the Trustees see fit.

16.3 Should the number of Directors not retiring at an Annual General Meeting, due to not being required to retire by Article 16.1 and not choosing to retire voluntarily, number fewer than half the maximum number of Elected Trustees (rounded down, if necessary) then a number of Directors appointed at that Annual General Meeting equal to half the maximum size of the Board (rounded down, if necessary) less the number of directors not retiring shall be required to retire at the next Annual General Meeting.

16.4 If some Directors appointed at an Annual General Meeting are required to resign at the next Annual General Meeting under Article 16.3, the Directors so required shall be determined by an Ordinary Resolution of the Annual General Meeting that appointed them. Should that meeting fail to make such a determination, the determination shall be made at the first meeting of the Board following that meeting by the Chair drawing lots.

16.5 If an Elected Director is required to retire at an Annual General Meeting by a provision of these articles the retirement shall take effect upon the conclusion of the meeting.

''Comment: Distinguishes between Elected Directors and Co-opted Directors to specify that Elected Directors stand down after the second AGM (as before) and Elected Trustees stand down an equivalent 2 years after appointment (which may occur at any time in the year).''

''Articles 16.3 and 16.4 (which derive from existing Articles 16.2 and 16.3) have the effect of balancing the numbers of Elected Directors stepping down each year, so that no more than half the maximum number of Elected Directors should retire each year. Article 16.4 achieves this by requiring the number of Elected Directors exceeding one half of the maximum to stand down after just one year. Arguably, the introduction of Co-opted Directors, may provide more continuation on the Board, making these rather complex provisions less necessary, so the charity may wish to consider removing them.''

3) Article 17 shall be amended to read:

17.2 Subject to Article 14.4, the Board may appoint such persons to act as Co-opted Directors as it sees fit, in order to achieve a balanced set of skills and experience on the Board, in the interests of the charity.

''Comment: This power is included to permit the appointment of Co-opted Directors. ''

17.3 No person may be elected as an Elected Director unless:

(a) he or she is retiring as a Director; or
(b) not less than fourteen nor more than thirty-five clear days before the date of the meeting, the charity is given a notice that:
(i) is signed by a member entitled to vote at the meeting;
(ii) states the member's intention to propose the appointment of a person as an Elected Director;
(iii) contains the details that, if the person were to be appointed, the charity would have to file at Companies House; and
(iv) is signed by the person who is to be proposed to show his or her willingness to be appointed.

''Comment: Note that the window of between 14 and 35 days before the meeting is not fixed by law and could be amended. This provision may cause practical difficulties, because it does not align with the notice period for the relevant meeting. In practice extending the 35-day limit would require advance knowledge of when the meeting is to occur. Shortening the 7-day limit may result in difficulties with preparing ballot papers to include last-minute entrants.''

17.4 All Members who are entitled to receive notice of a general meeting must be given not less than seven nor more than twenty-eight clear days' notice of any election to appoint a Director other than a Director who is to retire.

''Comment: See comment to 17.3 above.''

17.5 Where a vacancy among the Elected Directors has arisen due to the resignation, death or ineligibility of an Elected Director, the remaining Directors may by a unanimous decision at a meeting of the Directors appoint a person who is willing to act as a replacement Elected Director. A Director so appointed must retire at the next annual general meeting.

''Comment: Retains the requirement that a replacement Elected Director must be appointed by a unanimous decision of the other directors on the basis that this is not the same activity as Co-option under 17.2. However this could be changed if desired.''

17.6 The appointment of a Director, whether by the charity or by the other Directors, must not cause the number of Directors to exceed the maximum number of Directors specified at Article 14.3.

==Change to voting system - replacing Approval Voting with STV==
4) Article 17 shall be amended to read:

17.1 The Members of the Charity shall elect Elected Directors according to the Single Transferable Vote system, as propounded by the Society for Electoral Reform, but the precise terms of the election of which shall be determined by the Board and detailed in regulations issued by them for that purpose. The results of each such election shall be declared as soon as practically possible after the vote has closed and the successful Elected Directors duly be appointed with effect from the end of the AGM at which the results are declared.

''Comment: Incorporates the STV system. It is prudent to reserve powers to the Board, as we have done here, to determine how the vote occurs in practice; to specify the detail of the procedure in the Articles would be complex and unnecessarily inflexible.

Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-08T23:44:30Z

AndrewRT: /* Delegation of authority */

These are a set of draft motions intended to provide a structure for our discussion on Saturday. Comments and suggested amendments are of course welcome. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 17:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

==Welcoming the review==
The Board welcomes the report of the independent review of Wikimedia UK's governance conducted by Compass Partnership and believes the recommendations contained within it are an important step forward in the development of our charity.

==Establishment of Governance Committee==
The Board resolves to establish a Governance Committee. The remit of the Governance Committee will be to:
# review the performance of governance by the Board, the Chair and individual trustees on an ongoing basis, including
## reviewing the performance of the Chair once every two years
## reviewing the performance of each Trustee before the end of their term of office
# produce recommendations for role profiles for the positions of Chair, Secretary, Treasurer and Vice-Chair in line with charity good practice models
# identify skills and experience required on the board and those that are currently met and unmet
# monitoring the diversity of the Board and identifying steps to improve it
# inform members of the skills and experience the organisation requires on the board and when appropriate actively encouraging people with those skills to stand for election
# manage the process of electing trustees in conjunction with the Tellers, including checking that potential conflicts of interest are declared in advance and are permissible and manageable, reviewing the voting system if required, and proposing any policies to inform candidature
# advise the board, when required, on the eligibility of applicants for membership of the Charity
# manage the process for the succession of the Chair
# produce other governance recommendations for the Board as appropriate
# to conduct a review of our existing proposals for [[Board/Fellows and Associates|Fellows and Associates]] and and [[Advisory Board]] and to produce a recommendation, including definitions of any expectations we would have of people in those positions

The Governance Committee will consist of between three and five people appointed by the Board of Trustees, to include the Chair of the Board of Trustees and two to four other people. In the event that the Articles of Association prevent non-Trustees from serving on Committees, the Board may appoint observers to the Committee who may attend and and take part in the deliberations of the Committee but shall have no vote. In any event the majority of members of the Committee shall be Trustees of the charity.

The proceedings of the Governance Committee will be reported to the Board at each Board meeting.

== Establishment of Audit Committee ==
The Board resolves to establish an Audit Committee. The remit of the Audit Committee will be to:
# make recommendations to the board on the appointment of auditors
# preview the annual report and accounts, to ensure a quality document goes to the board
# review the charity’s annual statement on internal control and its compliance with regulatory guidance and recommending it to the board
# preview the risk register to ensure that a considered document goes to the board
# undertake other Audit Committee responsibilities as set out in the guidance from the UK Charity Finance Group.

The Audit Committee will consist of between three and five people appointed by the Board of Trustees, to include the Treasurer and two to four other people. In the event that the Articles of Association prevent non-Trustees from serving on Committees, the Board may appoint observers to the Committee who may attend and and take part in the deliberations of the Committee but shall have no vote. In any event the majority of members of the Committee shall be Trustees of the charity.

The proceedings of the Audit Committee will be reported to the Board at each Board meeting.

==Board structure==
The Board notes the proposal in the Governance Review to amend the board structure so that future Boards will consist of six elected and three co-opted trustees, each serving for a two-year term and to have up to two additional transitional board members.

The Board asks the Chief Executive to draft a proposal in response to this recommendation, in discussion with the community and in conjunction with others and with such legal advice as may be appropriate, to be presented to the board in time for submission to the AGM.

==Conflict of Interest (A) ==

To amend the Conflict of Interest policy as follows:

* Under "Background": to add the statement "Trustees must not use their Wikimedia UK position or title to advance any private interests and must ensure a clear distinction between their role as Trustees and any other activity they engage in."

* Under "Disclosure":
: To amend the text "Where we are discussing a relationship with a third party, any board member's prior relationship which may create a potential conflict of interest must be discussed with the Company Secretary or the full board before any decision is made. Where a decision is being made by an initiative leader, the board member is expected to raise the issue with them, and they must discuss the matter with the Company Secretary or the full board. The Secretary must note the matter in the register of interests."
: to read: "Any board member's potential conflict of interest must be discussed with the Chair or the full board before any decision is made. The Secretary must ensure the matter is noted in the register of interests. Board members are expected to disclose the nature, extent, and potential value of any relevant interest and the identities of any other individuals involved.
:: Where Wikimedia UK is engaged in a project involving other parties where there is any likelihood a Board member might benefit personally, this must to be disclosed to those parties."
: To amend the text that currently reads:
: "If, after discussion, it is concluded that a board member has a conflict of interest in a proposed transaction, the decision must be considered by the Board. The conflicted member must excuse themselves from any vote on the transaction and will not be counted as part of the quorum. They may take part in an initial discussion, but the final decision must be made by the remaining board members that do not have a conflict of interest, following a final in camera discussion. If a transaction is approved, the Board must ensure that appropriate controls are in place."
: to read as follows:
: "If, after discussion, it is concluded that a board member has a conflict of interest in a proposal, the decision must be considered by the Board. The conflicted member must leave the room to allow the rest of the Board to discuss the issue and vote on it. The point at which the conflicted trustee does so must be recorded in the minutes. The conflicted trustee will not be counted as part of the quorum for any votes taken in their absence.

* Insert a new section entitled "Employment related to the Charity"
: To add the text: "Trustees should not seek or accept any post or form of remuneration from organisations funded by Wikimedia UK for a period of six monthsnote 1 after they have been a member of the board, without the express permission of the board. Permission will usually be granted in the case of a trustee applying for a Wikimedian in Residence post, provided that that the trustee has absented themselves from discussions that lead to the creation, funding or agreement of the post. It is likely that the Board will need to seek the permission of the Charity Commission in such circumstances."
: "If at any point a trustee wishes to apply for a central staff post, the trustee must stand down from the board in advance of applying and only apply with the permission of the Charity Commission if this is required. If unsuccessful, they should not be eligible to re-join the board for 12 months."

'''''Discussion points'''''
:''[note 1] Should we adopt a longer period?

:Additional item per talk page:

* The board asks the Governance Committee to look into the impact of the conflict of interest policy on trustee recruitment and to report back to the board within 3 months.

== Conflicts of Interest (B)==
''only to be considered if the Foundation board ratify the draft guidelines.''
: To amend the Conflict of Interest policy as follows, inserting at the end of "Disclosure"
: Trustees are further expected to follow the Wikimedia Foundation's "Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest" http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest

==Delegation of authority==
The Board asks the Chief Executive to propose at the next Board meeting a formal statement of delegated authority, taking from appropriate models where appropriate.

..alternative motion per talk page discussion:

The Board asks the Chief Executive and Chair to jointly undertake a review of: 
a) the current implementation of the chapter's vision for the relationship between paid staff and volunteers as set out in [[Volunteer Policy]], 
b) the impact on this vision if the changes proposed by the Governance Review were implemented in full, and 
c) the delegated authority given to the Chief Executive, taking from appropriate models where appropriate, 

and to report back on the above to the Board.

Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-08T23:44:02Z

AndrewRT: /* Delegation of authority */

These are a set of draft motions intended to provide a structure for our discussion on Saturday. Comments and suggested amendments are of course welcome. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 17:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

==Welcoming the review==
The Board welcomes the report of the independent review of Wikimedia UK's governance conducted by Compass Partnership and believes the recommendations contained within it are an important step forward in the development of our charity.

==Establishment of Governance Committee==
The Board resolves to establish a Governance Committee. The remit of the Governance Committee will be to:
# review the performance of governance by the Board, the Chair and individual trustees on an ongoing basis, including
## reviewing the performance of the Chair once every two years
## reviewing the performance of each Trustee before the end of their term of office
# produce recommendations for role profiles for the positions of Chair, Secretary, Treasurer and Vice-Chair in line with charity good practice models
# identify skills and experience required on the board and those that are currently met and unmet
# monitoring the diversity of the Board and identifying steps to improve it
# inform members of the skills and experience the organisation requires on the board and when appropriate actively encouraging people with those skills to stand for election
# manage the process of electing trustees in conjunction with the Tellers, including checking that potential conflicts of interest are declared in advance and are permissible and manageable, reviewing the voting system if required, and proposing any policies to inform candidature
# advise the board, when required, on the eligibility of applicants for membership of the Charity
# manage the process for the succession of the Chair
# produce other governance recommendations for the Board as appropriate
# to conduct a review of our existing proposals for [[Board/Fellows and Associates|Fellows and Associates]] and and [[Advisory Board]] and to produce a recommendation, including definitions of any expectations we would have of people in those positions

The Governance Committee will consist of between three and five people appointed by the Board of Trustees, to include the Chair of the Board of Trustees and two to four other people. In the event that the Articles of Association prevent non-Trustees from serving on Committees, the Board may appoint observers to the Committee who may attend and and take part in the deliberations of the Committee but shall have no vote. In any event the majority of members of the Committee shall be Trustees of the charity.

The proceedings of the Governance Committee will be reported to the Board at each Board meeting.

== Establishment of Audit Committee ==
The Board resolves to establish an Audit Committee. The remit of the Audit Committee will be to:
# make recommendations to the board on the appointment of auditors
# preview the annual report and accounts, to ensure a quality document goes to the board
# review the charity’s annual statement on internal control and its compliance with regulatory guidance and recommending it to the board
# preview the risk register to ensure that a considered document goes to the board
# undertake other Audit Committee responsibilities as set out in the guidance from the UK Charity Finance Group.

The Audit Committee will consist of between three and five people appointed by the Board of Trustees, to include the Treasurer and two to four other people. In the event that the Articles of Association prevent non-Trustees from serving on Committees, the Board may appoint observers to the Committee who may attend and and take part in the deliberations of the Committee but shall have no vote. In any event the majority of members of the Committee shall be Trustees of the charity.

The proceedings of the Audit Committee will be reported to the Board at each Board meeting.

==Board structure==
The Board notes the proposal in the Governance Review to amend the board structure so that future Boards will consist of six elected and three co-opted trustees, each serving for a two-year term and to have up to two additional transitional board members.

The Board asks the Chief Executive to draft a proposal in response to this recommendation, in discussion with the community and in conjunction with others and with such legal advice as may be appropriate, to be presented to the board in time for submission to the AGM.

==Conflict of Interest (A) ==

To amend the Conflict of Interest policy as follows:

* Under "Background": to add the statement "Trustees must not use their Wikimedia UK position or title to advance any private interests and must ensure a clear distinction between their role as Trustees and any other activity they engage in."

* Under "Disclosure":
: To amend the text "Where we are discussing a relationship with a third party, any board member's prior relationship which may create a potential conflict of interest must be discussed with the Company Secretary or the full board before any decision is made. Where a decision is being made by an initiative leader, the board member is expected to raise the issue with them, and they must discuss the matter with the Company Secretary or the full board. The Secretary must note the matter in the register of interests."
: to read: "Any board member's potential conflict of interest must be discussed with the Chair or the full board before any decision is made. The Secretary must ensure the matter is noted in the register of interests. Board members are expected to disclose the nature, extent, and potential value of any relevant interest and the identities of any other individuals involved.
:: Where Wikimedia UK is engaged in a project involving other parties where there is any likelihood a Board member might benefit personally, this must to be disclosed to those parties."
: To amend the text that currently reads:
: "If, after discussion, it is concluded that a board member has a conflict of interest in a proposed transaction, the decision must be considered by the Board. The conflicted member must excuse themselves from any vote on the transaction and will not be counted as part of the quorum. They may take part in an initial discussion, but the final decision must be made by the remaining board members that do not have a conflict of interest, following a final in camera discussion. If a transaction is approved, the Board must ensure that appropriate controls are in place."
: to read as follows:
: "If, after discussion, it is concluded that a board member has a conflict of interest in a proposal, the decision must be considered by the Board. The conflicted member must leave the room to allow the rest of the Board to discuss the issue and vote on it. The point at which the conflicted trustee does so must be recorded in the minutes. The conflicted trustee will not be counted as part of the quorum for any votes taken in their absence.

* Insert a new section entitled "Employment related to the Charity"
: To add the text: "Trustees should not seek or accept any post or form of remuneration from organisations funded by Wikimedia UK for a period of six monthsnote 1 after they have been a member of the board, without the express permission of the board. Permission will usually be granted in the case of a trustee applying for a Wikimedian in Residence post, provided that that the trustee has absented themselves from discussions that lead to the creation, funding or agreement of the post. It is likely that the Board will need to seek the permission of the Charity Commission in such circumstances."
: "If at any point a trustee wishes to apply for a central staff post, the trustee must stand down from the board in advance of applying and only apply with the permission of the Charity Commission if this is required. If unsuccessful, they should not be eligible to re-join the board for 12 months."

'''''Discussion points'''''
:''[note 1] Should we adopt a longer period?

:Additional item per talk page:

* The board asks the Governance Committee to look into the impact of the conflict of interest policy on trustee recruitment and to report back to the board within 3 months.

== Conflicts of Interest (B)==
''only to be considered if the Foundation board ratify the draft guidelines.''
: To amend the Conflict of Interest policy as follows, inserting at the end of "Disclosure"
: Trustees are further expected to follow the Wikimedia Foundation's "Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest" http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest

==Delegation of authority==
The Board asks the Chief Executive to propose at the next Board meeting a formal statement of delegated authority, taking from appropriate models where appropriate.

..alternative motion per talk page discussion:

The Board asks the Chief Executive and Chair to jointly undertake a review of: 
a) the current implementation of the chapter's vision for the relationship between paid staff and volunteers as set out in [[Volunteer Policy]], 
b) the impact on this vision if the changes proposed by the Governance Review were implemented in full, and 
c) delegated authority given to the Chief Executive, taking from appropriate models where appropriate, 

and to report back on the above to the Board.

Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-08T23:43:34Z

AndrewRT: /* Delegation of authority */

These are a set of draft motions intended to provide a structure for our discussion on Saturday. Comments and suggested amendments are of course welcome. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 17:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

==Welcoming the review==
The Board welcomes the report of the independent review of Wikimedia UK's governance conducted by Compass Partnership and believes the recommendations contained within it are an important step forward in the development of our charity.

==Establishment of Governance Committee==
The Board resolves to establish a Governance Committee. The remit of the Governance Committee will be to:
# review the performance of governance by the Board, the Chair and individual trustees on an ongoing basis, including
## reviewing the performance of the Chair once every two years
## reviewing the performance of each Trustee before the end of their term of office
# produce recommendations for role profiles for the positions of Chair, Secretary, Treasurer and Vice-Chair in line with charity good practice models
# identify skills and experience required on the board and those that are currently met and unmet
# monitoring the diversity of the Board and identifying steps to improve it
# inform members of the skills and experience the organisation requires on the board and when appropriate actively encouraging people with those skills to stand for election
# manage the process of electing trustees in conjunction with the Tellers, including checking that potential conflicts of interest are declared in advance and are permissible and manageable, reviewing the voting system if required, and proposing any policies to inform candidature
# advise the board, when required, on the eligibility of applicants for membership of the Charity
# manage the process for the succession of the Chair
# produce other governance recommendations for the Board as appropriate
# to conduct a review of our existing proposals for [[Board/Fellows and Associates|Fellows and Associates]] and and [[Advisory Board]] and to produce a recommendation, including definitions of any expectations we would have of people in those positions

The Governance Committee will consist of between three and five people appointed by the Board of Trustees, to include the Chair of the Board of Trustees and two to four other people. In the event that the Articles of Association prevent non-Trustees from serving on Committees, the Board may appoint observers to the Committee who may attend and and take part in the deliberations of the Committee but shall have no vote. In any event the majority of members of the Committee shall be Trustees of the charity.

The proceedings of the Governance Committee will be reported to the Board at each Board meeting.

== Establishment of Audit Committee ==
The Board resolves to establish an Audit Committee. The remit of the Audit Committee will be to:
# make recommendations to the board on the appointment of auditors
# preview the annual report and accounts, to ensure a quality document goes to the board
# review the charity’s annual statement on internal control and its compliance with regulatory guidance and recommending it to the board
# preview the risk register to ensure that a considered document goes to the board
# undertake other Audit Committee responsibilities as set out in the guidance from the UK Charity Finance Group.

The Audit Committee will consist of between three and five people appointed by the Board of Trustees, to include the Treasurer and two to four other people. In the event that the Articles of Association prevent non-Trustees from serving on Committees, the Board may appoint observers to the Committee who may attend and and take part in the deliberations of the Committee but shall have no vote. In any event the majority of members of the Committee shall be Trustees of the charity.

The proceedings of the Audit Committee will be reported to the Board at each Board meeting.

==Board structure==
The Board notes the proposal in the Governance Review to amend the board structure so that future Boards will consist of six elected and three co-opted trustees, each serving for a two-year term and to have up to two additional transitional board members.

The Board asks the Chief Executive to draft a proposal in response to this recommendation, in discussion with the community and in conjunction with others and with such legal advice as may be appropriate, to be presented to the board in time for submission to the AGM.

==Conflict of Interest (A) ==

To amend the Conflict of Interest policy as follows:

* Under "Background": to add the statement "Trustees must not use their Wikimedia UK position or title to advance any private interests and must ensure a clear distinction between their role as Trustees and any other activity they engage in."

* Under "Disclosure":
: To amend the text "Where we are discussing a relationship with a third party, any board member's prior relationship which may create a potential conflict of interest must be discussed with the Company Secretary or the full board before any decision is made. Where a decision is being made by an initiative leader, the board member is expected to raise the issue with them, and they must discuss the matter with the Company Secretary or the full board. The Secretary must note the matter in the register of interests."
: to read: "Any board member's potential conflict of interest must be discussed with the Chair or the full board before any decision is made. The Secretary must ensure the matter is noted in the register of interests. Board members are expected to disclose the nature, extent, and potential value of any relevant interest and the identities of any other individuals involved.
:: Where Wikimedia UK is engaged in a project involving other parties where there is any likelihood a Board member might benefit personally, this must to be disclosed to those parties."
: To amend the text that currently reads:
: "If, after discussion, it is concluded that a board member has a conflict of interest in a proposed transaction, the decision must be considered by the Board. The conflicted member must excuse themselves from any vote on the transaction and will not be counted as part of the quorum. They may take part in an initial discussion, but the final decision must be made by the remaining board members that do not have a conflict of interest, following a final in camera discussion. If a transaction is approved, the Board must ensure that appropriate controls are in place."
: to read as follows:
: "If, after discussion, it is concluded that a board member has a conflict of interest in a proposal, the decision must be considered by the Board. The conflicted member must leave the room to allow the rest of the Board to discuss the issue and vote on it. The point at which the conflicted trustee does so must be recorded in the minutes. The conflicted trustee will not be counted as part of the quorum for any votes taken in their absence.

* Insert a new section entitled "Employment related to the Charity"
: To add the text: "Trustees should not seek or accept any post or form of remuneration from organisations funded by Wikimedia UK for a period of six monthsnote 1 after they have been a member of the board, without the express permission of the board. Permission will usually be granted in the case of a trustee applying for a Wikimedian in Residence post, provided that that the trustee has absented themselves from discussions that lead to the creation, funding or agreement of the post. It is likely that the Board will need to seek the permission of the Charity Commission in such circumstances."
: "If at any point a trustee wishes to apply for a central staff post, the trustee must stand down from the board in advance of applying and only apply with the permission of the Charity Commission if this is required. If unsuccessful, they should not be eligible to re-join the board for 12 months."

'''''Discussion points'''''
:''[note 1] Should we adopt a longer period?

:Additional item per talk page:

* The board asks the Governance Committee to look into the impact of the conflict of interest policy on trustee recruitment and to report back to the board within 3 months.

== Conflicts of Interest (B)==
''only to be considered if the Foundation board ratify the draft guidelines.''
: To amend the Conflict of Interest policy as follows, inserting at the end of "Disclosure"
: Trustees are further expected to follow the Wikimedia Foundation's "Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest" http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest

==Delegation of authority==
The Board asks the Chief Executive to propose at the next Board meeting a formal statement of delegated authority, taking from appropriate models where appropriate.

..alternative motion per talk page discussion:

The Board asks the Chief Executive and Chair to jointly undertake a review of:
a) the current implementation of the chapter's vision for the relationship between paid staff and volunteers as set out in [[Volunteer Policy]],
b) the impact on this vision if the changes proposed by the Governance Review were implemented in full, and
c) delegated authority given to the Chief Executive, taking from appropriate models where appropriate,

and to report back on the above to the Board.

Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-08T23:36:28Z

AndrewRT: /* Election rules */ revise per talk page

Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-08T23:32:49Z

AndrewRT: /* Maximum number of directors */ combine per talk page

These are a set of draft motions intended to provide a structure for our discussion on Saturday. Comments and suggested amendments are of course welcome. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 17:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

==Welcoming the review==
The Board welcomes the report of the independent review of Wikimedia UK's governance conducted by Compass Partnership and believes the recommendations contained within it are an important step forward in the development of our charity.

==Establishment of Governance Committee==
The Board resolves to establish a Governance Committee. The remit of the Governance Committee will be to:
# review the performance of governance by the Board, the Chair and individual trustees on an ongoing basis, including
## reviewing the performance of the Chair once every two years
## reviewing the performance of each Trustee before the end of their term of office
# produce recommendations for role profiles for the positions of Chair, Secretary, Treasurer and Vice-Chair in line with charity good practice models
# identify skills and experience required on the board and those that are currently met and unmet
# monitoring the diversity of the Board and identifying steps to improve it
# inform members of the skills and experience the organisation requires on the board and when appropriate actively encouraging people with those skills to stand for election
# manage the process of electing trustees in conjunction with the Tellers, including checking that potential conflicts of interest are declared in advance and are permissible and manageable, reviewing the voting system if required, and proposing any policies to inform candidature
# advise the board, when required, on the eligibility of applicants for membership of the Charity
# manage the process for the succession of the Chair
# produce other governance recommendations for the Board as appropriate
# to conduct a review of our existing proposals for [[Board/Fellows and Associates|Fellows and Associates]] and and [[Advisory Board]] and to produce a recommendation, including definitions of any expectations we would have of people in those positions

The Governance Committee will consist of between three and five people appointed by the Board of Trustees, to include the Chair of the Board of Trustees and two to four other people. In the event that the Articles of Association prevent non-Trustees from serving on Committees, the Board may appoint observers to the Committee who may attend and and take part in the deliberations of the Committee but shall have no vote. In any event the majority of members of the Committee shall be Trustees of the charity.

The proceedings of the Governance Committee will be reported to the Board at each Board meeting.

== Establishment of Audit Committee ==
The Board resolves to establish an Audit Committee. The remit of the Audit Committee will be to:
# make recommendations to the board on the appointment of auditors
# preview the annual report and accounts, to ensure a quality document goes to the board
# review the charity’s annual statement on internal control and its compliance with regulatory guidance and recommending it to the board
# preview the risk register to ensure that a considered document goes to the board
# undertake other Audit Committee responsibilities as set out in the guidance from the UK Charity Finance Group.

The Audit Committee will consist of between three and five people appointed by the Board of Trustees, to include the Treasurer and two to four other people. In the event that the Articles of Association prevent non-Trustees from serving on Committees, the Board may appoint observers to the Committee who may attend and and take part in the deliberations of the Committee but shall have no vote. In any event the majority of members of the Committee shall be Trustees of the charity.

The proceedings of the Audit Committee will be reported to the Board at each Board meeting.

==Election rules==
The Board notes the proposal in the Governance Review to amend the system of electing trustees so that future Boards will consist of six elected and three co-opted trustees, each serving for a two-year term, and recommends this proposal to the membership.

The Board asks the Chief Executive to ensure an appropriately-phrased resolution is drafted, with such legal advice as may be appropriate, to bring this change into effect.

==Conflict of Interest (A) ==

To amend the Conflict of Interest policy as follows:

* Under "Background": to add the statement "Trustees must not use their Wikimedia UK position or title to advance any private interests and must ensure a clear distinction between their role as Trustees and any other activity they engage in."

* Under "Disclosure":
: To amend the text "Where we are discussing a relationship with a third party, any board member's prior relationship which may create a potential conflict of interest must be discussed with the Company Secretary or the full board before any decision is made. Where a decision is being made by an initiative leader, the board member is expected to raise the issue with them, and they must discuss the matter with the Company Secretary or the full board. The Secretary must note the matter in the register of interests."
: to read: "Any board member's potential conflict of interest must be discussed with the Chair or the full board before any decision is made. The Secretary must ensure the matter is noted in the register of interests. Board members are expected to disclose the nature, extent, and potential value of any relevant interest and the identities of any other individuals involved.
:: Where Wikimedia UK is engaged in a project involving other parties where there is any likelihood a Board member might benefit personally, this must to be disclosed to those parties."
: To amend the text that currently reads:
: "If, after discussion, it is concluded that a board member has a conflict of interest in a proposed transaction, the decision must be considered by the Board. The conflicted member must excuse themselves from any vote on the transaction and will not be counted as part of the quorum. They may take part in an initial discussion, but the final decision must be made by the remaining board members that do not have a conflict of interest, following a final in camera discussion. If a transaction is approved, the Board must ensure that appropriate controls are in place."
: to read as follows:
: "If, after discussion, it is concluded that a board member has a conflict of interest in a proposal, the decision must be considered by the Board. The conflicted member must leave the room to allow the rest of the Board to discuss the issue and vote on it. The point at which the conflicted trustee does so must be recorded in the minutes. The conflicted trustee will not be counted as part of the quorum for any votes taken in their absence.

* Insert a new section entitled "Employment related to the Charity"
: To add the text: "Trustees should not seek or accept any post or form of remuneration from organisations funded by Wikimedia UK for a period of six monthsnote 1 after they have been a member of the board, without the express permission of the board. Permission will usually be granted in the case of a trustee applying for a Wikimedian in Residence post, provided that that the trustee has absented themselves from discussions that lead to the creation, funding or agreement of the post. It is likely that the Board will need to seek the permission of the Charity Commission in such circumstances."
: "If at any point a trustee wishes to apply for a central staff post, the trustee must stand down from the board in advance of applying and only apply with the permission of the Charity Commission if this is required. If unsuccessful, they should not be eligible to re-join the board for 12 months."

'''''Discussion points'''''
:''[note 1] Should we adopt a longer period?

:Additional item per talk page:

* The board asks the Governance Committee to look into the impact of the conflict of interest policy on trustee recruitment and to report back to the board within 3 months.

== Conflicts of Interest (B)==
''only to be considered if the Foundation board ratify the draft guidelines.''
: To amend the Conflict of Interest policy as follows, inserting at the end of "Disclosure"
: Trustees are further expected to follow the Wikimedia Foundation's "Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest" http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest

==Delegation of authority==
The Board asks the Chief Executive to propose at the next Board meeting a formal statement of delegated authority, taking from appropriate models where appropriate.

Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-08T23:32:07Z

AndrewRT: /* Conflict of Interest (A) */ +consider & report back impact on trustee recruitment

These are a set of draft motions intended to provide a structure for our discussion on Saturday. Comments and suggested amendments are of course welcome. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 17:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

==Welcoming the review==
The Board welcomes the report of the independent review of Wikimedia UK's governance conducted by Compass Partnership and believes the recommendations contained within it are an important step forward in the development of our charity.

==Establishment of Governance Committee==
The Board resolves to establish a Governance Committee. The remit of the Governance Committee will be to:
# review the performance of governance by the Board, the Chair and individual trustees on an ongoing basis, including
## reviewing the performance of the Chair once every two years
## reviewing the performance of each Trustee before the end of their term of office
# produce recommendations for role profiles for the positions of Chair, Secretary, Treasurer and Vice-Chair in line with charity good practice models
# identify skills and experience required on the board and those that are currently met and unmet
# monitoring the diversity of the Board and identifying steps to improve it
# inform members of the skills and experience the organisation requires on the board and when appropriate actively encouraging people with those skills to stand for election
# manage the process of electing trustees in conjunction with the Tellers, including checking that potential conflicts of interest are declared in advance and are permissible and manageable, reviewing the voting system if required, and proposing any policies to inform candidature
# advise the board, when required, on the eligibility of applicants for membership of the Charity
# manage the process for the succession of the Chair
# produce other governance recommendations for the Board as appropriate
# to conduct a review of our existing proposals for [[Board/Fellows and Associates|Fellows and Associates]] and and [[Advisory Board]] and to produce a recommendation, including definitions of any expectations we would have of people in those positions

The Governance Committee will consist of between three and five people appointed by the Board of Trustees, to include the Chair of the Board of Trustees and two to four other people. In the event that the Articles of Association prevent non-Trustees from serving on Committees, the Board may appoint observers to the Committee who may attend and and take part in the deliberations of the Committee but shall have no vote. In any event the majority of members of the Committee shall be Trustees of the charity.

The proceedings of the Governance Committee will be reported to the Board at each Board meeting.

== Establishment of Audit Committee ==
The Board resolves to establish an Audit Committee. The remit of the Audit Committee will be to:
# make recommendations to the board on the appointment of auditors
# preview the annual report and accounts, to ensure a quality document goes to the board
# review the charity’s annual statement on internal control and its compliance with regulatory guidance and recommending it to the board
# preview the risk register to ensure that a considered document goes to the board
# undertake other Audit Committee responsibilities as set out in the guidance from the UK Charity Finance Group.

The Audit Committee will consist of between three and five people appointed by the Board of Trustees, to include the Treasurer and two to four other people. In the event that the Articles of Association prevent non-Trustees from serving on Committees, the Board may appoint observers to the Committee who may attend and and take part in the deliberations of the Committee but shall have no vote. In any event the majority of members of the Committee shall be Trustees of the charity.

The proceedings of the Audit Committee will be reported to the Board at each Board meeting.

==Maximum number of directors==
The Board will recommend the following Ordinary Resolution to the membership at the next General Meeting:
: "Whereas Article 14.3 of the Articles of Association states that "The number of Directors shall be not less than three but (unless otherwise determined by ordinary resolution) shall not be subject to any maximum";
: Whereas since the 2009 AGM a maximum of seven has applied;
: Noting the recommendations of Compass Partnership's review of the Company's governance, the maximum number of Directors shall from today be eleven."

==Election rules==
The Board notes the proposal in the Governance Review to amend the system of electing trustees so that future Boards will consist of six elected and three co-opted trustees, each serving for a two-year term, and recommends this proposal to the membership.

The Board asks the Chief Executive to ensure an appropriately-phrased resolution is drafted, with such legal advice as may be appropriate, to bring this change into effect.

==Conflict of Interest (A) ==

To amend the Conflict of Interest policy as follows:

* Under "Background": to add the statement "Trustees must not use their Wikimedia UK position or title to advance any private interests and must ensure a clear distinction between their role as Trustees and any other activity they engage in."

* Under "Disclosure":
: To amend the text "Where we are discussing a relationship with a third party, any board member's prior relationship which may create a potential conflict of interest must be discussed with the Company Secretary or the full board before any decision is made. Where a decision is being made by an initiative leader, the board member is expected to raise the issue with them, and they must discuss the matter with the Company Secretary or the full board. The Secretary must note the matter in the register of interests."
: to read: "Any board member's potential conflict of interest must be discussed with the Chair or the full board before any decision is made. The Secretary must ensure the matter is noted in the register of interests. Board members are expected to disclose the nature, extent, and potential value of any relevant interest and the identities of any other individuals involved.
:: Where Wikimedia UK is engaged in a project involving other parties where there is any likelihood a Board member might benefit personally, this must to be disclosed to those parties."
: To amend the text that currently reads:
: "If, after discussion, it is concluded that a board member has a conflict of interest in a proposed transaction, the decision must be considered by the Board. The conflicted member must excuse themselves from any vote on the transaction and will not be counted as part of the quorum. They may take part in an initial discussion, but the final decision must be made by the remaining board members that do not have a conflict of interest, following a final in camera discussion. If a transaction is approved, the Board must ensure that appropriate controls are in place."
: to read as follows:
: "If, after discussion, it is concluded that a board member has a conflict of interest in a proposal, the decision must be considered by the Board. The conflicted member must leave the room to allow the rest of the Board to discuss the issue and vote on it. The point at which the conflicted trustee does so must be recorded in the minutes. The conflicted trustee will not be counted as part of the quorum for any votes taken in their absence.

* Insert a new section entitled "Employment related to the Charity"
: To add the text: "Trustees should not seek or accept any post or form of remuneration from organisations funded by Wikimedia UK for a period of six monthsnote 1 after they have been a member of the board, without the express permission of the board. Permission will usually be granted in the case of a trustee applying for a Wikimedian in Residence post, provided that that the trustee has absented themselves from discussions that lead to the creation, funding or agreement of the post. It is likely that the Board will need to seek the permission of the Charity Commission in such circumstances."
: "If at any point a trustee wishes to apply for a central staff post, the trustee must stand down from the board in advance of applying and only apply with the permission of the Charity Commission if this is required. If unsuccessful, they should not be eligible to re-join the board for 12 months."

'''''Discussion points'''''
:''[note 1] Should we adopt a longer period?

:Additional item per talk page:

* The board asks the Governance Committee to look into the impact of the conflict of interest policy on trustee recruitment and to report back to the board within 3 months.

== Conflicts of Interest (B)==
''only to be considered if the Foundation board ratify the draft guidelines.''
: To amend the Conflict of Interest policy as follows, inserting at the end of "Disclosure"
: Trustees are further expected to follow the Wikimedia Foundation's "Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest" http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest

==Delegation of authority==
The Board asks the Chief Executive to propose at the next Board meeting a formal statement of delegated authority, taking from appropriate models where appropriate.

Talk:Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-08T23:27:30Z

AndrewRT: /* Delegation */

== Timing and consultation ==

As a general point, I am a but concerned that these motions will bounce the chapter into making some pretty fundamental changes without having fully considered the implications and without having adequately consulted the community. A 36 page report was published at 5:20pm on Thursday and you're proposing to adopt motions to implement these at 11:45am on Saturday. I'll add some comments on the particular issues below, but I'd like to ask generally whether you think this is adequate or whether it is necessary to rush these changes in like this? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 22:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks for raising this Andrew. The board has 5 trustees right now, you can imagine what that does to our available 'bandwidth' and stress levels when we have other commitments as well. No, I would not claim to have sufficiently considered implications or consulted the community, even if some of the decisions are quite easy in principle and have been around for a while (such as having a larger number of trustees on the board, to me that's an easy one to agree that I recall discussing when you were our Chairman). However we should be able to draft resolutions (or action their creation) which can then have wide consultation and discussion, and agree which must be a priority for the AGM, to be seen to be addressing the recommendations of the independent governance assessment. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
::Sometimes having a draft resolution can help focus discussion, but these resolutions are pretty much copy-and-paste jobs from the recommendations, so I don't think they add much value at this stage. We should have the wide consultation, perhaps a couple of workshops, then we can decide which recommendations we want to implement totally, which we want to implement partially, with some modifications, and which we don't want at all. Once we've done that, we can start drafting resolutions. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 23:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:::That sounds like a year long consultation. We will need to agree a schedule that can get the most important changes identified, consulted on, and drafted, reviewed and ready to vote on, well before the AGM. Maybe we are looking at phase 1, 2 and 3 that will span a year of change and improvement? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Regarding the changes to the constitution, I've suggested an approach below which kicks off the process, ensures the leg work gets done, leaves room for plenty of consultation but also gets us a proposal to vote on in time for the June AGM. Is that an approach you could support? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Probably, these are massive changes and I trust your view to be highly knowledgeable. I like the workshopping process, as with big topics I'm feeling less sure that what I understand as a noddy sixty second summary at the trustee level, does enough for me to really claim to have delivered on the strategy setting part of the trustee role. I would like committees to perform and have meaningful delegated power, and perhaps GovCom is a way to get my confidence back that the in-depth spadework of understanding the governance review, assessing charity best practice, bouncing around the options and piecing together a realistic time-frame and writing it up as something legally robust, credibly helps our mission and can be 'sold' to our members is the sort of thing that is not left to a stressed trustee juggling several balls, even if they enjoy juggling.
:::::Hm, I doubt this will all crystallize out before this weekend's board meeting, but I may be making a mountain out of a molehill when it gets explained face to face, so I'll defer judgement as to what is or is not practical for a while longer. I am darn certain that the current board is going to be critically reliant on our network of experienced volunteers and past trustees to help out here, so I'm glad you are already involved. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 00:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::A year sounds about right for the whole process - creating a governance committee, then drawing up skill grids and then reviewing board members could be quite a long process, for example. We might be able to make some decisions by the AGM, though. The AGM isn't until June. If we want to vote on the board composition stuff at the AGM (which would be good), then we probably need a final resolution (or collection of resolutions and amendments if there isn't a clear consensus on the way to go) a month before (I can't remember the required notice period, but it's about that), so call it end of April. How about a workshop in mid-March, with online discussion before and after? That should give us enough time to do this properly. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 00:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::That timeline makes sense to me. There's a lot in this report that needs digesting and careful consideration. I hope the AGM will include an opportunity to present this report and debate the response and that will take us forward quite a bit. These two committees can be established relatively quickly and can easily be "undone" or adjusted if the later consensus is that they are overblown or a mistake so I don't see any objection with doing it on Saturday. In the meantime, the Audit Committee can get on with approving this year's accounts and the Governance Committee can get on with organising this year's Trustee Recruitment process - both of which are needed prior to the AGM. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

== Committees ==

Appointing committees is an easy step to "undo" if it doesn't work or if there is strong opposition, so on that basis I agree that you could do this now. Regarding the Governance Committee, given that the next set of elections is only a few months away it would be good to get that started ASAP. Likewise with the Audit Committee, it would be nice to have this complete by the AGM so the accounts can be signed off by then. I'm a bit confused how you "establish" a committee without actually appointing named individuals to be on it? Are you planning to do this bit later? Finally, you seem to have missed out the point about diversity in the GovCom terms of reference ("''the Governance Committee should stress the importance of having a diverse board. Continuing efforts should be made to achieve diversity including finding women trustees''") [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 22:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

== Number of board members & co-option ==

One of the criticisms levelled at the board at the EGM was the inability of community members to propose amendments to constitutional changes and it was agreed at the time that this would be avoided in future. Given the time before the AGM, it's not necessary for the Board to adopt a definitive motion now, without any consultation. Instead, I would suggest a single motion to request the Chief Executive to draft a proposal, in discussion with the community and in conjunction with others, to implement the increased number of board members and expanded power to co-opt. Following discussion, it can then be agreed by the board (possibly in April) for recommendation to the AGM. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

:Yes, that's probably a more sensible way of doing it. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 08:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

== Conflict of interest ==

The main item of substance here seems to be regarding accepting paid employment after leaving the board. It also, albeit implicitly, makes the "interim" change [[Minutes_17Nov12#Policy_Revision|that was made in November]]. Whilst this seems eminently reasonable, the board needs to consider the other side of the argument, viz. the risk that having excessively strict rules in this area would lead to substantial challenges in recruiting suitable trustees. I'm not sure the board has seen or requested any evidence on that and it may be appropriate to delay this decision until that information was available - in particular, given this will only have a significant impact after the June AGM. as an alternative, you could make this decision as an interim step, but commission the information so that you can review, say in a couple of months. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

:In my view the main thing we've learned from this whole situation is that we need to adopt a very cautious approach to protecting the Wikimedia name, and we need cautious policies on COIs as a result. Equally, we find it relatively easy to attract interest from prospective trustees. So I'm pretty certain where the balance lies for us now. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 08:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

::I'm less convinced. In 2010, [[Meetings/2010_AGM/Minutes|we only had five candidates for seven places]] - and even then one candidate only scraped past the 50% threshold. The board is clearly struggling to find replacements for the trustees who have resigned. If you're also saying that you need to pass strict COI rules and that volunteers who want to play a hands-on role running projects can't be on the board (as the review infers) then you could very quickly find yourself with fewer candidates than places.

::That said and having thought this through I'd like to suggest a solution: at the same time as passing this motion, the board should ask the new GovCom to look into the impact of the COI rules on trustee recruitment and to report back, say within 3 months. If it is found to be a problem, the board could then have the opportunity to reconsider the matter. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

== Delegation ==

I've left the most contentious issue till last :). The review says a lot of things about changing the things that board members do. I remember discussions at the board years ago about how the role was going to change with a Chief Executive and specifically about how the board would move to a more strategic and oversight role. We also talked about how a different role would be developed for volunteers (including people who were currently board members) who were more interested in leading projects. I agree that this is the right way to go. However, there is a real risk that in doing only the first bit, you not only change the relationship between the board and the chief executive but also, more fundamentally, change the relationship between volunteers generally and paid staff. This could go against everything that was articulated in the [[Vision]] - "the contribution of volunteers is central to the activity of the organisation" - and the clear and explicit target operating model that is set out in the [[Volunteer Policy]].

Therefore I would suggest that this change needs to go hand in hand with a review of the implementation of the Volunteer Policy and how a non-board role should be developed for volunteers who want to play a leading role in leading projects.

In addition, it seems odd that the Chief Executive is being asked to propose what powers should be delegated to him. If I were him, I might be tempted to just say "give me everything"! A more appropriate motion could be to ask the Chief Executive and Chair jointly to develop a proposal for delegated authority and to do this in conjunction with the proposal above. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

:My main disagreement with the recommendations on the subject of delegation is with the role of the chair. The recommendations would give the chair a lot of power (including making unilateral decisions inbetween board meetings). Given the number of times the chair and CE are expected to be doing things together in the recommendations, I think we need to discuss the role of the chair at the same time as discussion the role of the CE. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 00:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

:On the most fundamental point about volunteer/staff relationships - I agree, we need to ensure there is a defined way for volunteers to lead projects, including what expectations we have of people doing so. But we do also need to have a much clearer set of delegated authority for the Chief Exec.
:Regarding the Chair - yes, we do need to discuss the role of Chair - have a look at [[Board/Role profiles]] for the progress that discussion has made to date. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 08:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::Indeed, there has been a lot of discussion already. Some of the conclusions reached contradict these recommendations (particularly the one about the chair making decisions between meetings - even the idea of exec comm doing that was rejected) so will need to be revisited. (I think our original conclusions were correct and we should reject that recommendation, but we need to give it careful thought before doing that.) --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 12:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::You know which way I will be voting, I have been vocal enough in the past. I ''fully'' support empowering committees with clear delegation, but will remain against creating special Orwellian super-trustee powers, just because they are wearing a hat - such solutions devalue the point of (elected) trustee votes. Similarly GovCom will have to pay special attention to the trustee co-option process, this is not an issue now, but could easily lead to oddities of votes from co-opted trustees giving an apparent bias against community based values of the charity, which may not be the 'norm' for most charities. With 11 trustees, and our experience of 'retirements' it might easily be the case that in a years time co-opted trustees outnumber elected trustees. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Indeed - with 3 co-opted and 6 elected trustees, it only takes two resignations with the vacancies filled by co-option for the balance of power to shift. That's definitely something to consider - the argument for filling vacancies with an EGM rather than co-option becomes much stronger. One option is not to have 3 co-opted trustees, but rather have 3 trustees that are appointed at the AGM by a separate motion proposed by the board that members get a simple aye/nay vote on (that also has the advantage of not needing to amend the articles, just the election rules, which is slightly simpler). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 13:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::The board of trustees could also just create GovCom with a power of veto over new co-options, with some guidance as to when this is likely to be used. This could quell too many serial co-options, an additional veto against co-opting where there is a dispute over past relationships (such as co-opting a past employee of a supplier organization), or potentially force the board to choose to run an EGM, rather than allow the board to create a majority of non-elected trustees - though in this later scenario I would hope our members would call an EGM independently to hold us to account. A disaster scenario where trustees were resigning in disgust one after the other, should not result in an apathetic result of leaving us with a board with no evidence of a democratic mandate; it would be a counter-intuitive and potentially unstable outcome. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::The recommendations envisage GovCom nominating people for co-option, don't they? So giving them a veto isn't much help. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 16:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I cannot see that in this document though, perhaps it should be? Personally, I would see no problem in accepting trustee nominations from any source (we have the opposite problem at the moment), so a veto is still a useful power. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Having looked back, I've overstated it slightly. Recommendation 10 has GovCom taking the lead in finding people to be co-opted, it doesn't go so far as to have it deciding on the nominations. If it prepares the shortlist, there still isn't much point it vetoing the board's decision. It also doesn't make much sense for a sub-committee of the board (even if it does have one or two non-trustees on it) to be vetoing decisions of the whole board. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::The way that co-option works at the moment is that every trustee has the power of veto on a proposed co-option. It seems reasonable that the vote happens in-camera, but you can probably guess that by the time a candidate is put forward and the trustees have had a chance to meet the candidate (I certainly would not want to vote for someone I had not met), getting a positive outcome is pretty certain. I agree that if GovCom is preparing the shortlist, then there has already been a suitable external review. Anyway, our discussion here certainly shows there are several options on the way this might work, and I guess that shortly after it is empowered, GovCom itself should be tasked to propose how this could work better than it does now. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::The details of how the co-option process would work will need to be in the proposal that the Chief Executive will be tasked to develop, so I look forward to seeing that draft. My current thoughts are that the three co-options should be a maximum - i.e. replacing the current powers to co-opt resigned board members rather than acting in addition. You could also strengthen the controls to make these co-options via a unanimous board votes as they are at the moment (perhaps on the recommendation of GovCom). [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-08T23:26:19Z

AndrewRT: /* Delegation */

== Timing and consultation ==

As a general point, I am a but concerned that these motions will bounce the chapter into making some pretty fundamental changes without having fully considered the implications and without having adequately consulted the community. A 36 page report was published at 5:20pm on Thursday and you're proposing to adopt motions to implement these at 11:45am on Saturday. I'll add some comments on the particular issues below, but I'd like to ask generally whether you think this is adequate or whether it is necessary to rush these changes in like this? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 22:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks for raising this Andrew. The board has 5 trustees right now, you can imagine what that does to our available 'bandwidth' and stress levels when we have other commitments as well. No, I would not claim to have sufficiently considered implications or consulted the community, even if some of the decisions are quite easy in principle and have been around for a while (such as having a larger number of trustees on the board, to me that's an easy one to agree that I recall discussing when you were our Chairman). However we should be able to draft resolutions (or action their creation) which can then have wide consultation and discussion, and agree which must be a priority for the AGM, to be seen to be addressing the recommendations of the independent governance assessment. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
::Sometimes having a draft resolution can help focus discussion, but these resolutions are pretty much copy-and-paste jobs from the recommendations, so I don't think they add much value at this stage. We should have the wide consultation, perhaps a couple of workshops, then we can decide which recommendations we want to implement totally, which we want to implement partially, with some modifications, and which we don't want at all. Once we've done that, we can start drafting resolutions. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 23:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:::That sounds like a year long consultation. We will need to agree a schedule that can get the most important changes identified, consulted on, and drafted, reviewed and ready to vote on, well before the AGM. Maybe we are looking at phase 1, 2 and 3 that will span a year of change and improvement? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Regarding the changes to the constitution, I've suggested an approach below which kicks off the process, ensures the leg work gets done, leaves room for plenty of consultation but also gets us a proposal to vote on in time for the June AGM. Is that an approach you could support? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Probably, these are massive changes and I trust your view to be highly knowledgeable. I like the workshopping process, as with big topics I'm feeling less sure that what I understand as a noddy sixty second summary at the trustee level, does enough for me to really claim to have delivered on the strategy setting part of the trustee role. I would like committees to perform and have meaningful delegated power, and perhaps GovCom is a way to get my confidence back that the in-depth spadework of understanding the governance review, assessing charity best practice, bouncing around the options and piecing together a realistic time-frame and writing it up as something legally robust, credibly helps our mission and can be 'sold' to our members is the sort of thing that is not left to a stressed trustee juggling several balls, even if they enjoy juggling.
:::::Hm, I doubt this will all crystallize out before this weekend's board meeting, but I may be making a mountain out of a molehill when it gets explained face to face, so I'll defer judgement as to what is or is not practical for a while longer. I am darn certain that the current board is going to be critically reliant on our network of experienced volunteers and past trustees to help out here, so I'm glad you are already involved. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 00:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::A year sounds about right for the whole process - creating a governance committee, then drawing up skill grids and then reviewing board members could be quite a long process, for example. We might be able to make some decisions by the AGM, though. The AGM isn't until June. If we want to vote on the board composition stuff at the AGM (which would be good), then we probably need a final resolution (or collection of resolutions and amendments if there isn't a clear consensus on the way to go) a month before (I can't remember the required notice period, but it's about that), so call it end of April. How about a workshop in mid-March, with online discussion before and after? That should give us enough time to do this properly. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 00:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::That timeline makes sense to me. There's a lot in this report that needs digesting and careful consideration. I hope the AGM will include an opportunity to present this report and debate the response and that will take us forward quite a bit. These two committees can be established relatively quickly and can easily be "undone" or adjusted if the later consensus is that they are overblown or a mistake so I don't see any objection with doing it on Saturday. In the meantime, the Audit Committee can get on with approving this year's accounts and the Governance Committee can get on with organising this year's Trustee Recruitment process - both of which are needed prior to the AGM. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

== Committees ==

Appointing committees is an easy step to "undo" if it doesn't work or if there is strong opposition, so on that basis I agree that you could do this now. Regarding the Governance Committee, given that the next set of elections is only a few months away it would be good to get that started ASAP. Likewise with the Audit Committee, it would be nice to have this complete by the AGM so the accounts can be signed off by then. I'm a bit confused how you "establish" a committee without actually appointing named individuals to be on it? Are you planning to do this bit later? Finally, you seem to have missed out the point about diversity in the GovCom terms of reference ("''the Governance Committee should stress the importance of having a diverse board. Continuing efforts should be made to achieve diversity including finding women trustees''") [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 22:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

== Number of board members & co-option ==

One of the criticisms levelled at the board at the EGM was the inability of community members to propose amendments to constitutional changes and it was agreed at the time that this would be avoided in future. Given the time before the AGM, it's not necessary for the Board to adopt a definitive motion now, without any consultation. Instead, I would suggest a single motion to request the Chief Executive to draft a proposal, in discussion with the community and in conjunction with others, to implement the increased number of board members and expanded power to co-opt. Following discussion, it can then be agreed by the board (possibly in April) for recommendation to the AGM. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

:Yes, that's probably a more sensible way of doing it. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 08:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

== Conflict of interest ==

The main item of substance here seems to be regarding accepting paid employment after leaving the board. It also, albeit implicitly, makes the "interim" change [[Minutes_17Nov12#Policy_Revision|that was made in November]]. Whilst this seems eminently reasonable, the board needs to consider the other side of the argument, viz. the risk that having excessively strict rules in this area would lead to substantial challenges in recruiting suitable trustees. I'm not sure the board has seen or requested any evidence on that and it may be appropriate to delay this decision until that information was available - in particular, given this will only have a significant impact after the June AGM. as an alternative, you could make this decision as an interim step, but commission the information so that you can review, say in a couple of months. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

:In my view the main thing we've learned from this whole situation is that we need to adopt a very cautious approach to protecting the Wikimedia name, and we need cautious policies on COIs as a result. Equally, we find it relatively easy to attract interest from prospective trustees. So I'm pretty certain where the balance lies for us now. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 08:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

::I'm less convinced. In 2010, [[Meetings/2010_AGM/Minutes|we only had five candidates for seven places]] - and even then one candidate only scraped past the 50% threshold. The board is clearly struggling to find replacements for the trustees who have resigned. If you're also saying that you need to pass strict COI rules and that volunteers who want to play a hands-on role running projects can't be on the board (as the review infers) then you could very quickly find yourself with fewer candidates than places.

::That said and having thought this through I'd like to suggest a solution: at the same time as passing this motion, the board should ask the new GovCom to look into the impact of the COI rules on trustee recruitment and to report back, say within 3 months. If it is found to be a problem, the board could then have the opportunity to reconsider the matter. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

== Delegation ==

I've left the most contentious issue till last :). The review says a lot of things about changing the things that board members do. I remember discussions at the board years ago about how the role was going to change with a Chief Executive and specifically about how the board would move to a more strategic and oversight role. We also talked about how a different role would be developed for volunteers (including people who were currently board members) who were more interested in leading projects. I agree that this is the right way to go. However, there is a real risk that in doing only the first bit, you not only change the relationship between the board and the chief executive but also, more fundamentally, change the relationship between volunteers generally and paid staff. This could go against everything that was articulated in the [[Vision]] - "the contribution of volunteers is central to the activity of the organisation" - and the clear and explicit target operating model that is set out in the [[Volunteer Policy]].

Therefore I would suggest that this change needs to go hand in hand with a review of the implementation of the Volunteer Policy and how a non-board role should be developed for volunteers who want to play a leading role in leading projects.

In addition, it seems odd that the Chief Executive is being asked to propose what powers should be delegated to him. If I were him, I might be tempted to just say "give me everything"! A more appropriate motion could be to ask the Chief Executive and Chair jointly to develop a proposal for delegated authority and to do this in conjunction with the proposal above. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

:My main disagreement with the recommendations on the subject of delegation is with the role of the chair. The recommendations would give the chair a lot of power (including making unilateral decisions inbetween board meetings). Given the number of times the chair and CE are expected to be doing things together in the recommendations, I think we need to discuss the role of the chair at the same time as discussion the role of the CE. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 00:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

:On the most fundamental point about volunteer/staff relationships - I agree, we need to ensure there is a defined way for volunteers to lead projects, including what expectations we have of people doing so. But we do also need to have a much clearer set of delegated authority for the Chief Exec.
:Regarding the Chair - yes, we do need to discuss the role of Chair - have a look at [[Board/Role profiles]] for the progress that discussion has made to date. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 08:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::Indeed, there has been a lot of discussion already. Some of the conclusions reached contradict these recommendations (particularly the one about the chair making decisions between meetings - even the idea of exec comm doing that was rejected) so will need to be revisited. (I think our original conclusions were correct and we should reject that recommendation, but we need to give it careful thought before doing that.) --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 12:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::You know which way I will be voting, I have been vocal enough in the past. I ''fully'' support empowering committees with clear delegation, but will remain against creating special Orwellian super-trustee powers, just because they are wearing a hat - such solutions devalue the point of (elected) trustee votes. Similarly GovCom will have to pay special attention to the trustee co-option process, this is not an issue now, but could easily lead to oddities of votes from co-opted trustees giving an apparent bias against community based values of the charity, which may not be the 'norm' for most charities. With 11 trustees, and our experience of 'retirements' it might easily be the case that in a years time co-opted trustees outnumber elected trustees. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Indeed - with 3 co-opted and 6 elected trustees, it only takes two resignations with the vacancies filled by co-option for the balance of power to shift. That's definitely something to consider - the argument for filling vacancies with an EGM rather than co-option becomes much stronger. One option is not to have 3 co-opted trustees, but rather have 3 trustees that are appointed at the AGM by a separate motion proposed by the board that members get a simple aye/nay vote on (that also has the advantage of not needing to amend the articles, just the election rules, which is slightly simpler). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 13:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::The board of trustees could also just create GovCom with a power of veto over new co-options, with some guidance as to when this is likely to be used. This could quell too many serial co-options, an additional veto against co-opting where there is a dispute over past relationships (such as co-opting a past employee of a supplier organization), or potentially force the board to choose to run an EGM, rather than allow the board to create a majority of non-elected trustees - though in this later scenario I would hope our members would call an EGM independently to hold us to account. A disaster scenario where trustees were resigning in disgust one after the other, should not result in an apathetic result of leaving us with a board with no evidence of a democratic mandate; it would be a counter-intuitive and potentially unstable outcome. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::The recommendations envisage GovCom nominating people for co-option, don't they? So giving them a veto isn't much help. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 16:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I cannot see that in this document though, perhaps it should be? Personally, I would see no problem in accepting trustee nominations from any source (we have the opposite problem at the moment), so a veto is still a useful power. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Having looked back, I've overstated it slightly. Recommendation 10 has GovCom taking the lead in finding people to be co-opted, it doesn't go so far as to have it deciding on the nominations. If it prepares the shortlist, there still isn't much point it vetoing the board's decision. It also doesn't make much sense for a sub-committee of the board (even if it does have one or two non-trustees on it) to be vetoing decisions of the whole board. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::The way that co-option works at the moment is that every trustee has the power of veto on a proposed co-option. It seems reasonable that the vote happens in-camera, but you can probably guess that by the time a candidate is put forward and the trustees have had a chance to meet the candidate (I certainly would not want to vote for someone I had not met), getting a positive outcome is pretty certain. I agree that if GovCom is preparing the shortlist, then there has already been a suitable external review. Anyway, our discussion here certainly shows there are several options on the way this might work, and I guess that shortly after it is empowered, GovCom itself should be tasked to propose how this could work better than it does now. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::The details of how the co-option process would work will need to be in the proposal that the Chief Executive will be tasked to develop, so I look forward to seeing that draft. My current thoughts are that the three co-options should be a maximum - i.e. replacing the current powers to co-opt resigned board members rather than acting in addition. You could also strengthen the controls to make these co-options via a unanimous board votes as they are at the moment. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-08T23:18:51Z

AndrewRT: /* Conflict of interest */

Talk:Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-08T23:10:52Z

AndrewRT: /* Timing and consultation */

== Timing and consultation ==

As a general point, I am a but concerned that these motions will bounce the chapter into making some pretty fundamental changes without having fully considered the implications and without having adequately consulted the community. A 36 page report was published at 5:20pm on Thursday and you're proposing to adopt motions to implement these at 11:45am on Saturday. I'll add some comments on the particular issues below, but I'd like to ask generally whether you think this is adequate or whether it is necessary to rush these changes in like this? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 22:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks for raising this Andrew. The board has 5 trustees right now, you can imagine what that does to our available 'bandwidth' and stress levels when we have other commitments as well. No, I would not claim to have sufficiently considered implications or consulted the community, even if some of the decisions are quite easy in principle and have been around for a while (such as having a larger number of trustees on the board, to me that's an easy one to agree that I recall discussing when you were our Chairman). However we should be able to draft resolutions (or action their creation) which can then have wide consultation and discussion, and agree which must be a priority for the AGM, to be seen to be addressing the recommendations of the independent governance assessment. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
::Sometimes having a draft resolution can help focus discussion, but these resolutions are pretty much copy-and-paste jobs from the recommendations, so I don't think they add much value at this stage. We should have the wide consultation, perhaps a couple of workshops, then we can decide which recommendations we want to implement totally, which we want to implement partially, with some modifications, and which we don't want at all. Once we've done that, we can start drafting resolutions. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 23:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:::That sounds like a year long consultation. We will need to agree a schedule that can get the most important changes identified, consulted on, and drafted, reviewed and ready to vote on, well before the AGM. Maybe we are looking at phase 1, 2 and 3 that will span a year of change and improvement? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Regarding the changes to the constitution, I've suggested an approach below which kicks off the process, ensures the leg work gets done, leaves room for plenty of consultation but also gets us a proposal to vote on in time for the June AGM. Is that an approach you could support? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Probably, these are massive changes and I trust your view to be highly knowledgeable. I like the workshopping process, as with big topics I'm feeling less sure that what I understand as a noddy sixty second summary at the trustee level, does enough for me to really claim to have delivered on the strategy setting part of the trustee role. I would like committees to perform and have meaningful delegated power, and perhaps GovCom is a way to get my confidence back that the in-depth spadework of understanding the governance review, assessing charity best practice, bouncing around the options and piecing together a realistic time-frame and writing it up as something legally robust, credibly helps our mission and can be 'sold' to our members is the sort of thing that is not left to a stressed trustee juggling several balls, even if they enjoy juggling.
:::::Hm, I doubt this will all crystallize out before this weekend's board meeting, but I may be making a mountain out of a molehill when it gets explained face to face, so I'll defer judgement as to what is or is not practical for a while longer. I am darn certain that the current board is going to be critically reliant on our network of experienced volunteers and past trustees to help out here, so I'm glad you are already involved. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 00:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::A year sounds about right for the whole process - creating a governance committee, then drawing up skill grids and then reviewing board members could be quite a long process, for example. We might be able to make some decisions by the AGM, though. The AGM isn't until June. If we want to vote on the board composition stuff at the AGM (which would be good), then we probably need a final resolution (or collection of resolutions and amendments if there isn't a clear consensus on the way to go) a month before (I can't remember the required notice period, but it's about that), so call it end of April. How about a workshop in mid-March, with online discussion before and after? That should give us enough time to do this properly. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 00:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::That timeline makes sense to me. There's a lot in this report that needs digesting and careful consideration. I hope the AGM will include an opportunity to present this report and debate the response and that will take us forward quite a bit. These two committees can be established relatively quickly and can easily be "undone" or adjusted if the later consensus is that they are overblown or a mistake so I don't see any objection with doing it on Saturday. In the meantime, the Audit Committee can get on with approving this year's accounts and the Governance Committee can get on with organising this year's Trustee Recruitment process - both of which are needed prior to the AGM. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

== Committees ==

Appointing committees is an easy step to "undo" if it doesn't work or if there is strong opposition, so on that basis I agree that you could do this now. Regarding the Governance Committee, given that the next set of elections is only a few months away it would be good to get that started ASAP. Likewise with the Audit Committee, it would be nice to have this complete by the AGM so the accounts can be signed off by then. I'm a bit confused how you "establish" a committee without actually appointing named individuals to be on it? Are you planning to do this bit later? Finally, you seem to have missed out the point about diversity in the GovCom terms of reference ("''the Governance Committee should stress the importance of having a diverse board. Continuing efforts should be made to achieve diversity including finding women trustees''") [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 22:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

== Number of board members & co-option ==

One of the criticisms levelled at the board at the EGM was the inability of community members to propose amendments to constitutional changes and it was agreed at the time that this would be avoided in future. Given the time before the AGM, it's not necessary for the Board to adopt a definitive motion now, without any consultation. Instead, I would suggest a single motion to request the Chief Executive to draft a proposal, in discussion with the community and in conjunction with others, to implement the increased number of board members and expanded power to co-opt. Following discussion, it can then be agreed by the board (possibly in April) for recommendation to the AGM. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

:Yes, that's probably a more sensible way of doing it. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 08:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

== Conflict of interest ==

The main item of substance here seems to be regarding accepting paid employment after leaving the board. It also, albeit implicitly, makes the "interim" change [[Minutes_17Nov12#Policy_Revision|that was made in November]]. Whilst this seems eminently reasonable, the board needs to consider the other side of the argument, viz. the risk that having excessively strict rules in this area would lead to substantial challenges in recruiting suitable trustees. I'm not sure the board has seen or requested any evidence on that and it may be appropriate to delay this decision until that information was available - in particular, given this will only have a significant impact after the June AGM. as an alternative, you could make this decision as an interim step, but commission the information so that you can review, say in a couple of months. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

:In my view the main thing we've learned from this whole situation is that we need to adopt a very cautious approach to protecting the Wikimedia name, and we need cautious policies on COIs as a result. Equally, we find it relatively easy to attract interest from prospective trustees. So I'm pretty certain where the balance lies for us now. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 08:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

== Delegation ==

I've left the most contentious issue till last :). The review says a lot of things about changing the things that board members do. I remember discussions at the board years ago about how the role was going to change with a Chief Executive and specifically about how the board would move to a more strategic and oversight role. We also talked about how a different role would be developed for volunteers (including people who were currently board members) who were more interested in leading projects. I agree that this is the right way to go. However, there is a real risk that in doing only the first bit, you not only change the relationship between the board and the chief executive but also, more fundamentally, change the relationship between volunteers generally and paid staff. This could go against everything that was articulated in the [[Vision]] - "the contribution of volunteers is central to the activity of the organisation" - and the clear and explicit target operating model that is set out in the [[Volunteer Policy]].

Therefore I would suggest that this change needs to go hand in hand with a review of the implementation of the Volunteer Policy and how a non-board role should be developed for volunteers who want to play a leading role in leading projects.

In addition, it seems odd that the Chief Executive is being asked to propose what powers should be delegated to him. If I were him, I might be tempted to just say "give me everything"! A more appropriate motion could be to ask the Chief Executive and Chair jointly to develop a proposal for delegated authority and to do this in conjunction with the proposal above. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

:My main disagreement with the recommendations on the subject of delegation is with the role of the chair. The recommendations would give the chair a lot of power (including making unilateral decisions inbetween board meetings). Given the number of times the chair and CE are expected to be doing things together in the recommendations, I think we need to discuss the role of the chair at the same time as discussion the role of the CE. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 00:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

:On the most fundamental point about volunteer/staff relationships - I agree, we need to ensure there is a defined way for volunteers to lead projects, including what expectations we have of people doing so. But we do also need to have a much clearer set of delegated authority for the Chief Exec.
:Regarding the Chair - yes, we do need to discuss the role of Chair - have a look at [[Board/Role profiles]] for the progress that discussion has made to date. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 08:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::Indeed, there has been a lot of discussion already. Some of the conclusions reached contradict these recommendations (particularly the one about the chair making decisions between meetings - even the idea of exec comm doing that was rejected) so will need to be revisited. (I think our original conclusions were correct and we should reject that recommendation, but we need to give it careful thought before doing that.) --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 12:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::You know which way I will be voting, I have been vocal enough in the past. I ''fully'' support empowering committees with clear delegation, but will remain against creating special Orwellian super-trustee powers, just because they are wearing a hat - such solutions devalue the point of (elected) trustee votes. Similarly GovCom will have to pay special attention to the trustee co-option process, this is not an issue now, but could easily lead to oddities of votes from co-opted trustees giving an apparent bias against community based values of the charity, which may not be the 'norm' for most charities. With 11 trustees, and our experience of 'retirements' it might easily be the case that in a years time co-opted trustees outnumber elected trustees. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Indeed - with 3 co-opted and 6 elected trustees, it only takes two resignations with the vacancies filled by co-option for the balance of power to shift. That's definitely something to consider - the argument for filling vacancies with an EGM rather than co-option becomes much stronger. One option is not to have 3 co-opted trustees, but rather have 3 trustees that are appointed at the AGM by a separate motion proposed by the board that members get a simple aye/nay vote on (that also has the advantage of not needing to amend the articles, just the election rules, which is slightly simpler). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 13:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::The board of trustees could also just create GovCom with a power of veto over new co-options, with some guidance as to when this is likely to be used. This could quell too many serial co-options, an additional veto against co-opting where there is a dispute over past relationships (such as co-opting a past employee of a supplier organization), or potentially force the board to choose to run an EGM, rather than allow the board to create a majority of non-elected trustees - though in this later scenario I would hope our members would call an EGM independently to hold us to account. A disaster scenario where trustees were resigning in disgust one after the other, should not result in an apathetic result of leaving us with a board with no evidence of a democratic mandate; it would be a counter-intuitive and potentially unstable outcome. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::The recommendations envisage GovCom nominating people for co-option, don't they? So giving them a veto isn't much help. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 16:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::I cannot see that in this document though, perhaps it should be? Personally, I would see no problem in accepting trustee nominations from any source (we have the opposite problem at the moment), so a veto is still a useful power. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Having looked back, I've overstated it slightly. Recommendation 10 has GovCom taking the lead in finding people to be co-opted, it doesn't go so far as to have it deciding on the nominations. If it prepares the shortlist, there still isn't much point it vetoing the board's decision. It also doesn't make much sense for a sub-committee of the board (even if it does have one or two non-trustees on it) to be vetoing decisions of the whole board. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::The way that co-option works at the moment is that every trustee has the power of veto on a proposed co-option. It seems reasonable that the vote happens in-camera, but you can probably guess that by the time a candidate is put forward and the trustees have had a chance to meet the candidate (I certainly would not want to vote for someone I had not met), getting a positive outcome is pretty certain. I agree that if GovCom is preparing the shortlist, then there has already been a suitable external review. Anyway, our discussion here certainly shows there are several options on the way this might work, and I guess that shortly after it is empowered, GovCom itself should be tasked to propose how this could work better than it does now. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-07T23:40:40Z

AndrewRT: /* Timing and consultation */

Talk:Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-07T23:37:45Z

AndrewRT: /* Delegation */ new section

Talk:Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-07T23:19:37Z

AndrewRT: /* Conflict of interest */ new section

Talk:Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-07T23:09:13Z

AndrewRT: /* Number of board members & co-option */ new section

Talk:Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-07T22:59:25Z

AndrewRT: /* Committees */ new section

Talk:Governance Review/Implementation motions

2013-02-07T22:23:20Z

AndrewRT: /* Timing and consultation */ new section

Talk:Governance Review/Advice on the Articles

2013-02-07T22:10:18Z

AndrewRT: /* Observations */ new section

== Copyright ==

Chris says "This advice is published with [Stone King's] permission", the page bears a CC-by-SA license. Does the former warrant the latter? [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 20:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:I'll double-check but I doubt they mind! [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 21:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

== Observations ==

It's always good to see professional legal advice and I'm glad that the chapter is seeking such advice in their operations. As Wikimedians we often have this culture of "IANAL but...[I'll act as if I am..]" and whilst this is useful it is often good to have a backup. As way of introduction I would point out that I was elected to the original board partly due to my professional background which includes, as an accountant, setting up, advising and auditing various limited companies (including charitable companies). Hence although I didn't support the chapter on a paid basis, it was still based on professional advice.

I would offer a few observations:
# References to "the charity’s previous, non-charitable existence" are irritating and confusing. Right from the word go on 27 October 2008 the chapter defined itself as a charity and set out to act as a charity with the intention of persuading the Charity Commission of the same. As evidence of this, please see, for instance, the information send to candidates in the 2009 elections regarding "their duties as charity trustees". Present trustees who weren't around at the time may not appreciate this. The Articles were based on the standard Charity Commission constitution at that time for that precise reason. Talk of a "previous non-charitable existence" is misleading - Wikimedia UK has legal continuity as the same entity from 2008 to present day regardless of the change in recognition by the Commission or indeed the change in board membership.
# It's unclear whether the recommendation under "Election rules/terms of service" to "these provisions" intends to mean just the provisions for term restrictions or all the election rules. It's also not clear whether Stone King are aware of the fact that these Election Rules have been "entrenched" by members and therefore have substantially the same status as the Articles themselves.
# We already have and use electronic and postal voting for trustees based on the proxy rules in Article 18. I hope Stone King aren't inferring that they think this is invalid.
# The Board already has the power to remove a trustee from office under the fairly circuitous route of [[Article]]s 4.4 and Article 18.1(c). It is even referred to in the [[Trustee_Code_of_Conduct#Leaving_the_Board|Trustee Code of Conduct]]. I can't remember why it was set up in this way but it seems to be effective and includes various checks and balances so I can't see any reason to introduce a new power.
# I agree that it would be a useful change of emphasis to change "director" to "trustee" although would note that the current terminology came from the Charity Commission's own Model Articles for charitable companies and the trustees would remain as directors in the Companies Act legal sense.

Hope this has been helpful. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 22:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Policies

2012-11-26T23:10:22Z

AndrewRT: Created page with "Category:Constitution"

[[Category:Constitution]]

Trustee Code of Conduct

2012-11-26T23:10:04Z

AndrewRT: /* Signatures */

{{notice|This policy was adopted by the board on 8 May 2012. All Board members are required to sign this code of conduct. The Chair is responsible for monitoring compliance with this Code and escalating any issues arising}}
{{TOC right}}

I will respect and uphold the [[Vision|values]] of Wikimedia UK (WMUK), in particular:
*To value the contribution of volunteers
*To encourage, involve and engage volunteers
*To recognise that the contribution of volunteers is central to the activity of the organisation
*To be transparent and open
*To promote the value of free and open licences
*To have respectful and professional working relationships internally and externally
*To promote an open approach to learning and knowledge
==General==

I will act within the [[constitution]] of WMUK and the law, and abide by the policies and procedures of the organisation. This includes having a knowledge of the contents of the constitution and relevant policies and procedures.

I will support the [[object]]s and mission of WMUK, championing it, using any skills or knowledge I have to further that mission and seeking expert advice where appropriate.

I will be an active trustee, making my skills, experience and knowledge available to WMUK and seeking to do what additional work I can outside trustee meetings, including sitting on sub-committees.

I will respect organisational, board and individual confidentiality, while never using confidentiality as an excuse not to disclose matters that should be transparent and open.

I will develop and maintain a sound and up-to-date knowledge of WMUK and its environment. This will include an understanding of how WMUK operates, the social, technical, legal, political and economic environment in which it operates and the nature and extent of its work.

I will use WMUK’s resources responsibly, and when claiming expenses will do so in line with WMUK procedures and policies.

I will seek to be accountable for my actions as a trustee of WMUK, and will submit myself to whatever scrutiny is appropriate.

I accept my responsibility to ensure that WMUK is well run and will raise issues and questions in an appropriate and sensitive way to ensure that this is the case.

==Managing Interests==

I will not gain materially or financially from my involvement with WMUK unless specifically authorised to do so.

I will act in the best interests of WMUK as a whole, and not as a representative of any group – considering what is best for WMUK and its present and future beneficiaries and avoiding bringing WMUK into disrepute.

Unless authorised, I will not put myself in a position where my personal interests conflict with my duty to act in the interests of the organisation. Where there is a conflict of interest I will ensure that this is managed effectively in line with WMUK's [[Conflict of Interest Policy]].

I understand that a failure to declare a conflict of interest may be considered to be a breach of this code.

==Meetings==
I will attend all appropriate meetings and other appointments at WMUK or give apologies. If I cannot regularly attend meetings I will consider whether there are other ways I can engage with WMUK.

I will do my utmost to prepare fully for all meetings and work for the organisation. This will include reading papers, querying anything I do not understand, thinking through issues before meetings and completing any tasks assigned to me in the agreed time.

I will actively engage in discussion, debate and voting in meetings; contributing in a considered and constructive way, listening carefully, challenging sensitively and avoiding conflict.

I will participate in collective decision making, accept a majority decision of the board and will not act individually unless specifically authorised to do so.

I will participate in decision making processes that take place between meetings, including those via email or telephone.

==Governance==

I will actively contribute towards improving the governance of the trustee board, participating in induction and training and sharing ideas for improvement with the board.

I will help to identify good candidates for trusteeship at WMUK and encourage those candidates to put themselves forward for election to the Board.

==Relations with others==

I will endeavour to work considerately and respectfully with all those I come into contact with at WMUK. I will respect diversity, different roles and boundaries, and avoid giving offence.

I recognise that the roles of trustees, volunteers and staff of WMUK are different, and I will seek to understand and respect the difference between these roles. Where I also volunteer with the organisation I will maintain the separation of my role as a trustee and as a volunteer.

I will seek to support and encourage all those I come into contact with at WMUK.

Any public comments I make about WMUK will be considered and in line with organisational policy, whether I make them as an individual or as a trustee.

==Leaving the Board==

I understand that substantial breach of any part of this code may result in procedures being put in motion that may result in my being asked to resign from the trustee board.

Should this happen I will be given the opportunity to be heard. In the event that I am asked to resign from the board I will accept the majority decision of the board in this matter and resign at the earliest opportunity, if necessary involving the procedure under [[Article]] 4.4.

If I wish to cease being a trustee of WMUK at any time, I will inform the chair in advance in writing, stating my reasons for leaving.

Signed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

== Appendices ==
===Nolan Committee Requirements===
: ''Background information is at {{w|Committee on Standards in Public Life}}''

In addition to the duties and liabilities of the Trustees the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life (1994) identified personal standards of conduct for directors, based on seven principles.

Trustees of Wikimedia UK should act with:

* Selflessness: Trustees of Wikimedia UK have a general duty to act in the best interests of Wikimedia UK as a whole. They should not gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, their friends or the organisation they come from or represent.

* Integrity: They should avoid actual impropriety and avoid any appearance of improper behaviour. They should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their role as Trustees of Wikimedia UK.

* Objectivity: In carrying out their role, including making appointments (staff or trustee appointments) awarding contracts, recommending individuals for rewards and benefits or transacting other business the Trustees should ensure that decisions are made solely on merit.

* Accountability: The Trustees have a duty to comply with the law on all occasions, in accordance with the trust placed in them and in such a way as to preserve public confidence in Wikimedia, and are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public, funders and service users. They must submit themselves to what scrutiny is appropriate to their role.

* Openness: The Trustees must ensure that confidential material, including material about individuals is handled in accordance with due care and should be as open as possible about their decisions and action that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider interest clearly demands.

* Honesty: The Trustees have a duty to declare any interests relating to their trustee role and to take steps to resolve any conflicts that may arise. Where private interests of a trustee conflict with their trustee duties they must resolve the conflict in favour of their trustee role. They must make relevant declarations of interest in the different circumstances and roles they play both within and outside Wikimedia.

* Leadership: The Trustees should promote and support the principles of leadership by example. They must respect the role of the Chief Executive.

===Trustees Liabilities===

Trustees/Directors of incorporated charities, i.e. those which are companies limited by guarantee, are treated in the same way as any director of a limited company. The company is a "legal person" and its directors are not liable for the debts of the company beyond the sum they have guaranteed if they are "members" of the company. Directors are also not liable in contract or tort (a civil wrong), although recently courts have held directors liable for criminal actions of the company.

Trustees can be held personally liable for:

# breach of trust under charity law - e.g. spending the charity's funds on an activity which is outside its legal objects/losses from speculative investments/un-permitted political activity;
# breach of fiduciary and statutory duties - e.g. using the charity's assets to procure a benefit for the trustees/making a loan to a trustee;
# wrongful trading under the Insolvency Act 1986 - i.e. continuing to trade where the board knew, or ought to have known, that the company is insolvent;
# fraudulent trading;
# acting as a company director when disqualified;
# failure to comply with relevant statutory requirements - in areas such as health & safety, data protection, trade descriptions, deducting PAYE from employees etc.

Trustees who have behaved honestly are unlikely to suffer financial loss as a result of their trusteeship. The Charity Commission states that "if trustees act prudently, lawfully and in accordance with their governing instrument then any liabilities they incur as trustees can be met out of the charity's resources".

== Signatures ==
Trustees are asked to physically sign a printed version of this code of conduct that is then stored at the [[Office]], and also to publicly digitally sign it below.

Signed:
* [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
* [[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
* [[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
* [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 00:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
* [[User:Joscelyn|Joscelyn]] ([[User talk:Joscelyn|talk]]) 12:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
* [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 13:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
* [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] ([[User talk:Victuallers|talk]]) 16:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

[[Category:Policies]]

User:AndrewRT

2012-11-26T22:31:29Z

AndrewRT: update

[[File:Andrew_Turvey.jpg|right|200px|Me at the 2009 AGM]]
Welcome to my userpage. I am a former member of the Wikimedia UK [[Board]] of Trustees, first [[Initial Board election|elected in September 2008]] and [[Meetings/2009_AGM|re-elected]] in April 2009, [[Meetings/2010_AGM/Minutes#Election_results|April 2010]] and [[Annual_Conference_2011_AGM_Minutes#Announcement_of_the_election_results|April 2011]]. I originally served as Secretary from September 2008 to April 2010, then as Chair from 2010-11 and then Treasurer for 2011-12. I continue to support the chapter from outside the board.

My candidate statement and Q&As for 2011 can be found [[Meetings/2011_election:_Ballot_Instructions#Candidate_Statements|here]] and [[Meetings/2011_election:_Candidate_questions#Andrew_Turvey|here]]. My candidate statements for previous elections are [[Meetings/2010_AGM/Ballot_Instructions#Andrew_Turvey|here]], [[User:AndrewRT/2009 candidate statement|here]] and [[Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Candidate_statements#Andrew_Turvey|here]].

For more details please see [[wikipedia:User:AndrewRT]]

Talk:WikiConference UK 2013/Venue Shortlist

2012-11-10T21:41:41Z

AndrewRT: /* Decision needed */ new section

==It's down to numbers?==

The two venues here differ on a lot of details, and they'd both be great locations, but one thing stands out for me:

* Lincoln: "Conference suite seats 81 max."
* Manchester: "Conference Theatre can seat up to 100 ... Minimum number of delegates is 80 or even slightly less"

If we're going to have <80 people, Lincoln wins; if we're going to have 80-100, Manchester wins. Everything else seems to be a bit secondary to the numbers issue!

Given this, I'd recommend Lincoln; I don't know what estimated turnout is, but I'd make a small bet on it being closer to 50 than 100. [[User:Andrew Gray|Andrew Gray]] ([[User talk:Andrew Gray|talk]]) 12:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:This is my thinking to. If the argument is we need to accommodate potentially ''all'' of our members then neither venue is enough - but as with the 2012 AGM there was nowhere near the number expected. With those aside Lincoln (disclaimer: that is my "bid", so I am a little biased) has a number of interesting things in its favour; lovely little city, a prime target for a Sunday Wiki-edithathon/photography/tour event, two on-the-ground Wikipedians (myself and KTC), etc. --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 17:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
::2012 had about 50 I think (not all voting) & showed a considerable increase on 2011. But the location will surely affect turnout, & it seems likely Manchester will attract a bigger crowd, as involving less travel, people being more likely to have friends to stay with etc. I don't think 80 is out of reach, at least in Manchester. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
:::I recall less, but will check! In terms of travel, to help inform the decision I have created a poll to help figure out where people are coming from to attend the 2013 conference: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dHVpU2E1VjJfVmtaTkZldFNxSTY5N1E6MQ Hopefully that will give us a clearer picture of which destination is more convenient (both have their disadvantages). --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 10:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

==Accommodation==
Was there any consideration of accommodation location/prices? Lincoln looks like 8 hours of round-trip for me, which I would not be prepared to in one day and be expected to stay concious in the AGM itself. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:Yep! For us when reviewing Lincoln it was one of the key considerations. A Premier Inn is being built about 10 minutes (max) walk from the venue (completed in the next few months :)). Within twenty five minutes walk there is an <s>Ibis</s>Holiday Inn (on the Brayford, a lovely place) and also a hostel. It's cheap, for a city, ranging from £30-100 per night. Also; I believe the university term will be over by then so if there is demand we may be able to negotiate accommodation with them. Travel is a consideration - but it is roughly the same time to get from London to both Manchester and Lincoln. Beyond that it much depends on where everyone else is coming from. (I should add; travel/accommodation is a key consideration for Lincoln as we'd like to offer a second day of activities on the Sunday) --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 18:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
::I'll be surprise if it takes as long as 5 minutes to get to the Premier Inn. It's literally across the road and down a little bit. My estimate between the College and Brayford is maybe 15-20 minutes. I think there's 2 or maybe 3 hotels on the Brayford. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 19:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:::At the brayford there is the <s>Ibis</s>Holiday Inn and the Hilton, there is also a Travelodge round there somewhere (but a bit off to one side). I suppose some might prefer the Hilton >:) --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 20:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

== Conflict of interest ==

I am concerned that I may have a conflict of interest when it comes to the decision between the final two venue options. I originally suggested the Lowry location and contacted the organisation to get this quote. My suggestion was partly based on my familiarity with the location due to it being in my home city (differentiation between Salford and Manchester notwithstanding). It would be very easy for me to attend a conference held at this venue (and I equally have to say that it would be very easy for me to provide local support for a conference held here, as a volunteer). I have no commercial, voluntary or personal connection with the Lowry. However, to avoid any doubt, my intention is to abstain from the decision here, and to restrict my contributions to this page to housekeeping edits and responding to questions on an neutral information-providing basis only (or when only being specifically asked, if that would be preferred). Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 23:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:It's your call, but I strongly doubt that anyone would consider being your home city a COI. I am familiar with a lot of London, including the most notable GLAM institutions, and I'm not going to start declaring London as off limits for my involvement. Similarly my undergraduate degree was at Imperial College, but I'm in no hurry to declare that a COI as I have not done anything else there in the last quarter of a century. Slightly sad actually, as I used to love the library in the maths department and the head librarian was a lovely woman. :-) --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 08:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
::Hey Mike. Personally I wouldn't consider it a COI and I'd actually encourage you to advocate for the location. All you are "benefiting" from is easier travel which is "meh". One of the issues, though, is that if you recuse from a decision & myself and Katie do too (for the same reasons) then that leaves a very small number of people to make the decision. I'd prefer a robust debate than for this to languish with no one to actively make a decision. In some ways the Conference Committee represents the Wikipedia community trying to take an active guiding/organisational role in WMUK (something I am an advocate of) but the turn out so far is... disappointing (and I realise my non-attendance at past meetings makes that statement a little ironic). --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 08:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I will be abstaining from the final decision over the choice of venue now that Lincoln College is in the picture. Over the last year, I have been a (part time) student of the college and in that capacity have been paid for helping a different part of the college during college's open days a total of ~£170 cash or cash equivalents. In addition, I have previously applied for employment with different parts of the college.

For the record, I had made the appointment for venue visit to Lincoln College as an alternative venue within Lincoln for comparison, after arranging the visit to the venue proposed by ErrantX. In addition, I had contacted the Lincoln Drill Hall who did not have an appropriately sized venue available on the proposed date, attempted contact with one venue who failed to reply, and also looked into a couple more where I can't find the appropriate information. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 12:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

== Decision needed ==

Personally I have a mild preference for Lincoln over Manchester but a major preference for getting on and making a decision. Flip a coin, do a poll, whatever you want, but please have a recommendation in time for the 17th November. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 21:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Water cooler

2012-10-11T23:00:15Z

AndrewRT: /* Wikimedia Chapters Association */

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{|style="float:right;border:solid silver 1px;margin-left:8px;margin-bottom:4px;"
|-
|[[File:Archives.png|x100px]]
|-
|align=center|{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2009|[[/2009|2009]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2010| [[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2011| [[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Water_cooler/2012| [[/2012|2012]]}}
|}
__TOC__

== Request for comment ==

I am drafting a proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pine/drafts/ENWP_Board_of_Education and would like input from chapters. I would appreciate comments on the talk page. Thank you! [[User:Pine|Pine]] ([[User talk:Pine|talk]]) 10:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

== How do we reduce the creeping "legalese" of our constitution and policy documents? ==
Hi, I have raised a question around how better to handle difficult wording on our key documents at [[Talk:Articles_of_Association#Difficult_legal_language]], though I'm thinking that this is a more general problem that could do with rather more plain English advocacy. Anyone have good ideas on how to make this guff a bit more digestible? Cheers --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

== Does Navigation popups work for you on WMUK? ==

I just tried out Navigation popups (check your preferences, gadgets) but it does not display correctly for me, in fact it leaves a nasty mess of un-wiped text for every internal link I hover over. Anyone have a fix? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
: I've had a look and they don't work for me either. Pretty nasty! --[[User:Stevie Benton|Stevie Benton]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton|talk]]) 15:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:::This is something I've noticed with the popups on some other wikis, too. Does some custom CSS need to be added to [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]? [[User:Rock drum|Rock drum]] ([[User talk:Rock drum|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rock drum|contribs]]) 15:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

== How commonly is the water cooler used? ==

Hello everyone. As you may be aware I'm working on reviewing our communications and writing our comms strategy at the moment. One thing I wanted to take a look at in my examination of the WMUK wiki is the water cooler. I'd like to get a handle on how many people come here. So, if you're reading this before Friday 8 June, would you please pop a note here? Many thanks. --[[User:Stevie Benton|Stevie Benton]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton|talk]]) 15:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:I'm afraid this test isn't going to work. A lot of us follow this wiki by keeping an eye on recent changes, so having lots of people posting here will attract more people. It's not the kind of page that you specifically go to to see if anything interesting has been posted. You come here when you notice it on recent changes or your watchlist. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 15:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:: That in itself will have some value for me actually. I want to see how something on here develops in real time and how many people will respond to something without being directly pointed there. Thanks for the heads-up though, I appreciate it :) --[[User:Stevie Benton|Stevie Benton]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton|talk]]) 16:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:::You might be better off looking through the page history and seeing how actual discussions here developed. Asking people to respond is very artificial, which will severely limit the usefulness of your results. (I'm an actuary in real life, so I have a thing about statistically well-designed studies!) --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 17:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
::::I have recent changes on my RSS feed and that led me here. If the wiki gets busier and this becomes the place to announce new stuff I might switch to just having this page on my RSS (every history page is an RSS feed). [[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] ([[User talk:Filceolaire|talk]]) 20:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
::I agree, it's a matter of how long a piece of elastic might be. You start to get the [[w:en:Observer effect (physics)|Observer effect]]. I think you might find that what's most salient about your aim of trying to write a comms startegy is that you start developing relationships with different editors. These human interactions take place at a level somewhat distinct from the sort of formal assessment of what a strategy might be.[[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 23:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
::I tried to adapt a metric from Wikiversity at [[Water cooler/metrics]] but I couldn't suss out the right code, so the first one (April 2011) gets us to the Ukrainian wikipedia. (I left the others unchanged so you end up at WV.) I tried looking at Meta, but they seem to have a way of jumping from UK.Wiki'''p'''edia to UK.wiki'''m'''edia. Anyway, I need a break so I thought someone else might like to have a crack at this. Basically it allows you to set up a metric on the page and keep track of viewings. [[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 23:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
:It doesn't get that much use, but it's the most logical place to discuss things to do with the wiki itself (as opposed to the chapter). Stevie, it might interest you to know that the Wikipedia equivalent, the [[w:en:WP:VP|village pumps]], also tend not to get very much attention except when people are pointed there. [[User:HJ Mitchell|'''Harry Mitchell''']] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|Penny for your thoughts? ]] 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

::: Thanks everyone for your comments, very much appreciated. --[[User:Stevie Benton|Stevie Benton]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton|talk]]) 12:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

== QRpedia coordination page ==

I know that [[:outreach:GLAM/QR_codes]] exists, but I'm wondering if a page on :wmuk would be useful to point to for folks to understand the QRpedia agreement with WMUK, the status of the open source code, trademark agreement and where to report bugs in an emergency; or should we just point to the :outreach page and improve that? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

== How to attract an administrator's attention ==

We have a template for recommending the speedy deletion of a page ([[:Template:Delete]]), which does sometimes get used by non-administrators when they need a page deleted. This includes the page in [[:Category:Speedy deletions]] so an administrator can spot it and delete it. However, as an administrator, I never look at that category. I keep an eye on this wiki simply by looking at recent changes. I do sometimes spot and delete pages tagged with that template, but only because I saw it on recent changes, so the template didn't actually help. Do other administrators check that category on a regular basis? If not, should we come up with a better way to find an admin? Or is having admins looking at recent changes enough, in which case we don't really need the template? What are people's thoughts (admins and non-admins alike)? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 13:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
:I didn't even know that category existed. Whenever I delete something, it's always from the recent changes. I think the template is mostly used by people who do small wiki monitoring. With this being a fairly quiet wiki, there's probably no need for a dedicated system for reaching an admin (there are plenty of us compared to the amount of work for us to do), but the template does no harm and it might be useful if the wiki gets busier. [[User:HJ Mitchell|'''Harry Mitchell''']] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|Penny for your thoughts? ]] 17:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
::Personally, I did know that template & category existed, but I do things from recent changes as well given that the wiki is small enough to do that and not miss anything. The template does no harm, and maybe useful for some. Any other potential methods for contacting admins would probably be more bureaucracy than is worth. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 19:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

== More about the footer ==

I just saw the thread [[#Huge foot]] and looked at the footer.

I thought "About Wikimedia UK! That would be a useful place to put info like an address..." But then discovered that the page explicitly isn't about Wikimedia UK, it is about the the Wikimedia UK wiki.

Maybe where the footer says "About Wikimedia UK" it should say "About the Wikimedia UK wiki"

And another thing... if the linked page is about the wiki, why is it called [[Help:Contents]]? Surely it should be called [[Wikimedia:About]]. ([[Wikimedia:About]] is currently a redirect to [[Help:Contents]])

[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 17:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
: Good points. Perhaps you could be bold and improve the pages and links? :-) Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 19:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::OK... well... I have moved [[Help:Contents]] to [[Wikimedia:About]]... But that is about as far as I can take it. I can't edit [[MediaWiki:Aboutpage]] (I would need to be an admin)... so unfortunately if you click on "About Wikimedia UK" you now get the little message saying "(Redirected from Help:Contents)".
::Someone with admin rights will also need to edit [[MediaWiki:Aboutsite]] so that it says "About the Wikimedia UK wiki".
::Happy to make these changes myself if someone gives me admin rights.
::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 21:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

:::I have changed [[MediaWiki:Aboutpage]]. I'll leave any changes to [[MediaWiki:Aboutsite]] to someone else to decide whether the above suggestion is the best wording. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

::::Thanks for doing that change.
::::Anyone got an idea for a better phrase to put in the footer?
::::Would anyone like to argue in favour of the current situation (where it says "About Wikimedia UK" and then you click on it and the page says "This page is '''not''' for those seeking help in contacting WMUK (instead, see [[Contact us|here]]), and more details about the exact structure of WMUK are on the [[Main Page|main page]]. Instead, this page gives advice for editors of the wiki.")
::::Anyone think we should do something completely different? Like make "About Wikimedia UK" link to [[Contact us]]?
::::[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

== Page of volunteers? ==

We have pages for [[Staff]] and the [[Board]], which would naturally come together under the heading of 'People' (in particular thinking about the sidebar link), but that wouldn't include the most important people for the organisation - volunteers. I'm wondering if it's worth starting a similar page giving profiles of some volunteers, or whether that wouldn't be sustainable, or if there aren't volunteers interested in being featured on such a page. What do you all think? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 00:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
:We all have userpages don't we? I've no objection to others creating something else, but the first place I'd look for a profile would be someone's userpage. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 18:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:How would you choose who to have on the page? We have lots of volunteers, contributing various amounts in various ways, and we'll hopefully have even more in the future - far too many to have profiles of all of them. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 16:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe interested volunteers could give their User page a category, ie: volunteers? That way it would be self administering and opt in.[[User:Leutha|Leutha]] ([[User talk:Leutha|talk]]) 06:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
::You could create a category for user pages & link that at a people page, or link to a Special: list (Eek, not [[Special:ListUsers]]!). Not sure it's worth doing more, per the above comments. But few people have much on their pages here, except links to WP. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Something like [[:Category:Active volunteers for Wikimedia UK]]? I think it's important to specify that we are talking about people who do stuff for WMUK... if we get onto people who voluntarily contribute to a Wikimedia wiki then the list is long and useless. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 08:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::Not too keen on this particular idea - "active ''blah''" categories always rot faster than you can update them. [[User:Deryck Chan|Deryck Chan]] ([[User talk:Deryck Chan|talk]]) 19:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
::::Perhaps if we were to have volunteer cats they should be specific ones - this editor is willing to help do x or y. That way when you need a couple of volunteers to help out at an event you can contact people in that category rather than email the whole mailing list. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 19:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::For what it's worth, I've been creating a UK "GLAM Connect" hub for GLAM professionals which includes (or at least, will include) a list of Wikimedians interested in GLAM and working with institutions. You can see this at [[Cultural partnerships/Connect]]; perhaps something like this could be created for other outreach projects, too. Regards, [[User:Rock drum|Rock drum]] ([[User talk:Rock drum|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rock drum|contribs]]) 20:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
: OK, thanks for the feedback. I've created [[People]], and [[:Category:Wikimedia UK volunteers]] to serve these roles, please help improve the former and/or add yourself to the latter. :-) Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
:: NB, I didn't go for specific categories as I was aiming for something simple that can organically grow, rather than going specific directly. Please feel free to create more specific categories as you think are needed, or want to categorise yourself into. :-) Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

== en.wikipedia Meetups template ==

Just spotted this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Meetup-UK - which I think Pigsonthewing set up a couple of years ago. Looks like we could make use of it (I wouldn't mind putting it on my Wikipedia user page, for instance) but it doesn't seem to work at present... any idea whether this can be fixed? [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 21:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
:It looks like it has to be updated manually. There is nothing broken about it, it just hasn't been updated for 2 years. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 22:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
:: [[:meta:Template:Meetup list]] is probably a better template to use, since that's where most (all?) UK wikimeets tend to be listed. Cross-wiki inclusion would be a really nice feature to have... Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

== The co-opted trustee ==

The press release says that the board would decide on a replacement for Joscelyn over the in-person board meeting last weekend, but I don't see anything along those lines in the minutes. What is going to happen? [[User:Deryck Chan|Deryck Chan]] ([[User talk:Deryck Chan|talk]]) 11:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Deryck. The Board are currently considering their options and there will be an update in due course. Thanks. --[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
:: Hi Deryck, if you hadn't yet seen, [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/wikimedia-uk-appoints-saad-choudri-to-its-board/ the Board is pleased to announce the appointment of Saad Choudri to the Board]. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 13:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

== WMUK membership survey ==

We're currently in the process of developing a WMUK membership survey. A page has been popped up on this Wiki for comments and suggestions. [[WMUK_membership_survey_-_suggestions_and_comments|Please do get involved with the discussion here]]. Thanks! --[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

== Improvements to the [[Trustee Code of Conduct]] ==

I have raised some suggestions for improvements to the code at [[Talk:Trustee_Code_of_Conduct#Conflict_of_Interest_Policy]]. I would welcome comments and further suggestions on how we can take a conservative approach to trustee interests without excluding anyone with reasonable expertise to bring to the board. We may be at a point where the consensus is that no trustee can serve who has any financial interest (as opposed to ''direct'' financial interest), though this might become difficult to interpret at the time of the next election if members come forward prepared to serve, who have related valuable experience to bring to the board that they claim is "manageable" and therefore allowable under Charity Commission guidelines. That word "manageable" is tripping us up right now, and some on-wiki discussion may help define it in a way that is credible to the outside world (such as the WMF) and yet pragmatic for the benefit of our charity. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
:Glad to see such efforts. -- [[w:User:Lexein]] 19:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

==Resignation==
Thanks, WMUK, but it's not enough. This does nothing to a) address the public perception of Wikimedia/Wikipedia's ability to police itself (follow both the letter ''and spirit'' of all pillar/policy/guideline), or b) repair the damage done to Wikipedia's credibility and reputation.
*A public list of edits by whom at WMUK, related to Gibraltarpedia (including DYK promotions) should be published in a press release, with classification of each as non-controversial, promotional of Gibraltar, self-promotional of Wikipedia, or inappropriately collaborative with an external entity.
*<s>The Gibraltarpedia project itself should be, as I've said elsewhere, '''shut, disavowed, and salted''', and all involved editors should publicly self-topic-ban for one year.</s> The independence and status of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia which documents, but does not serve, any entity or individual, must be '''firmly reasserted,''' and if it has never been asserted before, it should be asserted now.</s>(''I <s>struckthrough</s> my scorched-earth approach above, see note below) --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[:wikipedia:User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 17:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC))''
*I can't help thinking that none of these remedial actions would have been needed if ''clean hands'' had been kept at WMUK, with only independent volunteer public editors doing the edits, in the tradition of [[IRC:en-wikipedia-help]], with no meatpuppetry.--[[wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 19:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC) ''(Postscript: for "clean hands" read: "Best practices regarding disclosure". See note below) --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[:wikipedia:User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 17:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC))''
* Oh, and by the way, I '''know''' this is self-draconian and extreme, but what else will strongly indicate Wikimedia/Wikipedia's commitment to independence, unalloyed neutrality, and ability to recognize and respond to even the appearance of impropriety? --[[wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 20:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
::::*''Notes as of five days later. On the 20th Roger posted a disclosure at [[:wikipedia:Talk:Did you know#A_short_History_of_DYK_-_where_are_the_people_in_charge.3F |DYK]] (also noted below) which, if posted sooner, would have addressed many of my concerns, and moderated my <s>firebrand demand</s> above. Such disclosures should be made at project start, and publicly be released instantly if reports in the press of a perceived scandal occur. I have <s>struckthrough</s> a portion of my response above to more closely reflect my current stance. After review, I see majority volunteer edits, and little in-article POV, though some primary sourcing issues. I disagree with large-scale collaboration and highly concentrated article creation for the benefit of an entity, but I address that elsewhere. --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[:wikipedia:User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 17:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)''
**AFAIK The only WMUK trustee involved (beyond the odd edit) in Gibraltarpedia is Roger (now ex-trustee of course). You can see his contributions at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Victuallers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Victuallers], which do include edits to some Gibraltarpedia articles, as well as organizing stuff on talk pages etc. Whether the 500-odd bytes he added to the 18th century [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_Tunnels Great Siege Tunnels], one of the articles he has added most to, are "non-controversial, promotional of Gibraltar, self-promotional of Wikipedia, or inappropriately collaborative with an external entity" I'll leave you to judge. He has stated that the consultancy he is doing does not include editing, though it does include training editors. It is not within the power of WMUK to shut down the project, even if we wished to do so. I have not seen any suggestion that the vast majority of edits to project articles are not being done by "independent volunteer public editors", as they have been in all the other very successful projects Roger has been involved with. Finding, channelling and enthusing such editors is Roger's special talent. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, it's officially only one person. I shall repeat: Resignation may be necessary, '''but''' it cannot be sufficient. ''This does nothing to a) address the public perception of Wikimedia/Wikipedia's ability to police itself (follow both the letter ''and spirit'' of all pillar/policy/guideline), or b) repair the damage done to Wikipedia's credibility and reputation.'' Organizational or procedural changes must also follow. If I'm wrong, correct me. Roger placed a well-detailed development report at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#A_short_History_of_DYK_-_where_are_the_people_in_charge.3F WT:Did you know‎], and I responded there. IMHO, full public disclosure like that, early, and instantly, would have gone far to blunt the damage done. Given that that's now impossible, WMF/WP has to do something else. --[[wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 04:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
::::''I am taking some time out to write a longer reply, please read this as a personal viewpoint as I have chosen to respond without confirming that my (rather busy!) fellow trustees support the specific detail of this response. I would be happy to tweak my reply should any trustee be concerned about my wording.
::::I agree we have been unacceptably slow to respond and communicate with our members. It should be noted that we have been in the process of seeking external advice and improving our [[Trustee Code of Conduct]] since March this year, in fact we had no such document in place for the trustees to sign up to, until the AGM in May. I first alerted the trustees to the issue blowing up on DYK on Saturday (and have been personally incredibly frustrated that we were incapable of making a response within 24 hours). Unfortunately our CEO is in the middle of a family emergency (spending much of his time at the hospital) and our Communication Officer is on holiday. As a result, much of the hard work of considering what the response to urgent inquiries should be, has been down to unpaid volunteer trustees. We take the matter seriously but only managed to have a telecon on Wednesday, where we could follow our due process and make the joint decisions to co-opt Saad as a trustee and sadly accept Roger's resignation from the board, it was an emotional and difficult discussion. At [[Agenda 19Sep12|that same meeting]] we *had* to agree the budget underpinning the [[2013 Activity Plan]] as part of our necessary functioning as a charity, it was a very, very full discussion.
::::Lexein, please keep in mind that our role as trustees is quite limited. We have no control over what our individual members do on Wikimedia projects and trustees are expected to follow their conscience on such matters within the [[Trustee Code of Conduct]]. Roger's activities pre-date our code of conduct, a situation that has for many months caused the Board to have long and difficult discussion where we repeatedly failed to achieve a full consensus, and for current or future trustees this situation (where a trustee was receiving indirect but closely related financial benefit) could not happen as it would be in conflict with our reading of the code based on the conservative interpretation of Charity Commission guidelines we have adopted. Much of our difficult discussion has been in-camera, which in retrospect may have been a mistake in terms of applying our [[Values]] and I intend to clarify the limits of how the Board intends use in-camera sessions in future; a matter I have previously raised with the Board, particularly where there may be resulting delay in effectively managing a reputational risk to the charity (a key responsibility of trustees).
::::I accept that organizational and procedural changes must follow this damaging incident, and I have already proposed improvements to the [[Trustee Code of Conduct|code]] to make it clearer on the issue of interests, I welcome your comments on further improvements you would like to see.
::::The Board can take action to withdraw membership from anyone that has demonstrably failed to support our [[Mission]] and we would require any trustee to step down from the board if they fail to support the Trustee Code of Conduct; we have no authority over a member's or a trustee's actions on the Wikimedia projects, though their actions on the projects may be used as evidence of a failure to support the Mission or a failure to comply with the Trustee Code of Conduct.
::::In response to an inquiry this week from the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been preparing a full explanation of the background to Roger's work with Gibraltarpedia, how his interest has been declared and managed throughout this year (Roger's interest has been a key topic of discussion at '''every''' board meeting this year), including gaining external expert advice from a charity governance expert in March 2012 and legal advice at the beginning of September 2012 (as a result of which we took the step of writing, before this incident, to the Charity Commission for their comments on our approach, and are awaiting their reply); the advice was given with explanation of Roger's declared interests and known plans for future work. Several trustees and staff have spent significant time checking the facts and putting the explanation together. I understand that a version of this same information will be made public shortly.
::::I, and other trustees, have opinions on how the DYK process should improve and the analysis that could be done to support improvement, but that is a matter for those that contribute to the English Wikipedia rather than the UK Chapter.
::::I certainly would like to be in a position where we can respond "instantly" (or at least within one working day of significant questions being raised), though in terms of disclosure, Roger has been making determined efforts to make full public disclosures, for example during his re-election at the AGM, at board meetings, at Wikimania and during Wikimeet discussions. Any question raised with Roger about his interest from any member or non-member has been responded to calmly and promptly. Despite no longer being on the Board, Roger has shown no shortage of goodwill in helping us with supplying information and clarifying his position; he has my full respect for keeping calm under pressure. However from the viewpoint of the charity, I do not dispute that our communication of the risk and our steps to deal with it over the last few months, was not effective or sufficiently proactive, and when our Communications Manager is available the Board will be seeking his advice and plan on the improvement necessary to our processes, and how we can disclose information in a more effective way to ensure we meet our values to stay open and transparent in our operations as a charity; ''in my view'' we are currently failing to meet those values that our members demand and as trustees we hold dear, that ''is not an acceptable situation'', fortunately I can assure you it is improving and the trustees are absolutely committed to delivering on these values.
::::''Side note'' - For those in the UK, our next in-person [[Board meetings|board meeting]] is on the weekend of the 17th November. If at that time anyone still feels we have not taken sufficient action and would like to opportunity to publicly hold us to account, please do come along, ask for a slot on the agenda (preferably a couple of weeks in advance!), and bend our ears. Our quarterly board meetings are open, and we fully welcome independent views being presented on how we can improve processes and manage risks more effectively than we have seen to date. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 07:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::''Update'' After posting the above, I can see an email confirming that a blog post as an official statement from the Chapter, with a summary of the facts, will be on the blog later today. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 07:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::''Update'' I have now released the blog post at http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/gibraltarpedia-the-facts/ in which Chris lays out the key facts on behalf of the Board of trustees. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

::::::I appreciate the extended response, as one who is as ignorant of the inner machinations of WMUK as the public. I'm not sure the WMUK chapter ''yet'' realizes the Wikipedia-wide exposure and crisis of confidence this has triggered. Unfortunately, the blog post's flat and somewhat angry declaration of "fact" is (to use [[:wikipedia:User;Orangemike]]'s term) ''tone-deaf'' to the appearance of impropriety, and thus does nothing to assert or guarantee Wikipedia's independence from other entities or persons. Why should Wikipedia or Wikimedia have any hand in helping Gibraltar expand its tourism? Is Wikipedia's job to ''document, but not serve'', or not?
::::::I hope measures will be put in place to guarantee that the encyclopedia will always ''be and appear to be,'' at all costs, independent. I'd rather lose a project than have the encyclopedia suffer any further loss of credibility or public faith. Full and rapid crisis disclosure, and, better than that, full disclosure at the start of a project, will be helpful. The ''appearance'' of loss of independence was predicted by those of us who were called "paranoid". Fortunately, future risk of such appearance of loss of independence can be predicted by forward-looking ''risk analysis'', if implemented as organizational best practice. --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 12:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::To pick up on one of your recommendations, you may want to take a look at [[Risk Register]]. I would say that is in a poor draft state with a lot more work needed, your viewpoint for some more forward-looking risks and suggestions on potential countermeasures would be welcome additions to the associated discussion page so that trustees and management can take them on-board.
:::::::As I mentioned above, I agree "full and rapid crisis disclosure" is a requirement we need to meet as our response times are inadequate. I find your criticism that the blog post appears an "angry declaration" or that we seem "tone-deaf" to the appearance of impropriety, hard to roll over and accept, having seen from the inside how desperately seriously the trustees have treated the issues this week, and the huge amount of work we have all put into governance and communications improvement throughout the year, I am prepared to accept that we have failed to communicate this improvement to the wider community and that trust in our charity will take a lot more work, from everyone involved, to rebuild. If the title "Gibraltarpedia, the facts" appears angry to you, I am open to suggestions of a better and less aggressive wording.
:::::::The fact is, that is less than a year since we became a charity and less than a year since we took on our first employee. Our rapid growth has been impressive, taking on employees more quickly, I believe, than any other chapter in the same position. That itself is a cause for concern, and as a trustee I have questioned several times if we have sufficiently established best practices that can support our new organization. It was with this in mind that in 2011, I first pushed the idea of being assessed against {{w|PQASSO}} before the 2012 fund-raiser, as the most prominent UK quality standard for charities, and this programme of improvement had put us in good standing in comparison to charities of a similar size. ''I make a personal commitment'' to continue to challenge, and reject, planning further rapid growth, should we be seen to be unable to put plans, processes and policies in place that can ''credibly'' handle the risks that we need to address, including the current one of failures to be seen properly to manage declarations of interest. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::But the blog post ''doesn't'' acknowledge the damage to Wikipedia's credibility and loss of public confidence, or the internal crisis of confidence, except to imply that they don't exist, because nothing bad happened. If it wasn't tone-deaf, what was it? Maybe it wasn't angry, but what was it? Cheerfully arms-crossed teeth-gritted "not our problem?" What sort of posture is that for WMUK to take? The Gibraltarpedia page, project page, articles, and DYKs are all still there, for everyone to see, and we don't have a position from WMUK except "not our problem." I'm not having a go, here. Just count the donations box, day by day (see below in re 2007). I wish I could have done a rewrite of that post - it was a truly lost opportunity. As for the rest, I heartily hope for the best in re PQASSO, and risk analysis. I'll look at that with interest. --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 13:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Fair comment. I'll pass on your paragraph here to the board and see if we are prepared to and add more to the post to address the point that we have not done sufficient to acknowledge a loss of credibility in our community. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks. I don't claim to be right, just less wrong than previously thought. I do not envy the participants in that conversation. As for the title, I suggest this: "Gibraltarpedia: WMUK press release 21.09.2012" It signifies importance beyond a usual blog post, keeps any claims or bias out of the title, implies that the situation is developing, being considered, and that the last word is yet to be written. --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 14:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::I have only had two responses so far from the Board, but have gone ahead and changed the blog post title to "Gibraltarpedia: WMUK press release" in line with your suggestion. Chris Keating is currently considering a second blog post to go out over the weekend, that will discuss our improvement plan and should acknowledge the damage and loss of credibility we have seen in the past week. Thanks for your feedback, particularly your comments at [[Talk:Risk Register]]. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

:Lexein, your request is more than Draconian and extreme- it is phrased in ways that imply you object to Wikimedia's core activities. To carry out our mission to the fullest extent, we have to work in partnership with a variety of partner organisations. These are situations that should benefit all parties: when a museum or gallery helps improve Wikipedia improve coverage about its holdings, more of the world's knowledge and culture is made freely available, Wikipedia and its sister projects are improved, and the partner organisation benefits from increased public interest, maybe even increased funding.
:There are almost inevitably costs involved in these partnerships, and it's not possible or desirable for WMUK pay all of them. When the partner organisation pays practically all the costs, as is the case with Gilbraltarpedia, then we should count that as a very good thing, and well done to the Wikimedians who negotiated it.
:Wikimedia UK is the national charity promoting and supporting Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. It's absurd to imply that activity that is "promotional of Wikipedia" is some sort of offence, especially as the only activity promoting Wikipedia that seems to have taken place is putting more sourced, factual content so that search engines have more text to find. I'm not aware even of an allegation that information about Wikipedia, anywhere, was distorted by Gilbraltarpedia. As for "promotional of Gibraltar", show us some Gilbraltar-related edits by Victuallers that are not in line with Wikipedia's policies, then we have a concrete allegation to go on. If we get worked up about the mere logical possibility of biased edits, when the potential conflict of interest was already declared and public, that way madness lies.
:When reality and public perception wildly diverge, I personally urge the board to ground their decisions in the reality rather than the perception. I also urge them to ignore extreme requests: success in Wikipedia's/Wikimedia's mission is not some kind of horrible offence for which highly effective contributors have to be metaphorically flogged. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 12:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

::No. Martin, you fail to understand just how much damage was done to the entire Wikipedia project by the ''appearance of impropriety'' and ''appearance of loss of independence.'' It is not the encyclopedia's mission to collaborate or be steered by external organizations. Its mission is to document, but not to serve. It's fine that articles were written and expanded, but ''that should have been done '''long before''' Gibraltar ever expressed any interest in expanding their tourism.'' Understand? Now, every one of those new and expanded articles is tainted, and must be combed through by uninvolved editors to assure NPOV, and citation only of independent reliable and hopefully scholarly sources. Wikipedia's core activity is to ''document, and not to serve, entities and individuals.'' I would rather lose some random pet project, than have Wikipedia suffer any further loss of credibility, public confidence, or independence.
::Martin, your notion of reality is distorted by what you want Wikimedia's mission to be, rather than what its stated aims are. If its stated aims are indeed to collaborate and serve external masters, then holy hell, this place really is a corrupt scam, and all the public detractors are right. -- [[:wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 12:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
::Addendum1: Martin, I acknowledged above that other measures exist than shutting down a project. IMHO such a closure ''should be considered dispassionately'' in light of the long-term interests of the encyclopedia, over any short-term funding needs. In my opinion the needs of the encyclopedia (credibility, independence, neutrality) will always trump the needs of its parent organization(s). There are ways donors can contribute without a conflict of interest: Gibraltar, I think, was mishandled. Perhaps this can be remediated without draconian measures; to do so '''and''' regain public confidence? That's a (I think) much tougher challenge. -- [[:wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 13:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
::Assendum2: Damage to Wikipedia's credibility is concretely measurable. [http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2012/09/19/Wikipedia-Paid-Posts-Scandal-091912.aspx "Wikipedia Paid Posts Scandal"] shows a nice graph of the decline in 2007 donations from 22 Feb to 17 Mar around the Essjay scandal (if the causality and correlation is valid after correcting for normal donation fluctuations). I'm not making this stuff up. It's more like the stock market than you want to admit, I guess: public confidence drops will result in donation drops. Mixed-metaphorically, playing fast and loose will cost you, but running a tight ship and keeping a clean house provide long term benefits which are hard to deny. -- [[:wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 13:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Lexein I really believe you are way overestimating the influence this storm in a teacup has on public confidence in Wikipedia. There has been no allegation that Victuallers has, at any time, done anything that that was not in the interest of making the encyclopedia better. Not one single edit he has done has been shown to be less than neutral in it's content. His work with Gibraltarpedia has been successful in attracting new editors - the most crucial task facing the WMF today. The discussion has been about what might be seen if you were to look crooked and this discussion has been confined to various Wikipedia insider discussion pages, none of which get more that a few thousand visitors. Meanwhile the encyclopedia has millions of visitors all of whom find interesting and useful information which make them think well of Wikipedia and all associated with it.
:::If Victuallers is available for hire as a consultant then the WMF should hire him right now, full time, to do for the rest of the world what he has done for Monmouth and is doing for Gibraltar. [[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] ([[User talk:Filceolaire|talk]]) 19:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
::::If I'm overestimating, good. But the editor influx rates, editing rates, and donation rates will tell. <del>I have not, and nobody else is, making</del> ''I have not, and nobody else should have made,'' (typo corr) accusations of malicious misdeeds. We are concerned mostly about the ''appearance'' of impropriety, based on the confluence of events as they played out. ''That'' almost more than actual misdeeds, damages public perception of organizations and institutions. Wikipedia is almost an institution in stature, and keeping its house actually in order, and appearing to be in order, is becoming more important over time. I think Victualler's editorial work should continue. His project innovation work too, with attention paid to public perception risk analysis; that's just best practices. There is a '''disconnect''' between what Wikimedia boards and staff think the mission is, and what Wikipedia editors think the mission is; one word in focus is "collaboration" as it applies to external entities.
::::If I'm wrong in thinking that Wikipedia should ''document, but not serve, entities and people'', and should remain stubbornly independent ''even from donors'', well, that's certainly a discussion which should be had. --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein]] 22:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::''(Reprise of my response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#A_short_History_of_DYK_-_where_are_the_people_in_charge.3F Roger's disclosures]:''
:::::Looking at dates in edit logs and discussions, here's how it looks:
:::::*The sudden creation/expansion/DYKs of all those Gibraltar-related articles has the ''appearance'' of serving Gibraltar's presumed desire for more content accessible to tourists with QR codes.
:::::*It is an ''uncomfortable coincidence'' of possibly innocent events.
:::::*It is arguably ''pleasing the benefactor'', innocent (enthusiastic volunteers are great!), or not (sense of obligation in the mind of a senior editor, or worse, seeking a goal of more articles for the QRcode plaques). It has an unavoidable ''risk'' of appearing not to be fully independent. An encyclopedia must, at its core, be, and appear to be, independent.
:::::*Combined with the paid training of editors, it is a small predictable synaptic leap to the unhappy conclusions drawn by outsiders, and skeptical editors such as myself. Any PR person will remind us that appearance ''is'' reality.
::::: In this case, I claim that the order of events matters more than the senior editor imagined.
::::::'''If (1)''' the articles had already slowly expanded, and no DYKs had been sought, ''then'' Gibraltar had said, "Cool, we want to QRcode the nation!", my concerns would be largely, but not completely, addressed. Then, any consultation (paid or unpaid) would have been related solely to the creation of QRcode plaques to ''existing'' articles, a valid use and access of Wikipedia content, and could have been treated as a firewalled, non-conflicting activity.
::::::'''If (2)''' ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#A_short_History_of_DYK_-_where_are_the_people_in_charge.3F Roger's disclosures]) had been widely publicly announced by Gibraltar and WMUK '''a)''' at the announcement of Gibraltarpedia, or '''b)''' instantly upon the breaking of the story, the damage may have been severely reduced. IMHO.'')
::::: ''End of reprise'' '''Addendum to (2): ... and the story would have gotten little or no traction.'''--[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein|User:Lexein]] ([[:wikipedia:User talk:Lexein|Talk]])23:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Lexein, one of the core values of Wikipedia is civility. I'll point out that there are better ways to express disagreement than "your notion of reality is distorted..." This isn't always the reason why people disagree with you.
::::Expansion and review of lots of Gibraltar-related articles is in line with Wikipedia's mission and also Wikimedia UK's [[vision|mission]] "to help people and organisations build and preserve open knowledge to share and use freely." Note that I cite Wikimedia UK's actual mission, not some distorted version from my own mind. Not that Wikimedia UK has directly made GibraltarpediA happen, but from our mission you can see why Wikimedia UK and the wider community should and do look fondly on the project. Your language is a bit opaque as to what exactly is bad about this happening (as opposed to what people will ''think'' might bad if they are misinformed).
::::As for "Any PR person will remind us that appearance ''is'' reality." Yes they will. And you'll believe them? I don't: it reminds me of Orwell.
::::As a side point, why didn't you raise these objections about the MonmouthpediA project?
::::An enormous part of the work Wikimedia does is in collaboration. To make the whole of human knowledge freely available, we have to work with the people who create, preserve and curate that knowledge. Often that's individuals. Often it's GLAMs, universities, scholarly societies, and so on. We cannot achieve the Wikipedia vision, in its fullest sense, without their help. Hence Wikipedians in residence, joint events and the other kinds of collaboration. Getting a WIR fully funded by the AHRC is a huge success, and well done to the Wikimedians who negotiated it. Wikimedia UK has never hidden this: in fact collaborations are trumpeted on this site, the blog, the annual report and media coverage. You need to spell out in clear language how you demarcate the cases where collaboration violates independence, why GibraltarpediA is such a case, and why Wikimedians being "promotional of Wikipedia" is bad.
::::Presumably you're not presuming to speak for ''all'' Wikipedia editors. I'm a Wikipedia editor, and believe enough in Wikipedia's mission to devote serious time to it, but I don't fit into the "Wikipedia editors" part of your sentence about disconnect. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 14:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
::::"It's fine that articles were written and expanded, but ''that should have been done '''long before''' Gibraltar ever expressed any interest in expanding their tourism.'' Understand?" No, there seems to be a logical category error in putting this into a timeline. Gilbraltar always want to increase their tourism and we always want to bring the sum of human knowledge freely to the whole world. Wikipedia articles on every topic should be expanded to be the more reliable and comprehensive; there are no time parameters for when our goals should happen, just opportunities that make them more likely to happen. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 14:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Filceolaire, thanks. I agree with you that the neutrality of the editing hasn't been credibly impugned, and I expect that if there had been promotional edits by Roger, Wikimedia UK's detractors would be posting links to them everywhere. I hope the future produces a Bristol-pediA, Highlands-pediA and (literally) Timbuktu-pediA. I hope these things happen all over the world, with the collaboration of local volunteers and organisations, and so bring in many new people and partners who didn't realise how they could actually participate in Wikipedia's mission. So the volunteers who have pushed ahead with this and shown it can be done need to be congratulated, not blocked and disavowed. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 14:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

::::I rephrase: your wish for what the WMUK's mission ''should be'' differs from what the WMUK's mission ''is,'' and both differ from ''WMF's mission,'' and the ''encyclopedia's mission.''
::::This narrow defense on the grounds of "there's no rule against what was done" is at the heart of the problem. It's narrowminded, sophist, amoral, and stands in arms-folded smug disregard for the intent and spirit of the mission of the encyclopedia. Actions gotten away with are not actions provably good.
::::I think it's amusing that you're repetitively demanding proof of promotion ''of Wikipedia'', as if that were a standalone complaint. It is not, as I have repeatedly made clear. You have, however, made me aware of a previously unnoticedproblem: '''quid pro quo'''. Promotion of Wikipedia on plaques ''in exchange for'' promotion of Gibraltar on Wikipedia. Thank you. This whole ghastly affair tears at the heart of Wikipedia's independence from outside influence, when that influence can be traded directly or indirectly.
::::This pretense of nonunderstanding is appalling. Since you require it, I shall explain the meanings of simple English sentences, and repeat the context of a sentence ''within the sentence'', for you:
:::::"It's fine that articles were written and expanded, but ''that should have been done '''long before''' Gibraltar ever expressed any interest '''to Wikipedia staff or volunteers in having Wikipedia editors create and expand Gibraltar-related articles for the benefit of Gibraltar tourism.''' The order of operations matters. The separation of external and internal activities matters. Who does what matters. Motivations matter. It beggars belief that these things do not matter to you.
::::Wikipedia should serve no master other than its own five pillars and the body of consensus-based policies and guidelines established over time. In my opinion the needs of the encyclopedia (credibility, independence, neutrality) outweigh the "mission" of its parent organization or nascent chapter thereof.
::::I do not care for Monmouthpedia either. There seems to have been less controversy about it, ''even though Victuallers claims it was all done exactly the same way as Gibraltarpedia''; it obviously was not, for if it had been, it would have received controversial coverage too, and should have been '''shut, disavowed, and salted'''.
::::It's very simple: '''No Wikipedia project, which is sponsored, driven, demanded, suggested, hinted at, or requested by any external entity, should exist to create or expand articles about that entity, especially where that entity stands to benefit directly or indirectly (financially, for publicity, etc).''' That is, uncontroversially, the ''definition'' of conflict of interest, undue weight, thumb-on-scale, whatever-you-want-to-call-it: it has the stench of corruption, patronage, and non-independence. I have grave concerns about perversion of the aims of GLAM, as well, but that is not my target here. I'm appalled, but not surprised, that you are ''steadfastly'' refusing to see the (to me) obvious perversion of the encyclopedia's mission, in deference to your (or your chapter's) self-interested version of mission. No bureaucracy tolerates attention to its operation, or threats to its existence.
::::Our mission is to expand the documentation of knowledge, but not at the expense, or appearance of expense of independence, neutrality, and credibility. ''Volunteers'' are fine. Spontaneous actions are fine. ''Massaged, managed, or otherwise influenced creation of public relations coups for external entities'' are not fine. Not at all. --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[:wikipedia:User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 18:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::I agree entirely with Lexein, and would like to expand on one point. It is said that no evidence has been produced of "whitewashing" or promotion in the articles written about Gibraltar. Maybe not, but that is not the only way in which bias can be introduced that favours a client. Bias in the [[:Wikipedia:WP:UNDUE|UNDUE]] sense can be produced by helping a tourist board to recruit editors with the specific aim of writing articles about their tourist attractions. When this is done as a project whose declared aim is [http://vox.gi/local/5634-gibraltarpedia-on-the-road-to-success.html "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia"], Wikipedia has strayed from its educational mission and is being '''used'''.

:::::There now seems to be some back-pedalling, with claims that all this is nothing to do with WM-UK, but from the Gibraltar press-releases that is clearly not the impression they have; nor are the distinctions between Wikipedia, the WMF and WM-UK clear to the outside world. The highly undesirable message going out is "''Here's a way to do marketing on the cheap: pay some money in the right place and '''Wikipedia''' will come and help boost your tourism!"''"

:::::One reason why Wikipedia does not carry advertising is that our editorial integrity might be compromised, or perceived to be compromised, by a wish to please, or not to offend, the advertisers. Getting into bed with a marketing organization like the Gibraltar Tourist Board carries exactly the same risk. It may be too late to close down Gibraltarpedia, but we should learn from the public perception of it, and '''never''' do another. A public announcement that we have understood why it was a mistake might do something to alleviate the damage. --[[:wikipedia:User:JohnCD]] ([[:wikipedia:User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 22:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

:::::Lexein, I'll repeat that your theories about why people disagree with you are not necessarily correct. From the tone of this latest message and your edit summary, you're not keeping calm in this discussion. Nor are you addressing the points I set out: insisting repeatedly that the truth is obvious ''to you'' is not the way to progress a rational debate.
:::::You accuse me of pretending not to understand your points: that's a direct accusation of bad faith. I'm giving you my honest opinions, and if you can't accept that, then what is the point of having the discussion?
:::::In particular the theory that my opinions come from "No bureaucracy tolerates attention to its operation..." at least stands in need of explanation. What bureaucracy do you think I'm part of (apart from Wikipedia)? As for "self-interested version of mission", I quoted and linked the exact wording of the mission to refute your claim that my mind had created a distortion. If you want to insist that the words I quoted and the words on the page I linked are different, then go ahead. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 23:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Martin, I get it. You're caught out, and you hate it. Your focus on me, rather than the substantive issues, is telling. I ignored your ''de minimus'' quote of "to help people and organisations build and preserve open knowledge to share and use freely" as a favor to you. It dangerously omits all mention of integrity, ethical boundaries on promotion, conflict of interest, and the mission of the encyclopedia: to document (but not serve), entities and persons. In fact, that particular quoted wording is, in my opinion, tailored with public relations in mind, with no protections of the encyclopedia's integrity whatsoever. If you maintain that ''that'' is WMUK's mission and intention, full stop, then it is a mission which is destined, at every promotional step, to continually undermine the encyclopedia's mission as a high integrity, trusted entity. Is it not your argument that that mission permits steering of creation/expansion of content by anyone who requests it, under rubric of its vague wording? --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[:wikipedia:User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 05:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::John, thanks for weighing in: hopefully you'll be able to get across Lexein's points but in a way that Lexein is unwilling to. Just so that I know where you are coming from, can you set out ''your'' stance on cultural partnerships? The donation of thousands of Commons images from the Bundesarchiv resulted in increased commercial interest in that archive's holdings, and arguably a disproportionate weight of content in Commons about German foreign settlements in the 19th and early 20th Century. A local museum, by hosting events for Wikipedians, might benefit in terms of better articles about its holdings and hence increased public interest. It might even be the best use of their time if public interest is what they want (and surely it is). Do these collaborations, which result in more of the world's knowledge and culture being made freely and openly accessible to the whole planet, undermine Wikipedia's educational mission? [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 23:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::No, those collaborations do not, nor do any of the "Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums" at which the GLAM project is aimed, because in all those cases the aim of the institution concerned lines up with our aim, to make knowledge freely available. The difference here is that the aim of the other party is commercial: [http://vox.gi/local/5634-gibraltarpedia-on-the-road-to-success.html "''marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia.''"] Wikipedia is not for marketing anything, and I do not know what this project is doing under the GLAM umbrella.

::::::::It is alarming to read that Roger Bamkin has been [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Monmouthpedia+idea+goes+global+as+creator+looks+to+Gibraltar+for+next...-a0297237924 "''flooded with invitations from places around the world''"] who want to exploit Wikipedia in this way. This should be nipped in the bud. I think en:wp needs to set up some kind of gateway or approval mechanism for proposed joint collaborations which imply that Wikipedia is a partner but do not come under the strict definition of GLAM. --[[:wikipedia:User:JohnCD]] ([[:wikipedia:User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 11:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::I have made a suggestion on those lines at [[:wikipedia:WP:VPR#Pre-approval of collaborations]]. --[[:wikipedia:User:JohnCD]] ([[:wikipedia:User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 22:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: Agreed (one up), and well stated with links I failed to find earlier, JohnCD. The scale of involvement and the scale of the entity are important, as are the motivations of all involved parties. WMUK ''can'' step in and ensure that the motivations of involved parties are on the right side of foundation goals ''and'' the encyclopedia's independence and credibility. A museum is a different kind of entity than a government, with proportionally less ability to damage the independence, integrity, and credibility of the encyclopedia. --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[:wikipedia:User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 00:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Martin, the only "increased commercial interest" I am aware of is that some chap started selling the Bundesarchiv images on ebay, pretending he had the rights to them, and that the Bundesarchiv reluctantly ceased its cooperation with Wikimedia as a result. [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xmI_l9ngmCIC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=bundesarchiv+wikimedia+zusammenarbeit+eingestellt&source=bl&ots=JRqKqFXYrY&sig=R1dIWlgY-qOxrk0LdM9ogJOhnQ4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dfleUNP2KeHT0QWEn4C4DQ&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=bundesarchiv%20wikimedia%20zusammenarbeit%20eingestellt&f=false] --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 11:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I'm calling [[:wikipedia:WP:UNCIVIL]], Martin, for sideswiping me by name, above, while addressing ''another editor.'' Good grief. You've taken no stance here but that somehow I owe you something, while ignoring the quite positive interaction with Fae, above. Further, you've ignored ''scale''. Against your not-much quid-pro-quo or arguably small-change examples above, I offer that newspaper and magazine editorial and advertising departments ''try'' to maintain a "firewall" between the two departments; where collaboration is unavoidable, it is called "advertorial", or "sponsored section", or "full disclosure of personal interest." We cite those sources, trusting that they will do their best to ''maintain'' their independence and editorial integrity, and we ''refrain from citing'' their ad-collaborative pieces. Wikipedia does not invite them to soirees to curry more articles ''we can use'', that would be silly.
:::::::'''Alternative to shut/disavow/salt:''' Wikipedia projects and articles engendered from outside interests should be clearly labeled as follows (example):
::::::::''This article was created (''greatly expanded'', pick one) under the auspices of promotional/collaborational project [[:wikipedia:WP:Gibraltarpedia]] at the request of, and with the assistance from, the government of [[:wikipedia:Gibraltar]]. At the time of the addition of this notice, the article met Wikipedia standards for [[:wikipedia:WP:NPOV|neutrality]], [[:wikipedia:WP:N|notability]], and [[:wikipedia:WP:V|verifiability]]. This advisory tag will be removed in 2017, five years from the date of project-related creation/expansion.''
:::::::You ask a question which is at once rhetorical, generalist and ''de minimus'', omitting, or refusing to admit, crucial details differentiating those examples from this one. I repeat: ''The order of operations matters. The separation of external and internal activities matters. Who does what matters. Motivations matter.'' Martin, I chuckle when it seems you don't understand me, but I straighten up when it seems that you ''do'' understand, but still refuse to concede even one of my points, ''just because ''I'' wrote it.'' I reject any advertising or public relations ''use'' of Wikipedia, which implies that Wikipedia endorses, or supports, or is beholden to, or is not independent from, or is in any other way related to, the advertiser. In this case, Gibraltar. (No disrespect, Gibraltar, I'm sure you're very nice. Somebody should have warned you that Wikipedia ''in order to be credible, must be independent, and continue to also appear to be independent'' from outside interests, even nice ones.) --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[:wikipedia:User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 05:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Lexein: You phrase all you pronouncements as absolute rules: what you reject; what you demand should be done, but Lexein you do not run Wikipedia and you don't get to decide what everyone else does.
:::::::::The biggest crisis facing wikipedia is the reduction in editors. One of the the measures WMUK has taken to address this is to reach out to other organisations - museums, libraries, local councils, professional organisations, charities. Under your rules every one of these could be seen as having a Conflict Of Interest. In fact under your rules most editors and contributors to Wikipedia have a COI or at the very least they could be seen to have a COI because what attracts them to edit an article is their Interest in that topic. We work with Cancer UK on cancer articles but some Cancer research uses live animals; does that mean our articles on vivisection are no longer neutral?
:::::::::Your proposal will drive more editors away and leave us with a Wikipedia which is sterile and pure and frozen in amber.
:::::::::The Gibraltarpedia project is an experiment. It is different from what we have done before. It may be an amazing success. It may be a colossal failure. It may be somewhere in between. WMUK should encourage this experiment but watch it and see how it turns out. So far we have identified one way in which it is different from our usual practice. The flood of Gib DYKs has got some attention and scrutiny but not one person has found an edit which is improper or fails to improve the encyclopedia so there is no reason to call off this experiment yet. Opening up the patient for a post mortem before they are dead is not appropriate. Lets see how this turns out first. [[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] ([[User talk:Filceolaire|talk]]) 18:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't see "absolute" in my writing. I do see ''stern'' and ''dire'' and ''protectionist.'' I tire (wouldn't you?) of writing "IMHO" in every single sentence. I despair, and bridle: nobody else is suggesting, or supporting, concrete safeguards to the integrity, credibility, and independence of the encyclopedia from massive interference or grooming from outside interests. Nobody else is suggesting any way to reduce the ''appearance of impropriety.'' If '''5-year tagging''' of outside-interest-sponsored-project-driven (farmed) articles will deter article farming, good! '''Maybe''' there's a more creative, less heavy-handed, cleaner approach, posing less risk to the encyclopedia's integrity. Consider this: if outside entities are gung-ho altruistically interested in supporting the creation of an encyclopedia for the ages, full stop, then they really shouldn't care ''what'' articles are created. Yes, there is self-interest, and that doesn't have to be ignored. So:
:::::::::::*'''Second alternative to shut/disavow/salt''' to diffuse the effects of excessive influence and appearance of impropriety in a single area of article development: '''write two-for-Wikipedia to get one-for-the-project.''' To get an (externally-supported) ''Project'' (e.g. Gibraltar-related) article through DYK, also create/expand two ''non-Project'' DYK-ready articles from (say) the [[:wikipedia:WP:Requested articles|WP:Requested articles]] queue. This serves encyclopedia expansion, and greatly reduces ''almost all'' appearance of impropriety, IMHO. It makes the sponsor look ''better.'' This is modeled on DYK itself; effort reaps reward.
::::::::::: It's a non-onerous PR tax, and an influence tax. I'd call it "Here's the deal." The training for the editors is the same, and their experience researching, writing and editing three ''different'' article topics has value. Let's face it, who wants one DYK when you can achieve three?
::::::::::: I don't really see the editor attrition problem being addressed by ''single''-purpose-focussed Project article creation sprints - perhaps that's not what you meant. I do value experiments: I wish Gibraltarpedia had been couched that way, but it wasn't, as JohnCD linked above. Finally: I must comment on the assertion that "not one person has found an edit which is improper" - I probably should go through and mark the dubious sources I spotted in one article. But so far, I've edited only [[:wikipedia:Gibraltarpedia]] for ref expansion, to avoid muddying any of the discussion waters. --[[:wikipedia:User:Lexein|Lexein]] ([[:wikipedia:User talk:Lexein|talk]]) 00:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

==Grants and scholarships==
I was looking for detailed information on macrogrants, travel grants and scholarships the other day, but was unable to find any on this site.

*[[2012_Travel_Grants_budget]] for example is a document marked "a work in progress", but hasn't been edited since 25 May 2012.
*The same applies to [[2012 Activity Plan/Travel grants]].
*[[Macrogrants]] says it is under development, more soon!, but hasn't been worked on since February 2012.
*[[Macrogrants/Applications]] is empty, and has not been edited since February 2012.
*[[Scholarships]] has not been edited since 2012, and does not include any details (amounts, beneficiaries).

Would it be possible to update these pages with the missing details, so that we have full transparency? Thanks. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 20:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:Sorry Andreas, we have all been so busy this week reading your dozens of multiply-posted screeds that other stuff has been piling up. This information would take some time to compile, which is no doubt why the pages have become outdated. I'm not sure when we will be able to do it. I'm sure a good deal of it is on this wiki somewhere, though I'm not sure where. [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/Scholarships/2012 This meta page] shows 2012 Wikimania scholarships at 6 full + 3 part for £6,000, which sounds about right, but with Olympic year air fares I expect the actual cost was a bit more more - the air fares were around £550 each. I don't think anyone has used the Macrogrants process. We did award 4 scholarships for India, 3 from the UK (Tony Sant, WereSpielCheckers, Vinesh Patel) & 1 from India. The budget was £2,650 and the actuals about the same. These were in the 2010/11 financial year, before the office took over the accounting function at the start of the current FY this February. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 21:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
::Come on John, behave like an adult. These pages have not been edited for many, many months; it's not a question of last week. Thank you for the informative part of your post. This page here [http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2013_Activity_Plan#Grants_programme] says, "Macrogrants are for grants over £250, typically up to £2,000, and have included activities such as Geovation". That sounds like there has been a macrogrant for Geovation. I understand you're busy right now, but this information should be updated before too long. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 23:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:::You just can't avoid the abuse, can you! I would point out that the first two links listed above are to the same page. These are Mike Peel pages and no doubt he will respond. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 02:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
::::I think [http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2013_Activity_Plan#Grants_programme that] needs correction to express this as a possible future grant, I am sure Mike will do so when he has more time. As the GLAM budget holder, I am only aware of some travel expenses (economy train fares) in compliance with our [[Expenses Policy]] to take part in the event rather than a grant. In my records I have email correspondence on the 18th June approving expenses for GeoVation Camp but rejecting a request for per diem payments as I required this event to be receipted expenses only. A co-funding proposal has been received and is currently under review as per the minutes of our most recent public and open board meeting. The trustees planned to discuss it and make a decision this week, but we have been fully occupied dealing with unplanned responses to inquiries and allegations to deal with new proposals and so they have been deferred, along with many others, for an undefined period. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 05:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Thanks. There needs to be clarity whether Geovation, for which Roger and Robin were reportedly [http://blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/2012/07/winners-announced-for-our-wales-coast-path-geovation-challenge/ awarded] £17,500 in funds, is a Wikimedia UK project or not.

:::::At present, there is conflicting information. I have found the following, and please let me know if there are any errors or omissions:

:::::*The [https://challenge.geovation.org.uk/a/dtd/119163-16422 bid] said, "Wikimedia UK would be asked to run the scheme, employing Wikipedians, just as the National Library does in London... and the National Museum etc. Their help would be crucial. Welsh Wicipedians have also shown their enthusiasm and would filter out any unwanted vandalism."]

:::::*Trustee Doug Taylor on the other hand said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=514011840#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikimedia_UK_and_concerns_about_paid_editing_and_conflicts_of_interest_within_Wikimedia_UK on Jimbo's talk page], "'''I am unaware of any WMUK commitment to running the project'''" and "The Board are hopefully discussing the Geovation bid tonight as stated on the WMUK wiki, so we may be able to update the present position then. I understand that the bid will seek matched funding from one of the Welsh agencies and will include the employment (via an open advertisement) of a manager to run the project, so I think that '''it is a mistaken reading of the bid to conclude that WMUK will be running it.'''"

:::::*The project is listed among Roger's [http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Declarations_of_Interest&oldid=28870#Roger_Bamkin Declarations of Interest]: "Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings. This means that he is likely to be talking to many councils in Wales." As declarations of interest are by definition for interests external to WMUK that could generate conflicts of interest, this indicates the Geovation bid is not a Wikimedia UK project (even though its documentation on the Geovation site mentioned an envisaged Wikimedia UK involvement).

:::::So I assume that the £17,500 went to Roger and Robin (and possibly the other names mentioned in his declaration of interest). Now I don't begrudge them the money. This is a good project. But if the money went to them personally, and Wikimedia UK has nothing to do with it, why then should Wikimedia UK have funded their travel expenses? And why should there even have been a request for per diem expenses, if Wikimedia UK was not going to be the recipient of the award money? And why were travel expenses approved if it was not even clear at the time whether this was going to be a Wikimedia UK project or not? The absence of any documentation naming the amount of travel expenses awarded and who the recipients were does not help here either. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 13:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::There have been changes here - can we get Robain's report to the Board on September 8th up here, linked from the board meeting reports? From memory, the project will now be managed by a new Welsh non-profit company, who will get this and any future grants or WMUK money for this project. Originally we were going to manage it & now we won't. One reason is that a specifically Welsh body can help with getting grants. The project remains well within WMUK's mission, & I think the limited support given so far, plus some future support, is an appropriate use of funds. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Are you saying it is an appropriate use of Wikimedia supporters' donations to pay travel expenses for a Wikimedia UK director (and/or other Wikipedians connected with the project) so that he can get a £17,500 grant ''for himself''? [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 20:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::No. The proposal is for a co-funded project with several partners and delivered using open and transparent processes; the project has yet to start or be accepted by Wikimedia UK as we are at the proposal stage. The [[Mission]] of Wikimedia UK is to preserve open knowledge to share and use freely, and that is not limited to Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects. The headline here is that for the cost of a few train fares and overnight accommodation from Wikimedia UK (in compliance with our [[Expenses Policy]]), Robin and his bid team were awarded £17,500 to spend directly to the benefit of open knowledge projects (as detailed in Robin's presented Venture plan), this includes creating content underpinned by [http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/.html Ordnance Survey open data], mobile use of Wikipedia and use of other open knowledge projects such as Europeana through better use of geotags.
:::::::::The £17,500 prize money is strictly limited under the terms of the competition to the commitments of the Venture Plan, it cannot be spent on anything else. I have a copy of "Venture Plan Final Draft v3.0.doc" in my email and it matches details presented at the most recent Board meeting in Coventry. Our decision for the charity to cover economy train fares and accommodation for four people to go to the GeoVation Camp was based on this understanding of the project as presented by Robin. To avoid any misunderstanding, I have not uploaded that draft to this wiki, though I am sure Robin can make the final version publicly available, along with other documents that support the proposal, and I will ensure these are published on-wiki as part of our proposal review process.
:::::::::So far none of the prize money of £17,500 has been drawn down, and for the purpose of meeting matched funding conditions from other prospective funding bodies, it will now probably be placed a Welsh company specifically set up for the purpose. We expect to receive a fuller proposal on this shortly, asking for a grant from Wikimedia UK as part of a range of funders. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 06:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks, Fæ.
::::::::::#I take it the four individuals correspond to the four names mentioned [http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Declarations_of_Interest&oldid=28870#Roger_Bamkin here] in relation to the bid?
::::::::::#:Yes. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::#[[Trustee_Expenses_2012-2013]] says it has not been updated since 24 May 2012, and the relevant items are not yet listed there.
::::::::::#:I have no idea if Roger actually claimed any money, that would have to be checked by the Office Manager. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::#Having the draft venture plan available would be very useful, as this was the plan on the basis of which these WMUK expenses were allowed. Could you make it public?
::::::::::#:Yes, but not the draft. As mentioned above, I or another Board member shall make the Venture Plan public on this wiki when a final version is presented that supports Robin's proposal. Publishing an old draft that may not reflect the current proposal is likely to cause more confusion than clarification. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::#Most importantly though, does the draft venture plan foresee the provision of paid consultancy or other services by any of these four individuals, in relation to QRpedia or any other elements of the venture? [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 09:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::#:Yes. This is one of the matters that the trustees are currently reviewing with Robin, and asking for clarification on, before Wikimedia UK would consider providing any funding.
::::::::::#:As an addendum to my last comment, the terms of the prize can be seen in Section 11 of Geovation's prize rules [http://www.geovation.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GeoVation_Competition_Terms_WelshCoastPath.pdf here on the GeoVation blog]. The Wikimedia UK Board is looking at whether it is possible or desirable for Wikimedia UK to receive the prize money directly. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::#::Thanks. Glad to hear it's being looked at. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 11:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::#::Generally speaking, from an ordinary WMUK member's perspective, it always feels and looks problematic when trustees or other members who have a personal business interest in attending an event have their expenses paid by the charity. It doesn't feel right. They are attending – at least in part – to further their private careers and livelihoods. Cf. [http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Microgrants/QRWorldExpo]. That's not what donors give us money for. It would never occur to me to hand in an expenses claim to WMUK if the trip I was undertaking were intended to end up benefiting my private business. If the job is a one-off, I might adjust my quote to reflect any significant outlay I have had, but that would then come out of the overall project fund, not the WMUK share of that fund. This applies all the more if it is a trustee. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 17:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Generally speaking, from this WMUK members perspective, providing a small grant to help get an exciting project, like Geovation, started seems like exactly the right thing to spend WMUK's money on. In this case it seems like a spectacular success in that a grant of a couple of hundred for travel expenses has pried loose a grant of £17,000 from other parties for this project. I hope WMUK will keep in touch with this project and be prepared to come up with more funds if that would help in the next stage. Well done Roger. [[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] ([[User talk:Filceolaire|talk]]) 18:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't think I have a problem with supporting the project, but I do have a problem with financially supporting individuals who are standing to make money from the project anyway. Just think about how it will look to donors and the general public. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 20:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You may find it reassuring to note that my first things I asked the bid team to confirm (on 15 June 2012) when we were asked to pay travel and accommodation expenses included:
:::::::::::::*''There is no conflict of interest for the team members that has yet to be declared (noting that commercial value may be part of the benefits of any innovation and QRpedia is a likely part of the innovation)
:::::::::::::*''There has been an open process for any other volunteers to take part and take advantage of this sponsorship
:::::::::::::*''Any prize money will be committed to related (open knowledge) Wikimedia UK projects
:::::::::::::Amongst the responses and documents, Robin sent me an email (18 June 2012) which confirmed in large type "Transparency must be fundamental to any Grant applications". I have no doubt that the documents to support the proposal will provide the transparency we require as part of the Wikimedia UK [[Values]] and Robin supports. As pointed out earlier, I will ensure the documents are made available publicly on-wiki well before Wikimedia UK makes a decision either way, as was always our intention. By the way, "Wikimedia UK projects" is odd phrasing of mine, this is not "Wikimedia projects" but projects that Wikimedia UK would recognize under our Activity Plan. I would expect a Welsh coastal path project like this could become one of our projects as it may involve some open knowledge projects that are not "Wikimedia", but it still fulfils our [[Mission]] and engages volunteers that can be supported by Wikimedia UK. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Okay; but you did confirm above that the draft venture plan foresaw the individuals providing paid services for their own account (which would be an undeclared conflict of interest if they declared no conflicts of interest to you at the time), and that as of now the money is not going to WMUK, but to them (and that you are looking to perhaps change that). Correct? [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 01:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
===Summary for GeoVation===
The only declarations of interest we currently require to be made to the board or publicly are those of trustees. The Board has previously discussed creating requirements for declarations from members and volunteers, however this is well beyond straight-forward Charity Commission guidelines and we have reached no position to date, a matter you may wish to raise separately. This declaration was made, on 21 July 2012, by Roger while he was a trustee [https://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Declarations_of_Interest&oldid=28845] "Roger is part of a successful Geovation bid with Andy Mabbett, Robin Owain and John Cummings." As the proposal has yet to be agreed, the possible future opportunity for Roger to be paid for contract work as part of this project was hypothetical but known to the board from the time of the first drafts from Robin and continues to be a serious question for the proposal to address before Wikimedia UK would consider co-funding, this alone may well be a reason for the proposal review team to recommend rejecting the project, particularly when judged against my question raised on 15 June as to whether ''"There has been an open process for any other volunteers to take part and take advantage of this sponsorship"''. To reiterate, we have made no commitment to fund the project.

The question of the flow of money is not straight forward due to requirements of co-funding bodies, this has been discussed and challenged previously in a Board meeting and a decision has yet to be made on how best to implement this in a way that satisfies the requirements of all co-funders. I reiterate, the money cannot be spent on anything other than to the benefit of open knowledge projects as presented to GeoVation. I suggest you take a closer look at the [http://www.geovation.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GeoVation_Competition_Terms_WelshCoastPath.pdf Geovation Terms], especially section 11.3 which acts as a very clear penalty clause.

In summary, as with any large proposal the devil is in the details, there are questions and these '''must''' be addressed before Wikimedia UK considers putting any funds into this future proposed project (which comes to us with £17,500 in the black) and I raised these some time ago. The project is an innovative and on-mission open knowledge project. Some details of implementation, especially openness for volunteers, need to be addressed before Wikimedia UK will consider becoming a co-funder but were I to fish for reasons to aggressively shoot it down in flames in public, based on draft documents several months old, just after the Coventry Board presentation and before the bid team has finalized their proposal to Wikimedia UK based on our feedback, this would seem to be creating confusion, carnage and bad faith just for the hell of it. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 06:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:What budget did the team present along with their bid? Presumably they had to give some indication of how they were going to fund the remainder of the budget that isn't covered by the £17,500. Was the bid presented with an assumption that WMUK would be co-funding it? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 11:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:1. Required or not, you said above that you did ask all participants about conflicts of interest. 2. If people went to the meeting in the expectation of getting paid contract work for themselves from this non-profit project, then WMUK should not have paid their expenses, even more so if as you now say openness for volunteers was in question. That's nothing against the project per se, just a somewhat worrying indication about how private business and charity roles seem to have become mixed and blurred. Please get the pages on this wiki that are supposed to document the various travel grants, microgrants and macrogrants updated so we can see who has received what and why. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 13:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::AK 1. Yes, I think I have answered the question very clearly more than once. The issue, in particular any potential payments to Roger Bamkin as a contractor, consultant, team member or in any other capacity, paid or unpaid, over the life of the project, is one for the Robin's proposal and the review team to make a assessment of and determine if the plan forward is acceptable or not, keeping in mind our [[Trustee Code of Practice]].
::AK 2. Yes, I hear you and understand the point you have made in several different ways in several different forums. I have received an email from Robin today, pointing out that he previously offered to the Wikimedia UK office to cover these expenses from the prize money, I have no idea why I was not made aware of this offer (it is possible I overlooked it in an email I was copied on, it would be handy if the original email were copied to me). I would have no ethical reservations in taking him up on that offer and when I am back home, I will reply to Robin suggesting he discuss how to do this with the Office Manager and make it happen.
::TD I did see a cash flow forecast which, as I recall (but I have not double checked and do not have sufficient time to do so this week), made no assumption that Wikimedia UK would bung cash at the project. As mentioned above, I expect John Byrne and Robin will talk about the documents supporting the proposal this week and publish them on-wiki as soon as possible considering the sudden unexpected interest that has developed in looking at the detail.
::If any Wikimedia UK member wishes to join the proposal review team (Andreas? Tango?) you are welcome to offer your time to help out. I certainly need more people on the GLAM network to deliver our projects, including this one, though please note that anyone taking part in the proposal review will be unable to be paid as a later consultant or employee for this interesting project, this naturally includes me. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Thank you for answering our questions. I'm still confused, though. I don't understand how they could get a £17.5k grant without having secured funding the whole project, and if they've secured funding for the whole project, why are they asking WMUK to co-fund it? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 19:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::::There will be more forthcoming on this, but I don't see why it is difficult to believe that "they could get a £17.5k grant without having secured funding the whole project", which is the case, not your 2nd option. Remember the £17.5K is not paid yet; whether getting other funding is a condition of releasing it I don't know or can't remember off the top of my head. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 10:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Hi Tango, just to clear up some of the confusion. Geovation is a "beauty contest" for IT projects that support (in this case) the Wales Coast Path. Four of us entered this contest in order to win/get/be awarded 40K. The budget that we presented was for 40K and that was (we thought) barely sufficient to launch a project. When the prizes were awarded we were awarded 17.5 K with the idea that we re-thought the budget. However others thought the project so interesting that Robin is trying to work it up to a higher figure with mostly external funding. At our recent board meeting in Coventry Robin presented the proposal without any involvement specified for me. This is government and institution money that is being created for a project. This is extra work that may be managed by WMUK. Some have suggested that this money is sitting in peoples bank accounts. This is not money that "we won" for ourselves but money that was awarded to a yet to be redefined project called "Living Paths". It appears that every time we declare a COI then it is assumed that this means we are profitting. The whole purpose of declaring a COI is to enable the board to emnsure that this does not happen. I have realised that this has become too tricky an overhead for the board and as you know I have resigned. [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] ([[User talk:Victuallers|talk]]) 21:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

=== Status of the grants pages ===
Hi all. Replying to the original question here - I'm sorry that the grant pages aren't up to date, that's been on my to-do list for far too long. The process has been designed to be as transparent as possible, although it's not quite managing that in every case - I'll see how we can improve this in the future. There is plenty of info about the microgrants at least, though - there's a few that sadly aren't public for one (boring) reason or another, most are there and are rather comprehensive. The scholarships pages do need more work, mostly just to pull the info together in one place (the advertisements, announcements and reports are currently all available but aren't clearly linked). I'm hoping that we can get full grants committee set up sometime in the near future, rather than this relying on me - if you'd be interested in being on that committee, please let me know. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

==QR codes==
After several months of delays we now know that the chapter is not being given QRpedia.org but only qrwp.org. I've been keeping a quarter of an eye on this for some time, but got quite complacent when I saw that board minutes or agendas had been talking about the transfer of QRpedia.

Now that we know that we have one but not the other I've got some concerns.

# Currently qrwp.org simply redirects to QRpedia.org, but presumably we could redirect it if in future we chose to part company with QRpedia, or if they parted company with us. Is that the case and if so is the chapter now going to take steps to replace our current use of QRpedia.org?
# Are any of the QR code plaques linked directly to QRpedia.org or do they all go indirectly via qrwp.org?
# It doesn't seem appropriate for us to be promoting QRpedia as a brand if it isn't ours, it doesn't belong to another compatible charity and while it doesn't currently show an ad to people using it, it could in the future. Can I suggest that the UK chapter stop using the name QRpedia, pick a new name for its QR codes project and announce that to the movement.
On a side note. My thanks to Roger and everyone else involved for developing this wonderful system, for giving us qrwp.org and for releasing the code under an open license. I haven't been a party to the discussions that have brought us to the current sitaution, and I don't want to sound like I'm looking a gift horse in the mouth. But now we know what's ours and what isn't, there are some practical steps that need taking. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 17:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:That's disappointing, especially after the recent assurance from Jon on the wikimediauk-l mailing list that transferring both domain names was just a formality. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009186.html] What happened? --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 17:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::Well according to the [http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/ chapter blog of two days ago] they've agreed to give qrwp.org to the Chapter. So unless I've misinterpreted that blog post we are being given less than perhaps some were expecting. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 18:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::Andreas, could you provide a link where Jon makes the statement you claim? I cannot see it on the email you linked to. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry; I grabbed the wrong URL. The right one is [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009187.html this] (the one I posted was for the post immediately preceding it). What Jon said was, "We have been working on an agreement solidly for the last two months. Should be agreed VERY shortly. No cock ups OR conspiracies just very complicated law. Jon." Apologies again for the mix-up. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 20:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the correction. The email from Jon makes no statement or assurance about "transferring both domain names". As you have pointed out, he does say "just very complicated law", which was probably not intended to give the impression that it was only formality as "very complicated law" is rarely that simple. As all the people involved are busy dealing with other urgent and important events, you might expect this to cause a delay in finalizing our QRpedia agreement. I am not currently involved in the negotiation with Terence and Roger, so I will leave it to those who are to consider how to reply, appropriately, to WSC's questions. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 20:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Is the negotiation complex? I've donated domains to organisations before, it is a fairly simple process involving... me transferring the domain. Trademarks (and if any exist that seems silly) can be signed over with simplicity. If they ''want'' to donate it they can, if they don't (and I wouldn't blame them after the last week) then fine. But as the project is open source it should be fairly easy for WMUK to set it up under a different "brand". Wherein lies the "negotiation"? Makes me cautious. --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 21:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::Yes it is complicated. Spelling out the precise details of the negotiation would hardly be a sensible thing to go public with, until the negotiation is complete. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Sounds a little like a waste of volunteer time then. Not to mention oddly secretive. Better just to set up the code ourselves. --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 22:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::As an unpaid volunteer, I agree that this negotiation which started ''last summer'', has wasted a ''huge'' amount of my time. As for ''secretive'', could you explain how to successfully run a complicated negotiation in the glare of the public eye? The code is open source, this means that anyone can set up a similar service, this was never an issue. As mentioned, I cannot answer WSC's questions, so I will step away from this thread and therefore save a bit of my valuable volunteer time. Cheers --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::It does make sense for complicated negotiations to happen in private, but I think the reason the secrecy seems odd is that it seems very odd for this to be a complicated negotiation. The impression we've been given is that the plan is just for Roger to donate the IP and domain names to WMUK. There is nothing complicated there. You only need to negotiate if Roger is expecting something in return, which would completely change the whole situation and would raise a lot more questions. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 11:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, sorry. Tom has nailed what I was aiming for; it seems odd that something like this would be complex, as there seems little to negotiate. My presumption has been that there is some stipulation involved which would allow the current owners to continue e.g. marketing the QRpedia plaques and so on. But a year seems a looooong time even for that. --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 13:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::The question WereSpielChequers asked, and which occasioned Jon's reply, was specifically about QRpedia.org, not qrwp.org. (That's why I included the previous post's URL.) QRpedia.org is the domain you're not getting. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 01:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::This was [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009181.html my question] that Jon was responding to:
:::::::''I don't have a problem with the UK chapter giving a few "how to edit leaflets" out to someone who is encouraging people how to edit.''
:::::::''But I would appreciate a little clarification re QRpedia. Can someone tell me who owns the http://qrpedia.org domain name? If I'm correct in my understanding of QR codes then all the QR codes that we are encouraging people to use point to that domain and are currently repointed to Wikipedia articles. So if we are going to promote QRpedia we need to know that the domain is part of the movement.''
::::::So yes I specifically named QRpedia.org. But I did so on my then presumption that this was the domain that the various QR plaques were directly pointing to. Things have moved on since, and I've learned that the domain that most and hopefully all of the plaques directly link to is apparently qrwp.org. There are other implications in our not being given QRpedia.org, but my question was clearly about the domain that the QR codes we are encouraging people to use link to and which at the time I thought was QRpedia.org. If the plaques are indirectly linking to qrpedia.org via a direct link to qrwp.org then Jon's reply was specifically about the domain I was actually asking about in that question. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 08:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I suggest you email Jon directly, link to this discussion, and ask for a written clarification of what he meant. The impression you appear to have been given does not match my understanding of the negotiation though things may have moved on since Chris became Chair and he and Jon took responsibility and authority for successfully completing the agreement. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Chris Keating, the WMUK chair, said on Sept. 17th in a reply to me, an hour and a half after Jon's post, ''"To further clarify - we are not really talking about intellectual property rights. We are talking about the domains ''[Note the plural – A.]'' currently used to provide the qrpedia service, which are qrpedia.org and qrwp.org."'' [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009190.html] He also said, "''4. QRpedia. QRpedia.org is owned by Roger Bamkin and Terence Eden, who have been maintaining it, along with qrwp.org (where the "qrpedia" links resolve), as volunteers. An agreement between Roger and Terence on the one hand and Wikimedia UK on the other is in the works, shouldn't take more than a few weeks to finish off, and will provide a firm basis for the growing use of Wikipedia-linked QR codes in future.''" [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009189.html] So according to what Chris said last week, the links go to qrpedia.org (not owned by WMUK) but resolve to qrwp.org (the domain that will be transferred to WMUK ownership, according to the above). [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 10:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Note two helpful comments by Tom Morris at the WP village pump: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28proposals%29&diff=514312410&oldid=514301974] "The QR codes point to qrwp.org. So, if you generate a QR code for the enwiki article for London points to the URL <kbd><nowiki>http://en.qrwp.org/London</nowiki></kbd> which will then redirect to the Mobile version of Wikipedia for the most appropriate language." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=514314108&oldid=514312410] "qrpedia.org is simply the website you go to that generates the QR codes. You paste in a Wikipedia URL and it generates the appropriate qrwp.org QR code. You don't have to use qrpedia.org to generate QRpedia codes: you can use any QR code generator. But if WMUK are to have control over QRpedia (which they, or another chapter, or the Foundation, probably should), it kind of makes sense to have both." --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 13:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Hi Andreas, I'm not sure what "resolve" means in this contest or whether we are all using that word in the same way. But what is clear to me now is that qrwp.org is the code in the current physical plaques, and hopefully all plaques that we've erected and therefore is the QR domain that we need to worry about long term. If we need to we can migrate from QRpedia to something else without replacing all the plaques that have been erected. If QRwp.org has been given to WMUK then I'm happy that we continue to promote QR codes, including using QRpedia.org in the short term as long as it continues to be freely available without advertising. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 23:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

== Voting methods ==

I recall that at [[WikiConference UK 2012]] we discussed the issue of the voting method used for electing the board. I think there was general agreement that we should go away and think about it and discuss it on-wiki.

I haven't noticed anything on here... but let me know if I have missed it.

For what it is worth, I think that [[Wikipedia:User:Homunq|Homunq]] has done most of the hard work for us, with an [[Wikipedia:User:Homunq/WP voting systems|essay on WP voting systems]]. Homunq has identified a system that most Wikimedians will feel familiar with and yet is very rigorous. We could possibly tweek it slightly for our purposes... but I think Homunq is still working on it so for now I will just note that the essay is there.

[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 17:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
:The proposed voting system there is for choosing a single option. We elect multiple board members at a time, so it wouldn't be suitable for us. There is a first draft of a proposal [[User:LondonStatto/Proposed EGM Motion on Voting System|here]] and was some discussion last week on the UK mailing list starting [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-September/009159.html here]. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 19:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
::And, cutting to the chase, a proposal at [[User:LondonStatto/Proposed STV Election Rules]] (oops, as Tom lked to above), which I am so far the only person to comment on. More comments welcome - better here than on the list now - & thanks for the reminder link to Homuq's stuff. This has been rather sidetracked by recent events, and we need 28 days notice of the meeting once the resolution is sorted out, so realistically the necessary EGM will not be before November. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 10:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

== Collaboration or Independence ==

WMUK has, since it was established, worked to develop collaboration or even partnership with other organisations, even public relations people. These collaborations have mostly consisted of training in Wikipedia editting, including providing guidance on our COI policy.

Andreas, in his contribution above, has emphasised the importance of wikipedia staying independent. He claims (as I understand it) that such collaborations could be perceived as compromising our independence and neutrality and should be avoided. (I hope I have accurately represented your views Andreas).

These 2 views are diametrically opposed. If we believe one then we must reject the other. Personally I believe providing training to all sorts of organisations is a good thing and it provides an opportunity to explain our COI policy to these organisations which should help reduce COI editting and help us maintain the neutral POV of Wikipedia. [[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] ([[User talk:Filceolaire|talk]]) 03:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

:I agree with Filceolaire. I remember being quite surprised at WMUK's approach to this sort of stuff... but now I am familiar with it, it makes sense.
:I think it helps to understand what the term "conflict of interest" means. It doesn't mean "there is money involved", although perhaps it is understandable when that raises suspicions. It doesn't mean "being interested in something other than the encyclopedia (or other project)". The whole meaning of NPOV is that people with different perspectives can agree on something. "Conflict of interest" is about when your interests clash with those of the encyclopedia. Often they are aligned, but when they are not you should put the encyclopedia first.
:Businesses are often looked at with suspicion. Their interest in promoting themselves conflicts with the interest of the encyclopedia. However there are some areas where they are aligned. Neither side wants misinformation about the company to be on the encyclopedia.
:As far as I can see, the issue with Roger was that he is accused of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] for DYK. While there may be a perfectly innocent explanation I can see why it looks dodgy. I think we should carry on collaborating but make sure that people are very careful to avoid the appearance of anything like gaming the system.
:[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 08:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
::There has been a great deal of confusion and miscommunication as to what we (Wikimedia UK) mean by "Independence", "Declarations of Interests" and "Conflict of Interests". The terms are not interchangeable and our definition of CoI is not the one from the English Wikipedia, though more work, in my opinion, needs to be done in reviewing and consulting on the differences. For example to interpret "independence", the Wikimedia UK charity is required to consider and assess against the Charity Commission's guidelines, including advice from interesting guidelines such as [http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/rr7.aspx RR7] which explains how we ought to be free to stay independent of the state, which in our case may also be read as retaining an appropriate level of independent governance from other bodies.
::As has been mentioned previously, the Board is discussing our plan of action, which includes an independent governance review to deliver public recommendations for improvement. One area that will be addressed will be how better to communicate and consult on our DoI process and the interpretation of CoI, particularly in comparison to the Wikipedia definition of CoI which remains a continuing source of contention. I cannot commit to a date when the Board can go public with agreed top level actions, but from what I have been involved with, I would expect us to realistically be able to do so in a week. As per our obligations and good practice for a charity, the board has sought independent advice, including legal advice, and this is bound to take time. I do not believe I am saying anything surprising or compromising any in-camera discussions, so I have not reviewed my words here with the board before making them; should any trustee like me to make corrections, I would be only too happy to do so.
::By the way, as a (sometimes controversial) contributor to the Wikimedia projects with quite a few edits under my belt, at this point the highest number across projects for any trustee, I would find it a very odd position for ''Wikimedia'' UK to have a Board of trustees who might have to desist from contributing to the ''Wikimedia'' projects whilst they are a trustee for fear of creating reputational risk for the charity. Hopefully positive, proactively managed and detailed guidelines will avoid us having to appoint a board where the majority must have weak or no experience as Wikimedians. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the person most stressing independence was Lexein, rather than myself, Filceolaire. My concern has been primarily about mixed roles – i.e. being a trustee of Wikimedia UK, while also being a paid consultant contributing to a project that is funded by a third party, but endorsed by Wikimedia UK. No one should have to explain the appearance of impropriery in this to anyone: it is really, really obvious.

Where I agree with Lexein and others is that it makes a huge difference whether Wikimedia UK partners with an educational organisation or a tourist board that clearly states in its own publicity that it views the project as a cost-effective marketing exercise designed to boost tourism. The latter type of cooperation is simply untenable, especially if money changes hands and Wikimedia UK officials or members are the recipients. It will damage Wikimedia's reputation just as quickly and obviously as Bell Pottinger's. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 13:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
:The devil is in the details. I would be open to discussing a partnership with any ''ethical'' organization that supports our mission. However my understanding of ''ethical'' or how another party believes they support our mission, needs balanced and ''conservative'' interpretation for the best interests of the UK charity. Plenty of organizations come with their own reputational and political past that may need careful consideration and possibly appropriate limitations to the scope of a relationship (the British Museum is a good example of that, I vaguely recall an email complaining about our partnership with them due to some of their artefacts that have not been repatriated...). However I don't really want to dig into this steaming pile right now. We are going to commission an independent governance review in the very near future, and how we go about testing for tricky devils in partnering details must be part of that review. I look forward to solid independent public recommendations and putting in place an improvement plan along with firm preventative and corrective action, that can restore our credibility in this area.
:Oh, a minor correction, I do not believe that Wikimedia UK has entered into any agreement with a tourist board. I may be mistaken, if so please link to some evidence as it may come in handy for the coming review. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
::One thing I have noticed though is that all our training days are during office hours i.e. they are for the organisation staff (who are to some extent oriented to the organisation), not for their members (who are more oriented to the objectives). [[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] ([[User talk:Filceolaire|talk]]) 08:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

== Hotcat and other tools ==

Hi, Hotcat is available in everyone's preferences now on :wmuk, but I'm getting a bit frustrated with changing categories on many pages (I would like to move over 100 pages in one category, and I can't think of an easy way apart from writing a bit of Python to do it - seems a bit daft). Could someone investigate if we could have something like cat-a-lot or similar to use on this wiki so that everyone can help with keeping it well organized? Cheers --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
==Chepstowpedia==
What is the status of Chepstowpedia? (For those unfamiliar with it, there is some info on it [http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chepstowpedia_report2.pdf here].) Are there any other projects like it in the pipeline? --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] [[User talk:Jayen466|JN]] 13:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
:I suspect this was just raised on Wikipediocracy, thanks for coming here first as you may find this is a better place to get real facts rather than speculation on Jimbo's talk page.
:No, though there is visionary talk, I don't know of an identifiable pipeline of these projects and as I am the GLAM budget holder, which seems the only appropriate budget, that would seem definitive. The only <town/city>pedia projects discussed are as per the Board meeting minutes. As for Chepstowpedia, checking the board meeting minutes, there was a decision to accept this proposal, see [[Minutes_26Jul12#Chepstowpedia]], and put aside £14,000 in the budget. I had forgotten it, because as far as I know, this has not made progress against the conditions given in the minutes, for example I have yet to see a draft proposed MOU and the QRPedia agreement is still under discussion. In fact it was myself that recommended that the QRPedia agreement being in place was a pre-condition of funding this proposal (I recall raising this during an [[Board meetings/Executive committee|Executive Committee]] telecon, when I used to have those).
:You will note in the proposal that it clearly includes a paid Wikimedian in Residence to be recruited and the post was to be ''openly'' advertised in the community.
:Without any recent update on this proposal, I suspect it to have stalled as I am unaware of any volunteer or staff pushing for it as a priority at the current time. If no significant progress is reported by the next Board meeting in November (are you presenting Andreas?) I would aim to ask for the budget to be released and allocated against other activities. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

== Webcasted board meetings ==

Over at [[w:en:User:Victuallers]] I read that the UK board meetings are webcasted. When did this start? Where is this document? Are the streams available for download? [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 07:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
:See [[:Commons:Category:Wikimedia_UK_board_meetings]]. Has the Australian chapter published webcasts of your open board meetings? Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 08:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for the pointer. It looks like April is the first webcasted board meeting ([[commons:Category:Wikimedia UK board meeting of 21-22 April 2012]]) however I dont see streams for the subsequent board meetings. Were those meetings webcasted? Thanks, [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 08:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
:::No experience of doing this in the Australian chapter? I would have expected that video engagement would make a lot of sense considering thousands of miles separate your board members.
:::I know that Richard took video recordings of the Coventry meeting and I believe all in-person board meetings have been recorded. He has probably been overwhelmed with administration to process the files and upload them (I think it was me that uploaded and processed videos in 2011, so April 2012 was not the first). If a volunteer with A/V experience would like to offer to take the files and process them on Richard's advice (they may need to be edited to remove any in-camera discussion), please do contact Richard.
:::In general, we need a small team of A/V volunteers to help with recordings from all events, which in turn encourages better virtual engagement and innovation. This has been raised before, but seems to have run into the sand, so come on leading volunteers, someone have a go at taking this on. I would be very keen to see such a team established and running well in advance of next year's AGM and the GLAMwiki conference. Cheers --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 08:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Fae, I asked simple questions here about WMUK and you're answers are far from helpful, and you're aggressively asking questions about WMAU in your responses. Nobody who has been on the WMAU board is publicly saying that the WMAU board meetings have been "[[w:en:webcasted|en:webcasted]]". WMAU doesnt have open board meetings to publish, so your first question is a loaded question. You're responses here has been lots of loaded language meant to suggest that WMUK is great because it has open meetings and WMAU isnt good because it doesn't have open meetings. It's comical that you think now is a good time for a WMUK trustee to be publicly offering suggestions to other chapters on how to run their board. A movement wide discussion about the utility of open board meetings and webcasted board meetings would be great, but this isn't the time or place. A discussion about what is wrong with WMAU would also be good, but WMAU's problems arn't in the international media so perhaps you can appreciate that now isnt the time or place for that either.
::::WMUK does have a recently resigned member of its board asserting, in a public statement regarding a controversy involving Wikimedia UK, that the Wikimedia UK board meetings have been webcasted, and the implication is that this has happened regularly and that this webcasting means that the public have had access to the relevant board discussions. ("''[WMUK] web cast their board meetings.''") If this has happened, you should have been able to provide a clear and simple answer: "yes, all board meetings regarding this project have been webcasted, and [here] is the evidence". If not, I should not need to be here asking questions because it is your duty as a trustee to set the record straight promptly.
::::After your first response I found that video of the April board meeting was published, and now after your second response I have found that the [[:commons:Category:Wikimedia UK board meeting of 19-20 November 2011|November 2011]] meeting was also published. Are they the only two that have been published? Can someone please confirm in simple language that the relevant board meetings have been webcasted and/or published? [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 02:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, I thought that spending my time precisely providing the information you needed was answering your question. As I seem to only be annoying you, I will leave it to others to follow-up, should they wish to. I have quite specific duties as a trustee and answering scatter-gun questions on this Water Cooler is not actually my personal duty, certainly not one that the Charity Commission would recognize or expect. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 07:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

:::John, when you quote these videos or use them as evidence when you repost details elsewhere, could you make it clear that '''the UK Chapter remains the first and only chapter to be committed enough to transparency and openness''' in accordance with our [[Values]] that we have all our board meetings as '''open meetings''' and have gone to great lengths and effort to '''record and publish the meetings on video for the benefit of our members and the public'''. I have no doubt you can find two seconds in the video where I use colourful language or one of our trustees says something mistakenly because they have not double checked our records. I would hope that if used this way, that this does not discourage either the UK Chapter, other Chapters or the Wikimedia Foundation to consider having open board meetings or recording them for the public benefit in this way in the future. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Cripes Fae, you really need to stop making assumptions about what other people are going to do. I had no intention to use the content in the videos. My current objective is to check the accuracy of a ex-UK board members statement. If it was true, it was ''very cool'' and is very helpful to counter some of the concerns in the current controversy; if it was false/misleading, it was ''very problematic'' in the current controversy.
::::For the record, I applaud WMUK for any open board meetings it has held (I havent any idea if this is true, but I also dont doubt it is true), and for recording and publishing board meetings, of which I have seen evidence of two. Are you 100% confident that WMUK is the first and only chapter to have done this? [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 03:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Yes, as stated, I believe one other chapter once tried webcasting, but no chapter has recorded consistently in the way the UK has led the field in transparency. Thank you for applauding Wikimedia UK's work in this regard. Should you have any other ideas for assessing the operations of Wikimedia UK, I hope you can take a moment to discuss these with Jon Davies who can doubtless easily check the facts and put the results publicly in writing if clarifications are necessary, before spending your valuable time running your own personal private investigation into one of our past trustees. Jon is fond of saying that his ''door is always open'' and you can put that to the test by emailing him questions at jon.davies{{@}}wikimedia.org.uk. As a matter of efficiency, we do not expect staff to spend a lot of time surfing noticeboards so email is a better bet to get his attention. I am sure as the Australian Chapter President there are many important and urgent things on your plate; I certainly find myself rather popular these days when experienced and trusted hands are needed on urgent matters.
:::::By the way, Roger Bamkin has a long history of telling the truth, you seen unaware of that fact by assuming otherwise ("If it was true"). Allegations recently made about him that I have recently read in the press and by direct email, include corruption, malfeasance, bribery and unlawful activities. Should evidence for any of these allegations ever be presented to the UK Chapter (none has to date) then an independent investigation will address them, publicly. In the absence of evidence being presented, for some time we have planned an independent investigation by credible independent investigators into the Wikimedia UK governance processes that will pay specific and detailed attention to Roger Bamkin's declared interests and how it was managed along with how Wikimedia UK appropriately manages partnerships and other relationships with '''all''' second and third parties in line with Charity Commission guidelines and in fulfilment of our [[Mission]]. I referred to this previously on this noticeboard. This will be independent of anyone on the UK Board, the UK Chapter or the Wikimedia Foundation and will report publicly. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 07:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Since general questions are not working, I'll try a very specific one. Where is the webcast of the [[Minutes_30Jun12|30 June 2012 board meeting]]? [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 09:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
: Only a few board meetings have been webcast live, although more have been video recorded. The ones that are available online are [[:commons:Category:Wikimedia UK board meeting of 19-20 November 2011|19-20 November 2011]] (first webcast meeting) and [[:commons:Category:Wikimedia UK board meeting of 21-22 April 2012|21-22 April 2012]]. I believe that the recordings for 30 June are on one of the computers in the office (probably Stevie's) - I don't think that the office has had time to edit and upload them yet. As I understand it, the reasons why we've been recording rather than webcasting are a) the office has a video camera but not a high-quality web camera, and b) the internet connections in board meetings haven't been particularly reliable of late (e.g. I tend to resort to my 3G connection to be able to reliably access the etherpad minutes). Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 09:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
:: Thank you Mike for a nice clear and informative answer. By 'webcast', do you/Roger/WMUK mean uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and therefore available on demand? Or were there board meetings that were streamed live using a different technology stack? If it is a live webcast, is the address advertised to members only or to the public (such as this wiki or the wikimediauk-l list).
:: If WMUK has only made videos of two board meetings available, and both were before Gibraltarpedia, then the WMUK's intentions to publish videos of all UK board meetings are laudable but quite irrelevant as this would mean that the public statement by Roger is misleading, as a reasonable man will read it to mean that Wikimedia UK has systematically maked available videos of their board meetings, and that they can find videos of the board meetings about events that are currently attracting attention. You guys <s>are his colleagues and friends</s> appear to maintain good relations with him, and it is in everyones interest that his statement is accurate and the evidence to support it is easy to find.
::p.s. While I am addressing this to you Mike, I dont mean to suggest that you are required to answer; anyone can do it ("its a wiki"), and I appreciate that good answers often arn't available immediately, especially if a board needs to review the answer, and even worse if they need to approve the answer. I leave it in your capable hands. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 11:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC) (small addition: [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 13:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC))
:::A minor correction, "You guys are his colleagues and friends" is potentially misleading. I have had no personal contact or discussion with Roger for several months, this would not be normal for my personal friendships, in fact I have exchanged private emails with Andreas Kolbe more often than Roger over the last six months, so perhaps I would need to declare that as a friendship. Being collegiate with trustees on the board is not the same as having personal friendships that might be later claimed to lead to a potential conflict of loyalties with the Charity. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Thank you Fae for being so concerned about the wording of my post here. In my experience it is quite normal to develop a friendly relationship with a fellow board member without that meaning there is a conflict of loyalties. Anyway, I have struck "are his colleagues and friends" and replaced it with "appear to maintain good relations with him". All I was saying is that Wikimedia UK should be best placed to deal with this quickly and effectively. As the answers to my original questions arn't as simple as I had hoped, I have notified Roger on en.wp to this conversation as it regards statements he has made there. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 05:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
::::: Thank you John, it was only a few days ago that I would have had the same world view, sadly no longer. Had you been getting the legal advice and professional advice on these issues that the UK Board had this week, including on the importance of judging "friendships" against potential for conflict of loyalties and when "friendships" should be declared as conflicts of interests, you would also be appearing to act in a paranoid fashion by now. I sincerely hope the Australian Chapter is never in a similar position of having to consider the threats and unsupported allegations we have had this past week. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 05:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As it is approaching 48 hours and has turned from a simple question into the real possibility of Roger's statement being misleading, I did some more research myself. I have found that the November 2011 and April 2012 board meetings were live webcasts and wikimediauk-l was informed. Very cool.

However I have not found any webcasts, live or otherwise, for any other board meetings, including all board meetings related to Gibraltarpedia which occurred after April.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Victuallers&diff=514212906&oldid=514205760&diffonly=1]. This is not a problem in itself, however if true then Roger's statement is misleading, which is not so cool.

For anyone interested in the details, parts of the [[Agenda 19Nov11|November 2011]] meeting were live at http://bambuser.com/v/2140298 and that feed was advertised on the wikimediauk-l list.[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2011-November/006751.html][http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2011-November/006758.html] More at http://bambuser.com/channel/pigsonthewing . The [[Agenda_21Apr12|April 2012]] meeting appears to have also been webcasted at http://monmouthpedia.wordpress.com/webcast/ , and again this was advertised on the wikimediauk-l list.[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-April/007710.html] More at http://bambuser.com/channel/dsoundzmedia?channel-search=wikimedia .

[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 05:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi John! We webcasted our first few meetings this year, but the quality wasn't amazing, so we moved to filming them on an HD camcorder, then subsequently uploading them to Commons. We didn't film the Coventry meeting, because it was very [[:File:WMUK_board_meeting_8_September_2012_1.JPG|'get up and walk around']], and not everyone wanted to be filmed. The 30 June one was filmed, I believe, but Stevie is on holiday at the moment so it's not been uploaded. There can be slips of the tongue that need editing out, which is a lot of work for 6+ hours of video - hence the delay. That said, any detailed discussion about the Gibraltarpedia conflict of interest would probably be in-camera, so I'm not sure you'd find what you want even if it was filmed. If you have any questions and you feel you're not getting answers, feel free to drop me or Jon an email and we'll do everything we can to help. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
:A carefully edited video that removes anything off-message doesn't do a lot to improve transparency... --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 11:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
::I am quite happy to be on video saying bollocks or worse. Everyone knows I can swear like a trouper and I honestly try terribly hard not to do that during board meetings, I apologise for any offence caused to those sensitive to such material due to my passion for the subject and my working class childhood. Be reassured, I have never called anyone pleb, so there is one scandal we might avoid. I am not too unhappy about being on video saying something off-message, so long as I am allowed to change my viewpoint over time; this is not intentional hypocrisy, it is learning. I admit to being often wrong, I may argue the case strongly, at times didacticly, but if someone presents the facts, I have been known to do instant U-turns in the middle of the Board meeting, sometimes more than once in five minutes. On some rare occasions I have even had to admit that I was wrong and Tango was right. Those moments hurt worst of all.
::I think Richard is referring to accidental slips of information that may be about matters that second parties may wish to keep confidential or commercial matters (such as procurement contracts and matters of staff employment), probably, the edits are certainly not under my direction. Cheers --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
::Tango, your comment talks about a hypothetical. Nobody has suggested using editing to remove "anything off-message". Protecting in-camera discussion from being made public is very different. Are you expecting people to persuade you that the hypothetical isn't true? That seems a singularly unhelpful way to contribute to the debate. Please come up with accusations backed by evidence, or withdraw the innuendo. [[User:MartinPoulter|MartinPoulter]] ([[User talk:MartinPoulter|talk]]) 16:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Richard was explicitly talking about sessions that weren't in-camera. If you're thinking he's talking about things that should have been in-camera and were accidentally mentioned in open session, then I'll point out that no precautions against that were made against that in the live streamed sessions and that hasn't been given as a reason for switching from live streaming to recording. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 16:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
==In-camera meetings==
A slight side issue from the above, though I do not recall asking for the video to be edited, I have in meetings asked for the video to be switched off. There are good reasons for some matters to be discussed in-camera, however I am now firmly of the opinion that too much of the Board discussion has been conducted in-camera over the last year. Currently, I am part of several board discussions running in-camera and as time continues I have been having more difficulty reconciling this behaviour with our stated [[Values|value of openness and transparency]] or the Nolan principles stated in the [[Trustee Code of Conduct]]. For example one of the in-camera discussions is my proposal to make important board votes that would be of public interest, public, by listing the names of the trustees, how they voted against a proposal and any comments they make against their vote.

If members would like to discuss this particular aspect to votes of the UK Board, it may help our decision making process (along with a definition what should, and what should not, be held in-camera). If we do agree this change, I expect it to apply to critical votes made last week that, at this time, I believe are in the public interest; yet unfortunately our working practice hampers me from discussing with members. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

== Volunteers: Do you think you have an interest you should declare? ==
{{anchor|Volunteers: Do you think you have a conflict of interest you should declare?}}
I see Wikimedia UK is painfully evolving, I hope you can sense that and help make this less painful. I am reflecting carefully on the [[Trustee Code of Conduct|Nolan principles]] and am quite uncomfortable with some of the emails appearing in my inbox over the last fortnight, in particular the principle of ''openness''. Anyway, enough waffle; back in July this year, the trustees had a discussion about the possibility of asking volunteers to declare interests - see [[Talk:Declarations_of_Interest#COI by volunteers]] - interestingly my opinion has not shifted much since then, when I noted "I would caution against any volunteer rushing to make public declarations until the consequences are carefully thought through." In my view this is way beyond what the Charity Commission can guide us on, this is an issue for the Chapter and members to decide the way forward and set our policies appropriately. We are collectively experts on Wikimedians in Residence projects and handling funding for people to do interesting things, such as travel to Wikimania or talk in a conference in India. It is down to us as a community how far we ought to go to meet not just our legal requirements as a charity, but in good conscience find policies that enable our mission without swamping us in bureaucracy, or putting such a ghastly burden on volunteers that we just push off and do things on our own instead.

Okay, I'm going to set a few '''suggested principles for discussion''' and please, please invite others to express their opinions as this is never going to be clear cut. These are off the top of my head but I have been fretting over this for a while, I am happy to withdraw anything here or see it radically revised. If it turns into a big deal, we can move the discussion to the DoI talk page.
<div style="background:lightgreen;border:1px solid black;padding:1em">
;Declarations by volunteers; the principles
# Trustees and Staff are required to comply with [[Declarations of Interest]].
# Volunteers who are not trustees (or past trustees) are not routinely asked about their interests or expected to make declarations. The Chapter may keep records of events attended and self-declared educational or social interests of volunteers (such as on registration pages of events) but there is no expectation that these are assessed for potential conflict of interest.
# Volunteers active in delivering projects or proposing funding for new projects, who have commercial interests either directly or indirectly related to the activities of the Chapter are expected to review these with the CEO and reach an understanding if there is any potential for a conflict of loyalties.
# Volunteers are likely to have a range of non-commercial interests (past employers, membership of institutions, work in other charities, etc.), these interests are to the benefit of the charity. If these are directly related to activities of the charity, they should be reviewed with the CEO or event organizers. For example, someone considering applying for a job in the V&A who at the same time is making a proposal for funding of a V&A related project, should review that situation with the CEO to assess if it needs to be declared and managed.
# Outreach events and other open events by the Chapter are open to the public and if a volunteer is not part of delivering the event, then commercial interests are not relevant to declare.
# Declarations of interests by volunteers may be given in confidence to the Board (being the CEO and trustees), however the Board may consider any potential conflict of loyalties requires a choice between a public statement or action to ensure that the potential conflict of loyalty presents no risk to the [[mission]] of the charity.
# Volunteers with an interest undergoing discussion and review by either the CEO or Board, must absent themselves from related activities of the charity until an agreement on the possible need to make a public or confidential declaration is in place.
# Declared interests that need to be shared with second parties (such as GLAM partners, other chapters or the Wikimedia Foundation) must be made public.
# All Chapter Members have a right to ask for an independent review of confidential declarations and ask the Board if any confidential declarations exist in relation to current activities.
# All current public declarations must be listed at [[Declarations of Interest]]. Any publicly declared interest of volunteers may be deleted on request after six months of the interest ceasing to exist.
</div>
:''(Note) If you are keen, you might want to read what the Charity Commission have to say about this topic at [http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity_requirements_guidance/charity_governance/good_governance/conflicts.aspx Good governance/conflicts]. Their focus is on trustees, but it is useful to ponder the terms '''conflict of loyalties''', '''non-financial interests''' and what might constitute an '''unmanaged conflict of interest''' and think about how they might apply more generally to Wikimedia UK volunteers.
Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
===Feedback===
====Feedback 1: Indirect benefit====
I've had some feedback by email - on principle 3 above. I agree it's worrying. How on earth can we define what "indirect" might be and if it has any limits? Some difficult examples:
:*I worked for a Wellcome Trust project 3 years ago and stay in touch with some of the people there, I might want to work with them at some time in the future. Should that be declared if anything WMUK does is related to the Wellcome Trust?
:*I am retired, have life membership of Cadw and help out as an unpaid volunteer on one of the sites. Welsh heritage projects are popping up that I would like to do more with, do I need to review that with the WMUK CEO?
:*Do I have to declare having lunch with people I used to work with, particularly if we are shooting the breeze about possible future Wikimedia projects which might turn into proposals?
:*My wife works for Ordnance Survey. Am I supposed to declare that as an indirect interest if I volunteer to help with the Living Paths project which exploits open OS data? Why would I need to discuss my marriage when I am just a volunteer, not a trustee?
:*I have a recent article published Biology Letters, does that mean I need to declare that before helping with anything to do with the Royal Society?
:*I am employed by a government agency. I have a wide network of colleagues in various councils and agents. I have no intention of ever making any money related to my Wikimedia UK activities. I would rather stop volunteering with the charity than go public with my career history; do I now have to make a choice?
:*I am ready to discuss a possible interest, how does this process comply with the Data Protection Act? Would the trustees ever make my declaration public in an investigation without my agreement, considering it would be on the record?
:These might be nonsense examples or a concern, at the moment we have no lines in the sand established, which is the point of opening this up for discussion. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
====Feedback 2: Benchmarking the process====
I address the matter of indirect benefit {{Diff|Microgrants/QRWorldExpo|29603|28583|this edit}} on a microgrant application page, so shan't repeat what I said here. I would also suggest looking at what other charities ask of their volunteers; and in what categories (budget holders may need to declare more than others, for example). From my experience of other charities, large and small, the proposals are overkill. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 20:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
:I think so too, I'm open to finding a way of trimming it down and still addressing the issues as raised by the Wikimedia Foundation. A year ago I would have argued strongly against going down this route, but we seem an unusually fat "allegation target" compared to many others... probably strongly linked to being the largest English based chapter in existence and so of great interest for any issues relating to the English Wikipedia. You will note that the principles do not, and must not, involve the charity acting as an inquisition. The intention is to make it clear what may be relevant to declare, and then the volunteer knows who to talk it over with in confidence. I look forward to the coming independent governance review which may provide some ideas along these lines by pinning down the ''evidence'' of what issues there are to fix, and provide some charity benchmarking tips as you suggest.
:After reading your response on the QRWorldExpo microgrant page, I would like to pick up again on the issue of the impossibility of addressing what might be ''indirect'' benefit. I think this has huge potential to be a ghastly mistake if not handled with care. There is an risk that our processes will blight good proposals and opportunities to be innovative, as we gradually move to a climate where volunteers as well as trustees come under extreme, aggressive and at times quite malicious scrutiny. Anyone who might bid for some contract work for the charity, volunteer for a project with significant expenses or work on a partnership agreement with an institution they happen to know from experience, will be under pressure to confess vague related interests and expect to have their past trawled for potential declaration issues. With a history of stalking and harassment against members of our community, most of our experienced volunteers would think twice about how heavily they are prepared to get publicly involved, and we know of many that would walk away if they were asked to make public declarations, this has already happened for prospective trustees who have no choice in the matter. Perhaps this is the reality of the situation and we should constrain what we do and expect some volunteers to drift away from the charity as a result. With the 4th anniversary coming up, I hope we can get over this hump in the road and find a smart way of speeding up again. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
====Feedback 3: Background checks, anonymity and perception====
I have had an email from a second volunteer (I hope readers here are noting that this is the second person wanting to stay anonymous) with the following concerns (paraphrased):
# Will WMUK be perceived as trying to tell volunteers what they can and can't do along with testing whether they are "loyal" to the chapter? --Anon
#* Yes, I think we will be perceived that way. Note that membership of the charity is conditional on acting for the best interests of the charity, any declared conflict of loyalties would be assessed in this way. Please note that "conflict of loyalties" is Charity Commission phrasing, it is probably better interpreted by example cases rather than definitions. This is something in our policy (should we adopt one in this area) to pin down with lots of good examples we can agree on. For example if your Dad is a Director of a company that happens to be supplying Wikimedia UK with temporary contract staff, then that would be an issue of potential conflict of loyalty if, as a volunteer, you are part of making proposals or decisions for funding a WMUK project that generates more consultancy work for that company. In such a situation we would not be accusing you of not being "loyal", we just do not want anyone to be left in a position where such a conflict exists and is not managed appropriately and seen to be managed. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
# Is this a background check? --Anon
#* No, this is a voluntary process of making a self declaration. WMUK does not plan to make its own background checks. However, if there is a specific allegation of conflict of interest or conflict of loyalties, then WMUK may be obliged to put the allegation to the volunteer for a response. Our processes are not clear in this last area and we may need to add to the [[Whistle-blowing Policy]]. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
# What happens when this is a volunteer who wishes to protect their identity even (or especially) when going to real life events and meetings? If they are required to reveal conflict of interest information, surely that makes it very easy to work out who they are? --Anon
#*This will be an issue. Any initial discussion of whether a confidential declaration is needed, would itself always stay confidential. However once considered worth a confidential declaration, issues may become apparent that require a public declaration and it is hard to say we (the Board of trustees) would never need to reveal the identity of the volunteer involved, or that we could keep their identity anonymous or pseudonymous if we tried. As you point out, in our real life situations, it is not normally hard to work out who we might be referring to, and as a result of this risk of some matters having to become public for the best interest of the charity, I have no doubt that in rare cases, volunteers will sadly prefer step back from some activities after their initial confidential discussion. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

== Visiting WMUK next week ==

Hello, folks.

I will be visited the WMUK office for a couple of days starting this coming Monday morning, and would love to meet as many WMUK members as possible. This would be an opportunity for me to learn more about WMUK's programs and interests, and for you to learn more about the Wikimedia Foundation's programs, and to ask any questions you may have.

Please let me know if you'd be interested in meeting, and we'll schedule something! I will be in London until Thursday morning.

Cheers! [[User:Ijon|Ijon]] ([[User talk:Ijon|talk]]) 19:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

:Unfortunately I wouldn't be able to meet up. I'm already travelling to London multiple times for WMUK events in the next few weeks. One too many I'm afraid. Hope to meet you some other time, maybe in Hong Kong. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 13:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

== Diff template ==

The template {{Tl|Diff}}, as used on en.Wikipedia, is now available on this wiki. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 21:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

== Lang template ==

The template <noinclude>{{Tl|Lang}}</noinclude>, as used on en.Wikipedia, for indicating the language of non-English text, is now available on this wiki, in a modified form, which uses only one category. {{Lang|fr|C'est magnifique}}! [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 22:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

== Trustees and "cabinet voting" ==

There are current discussions for the Wikimedia UK board of trustees to institute "cabinet voting". My understanding of how this would work, would mean that trustees would be obliged to publicly support the majority outcome of key votes, even if privately they continue to disagree with them. It ''may'' also be used to ensure all trustees vote the same way in a public vote. Should a trustee wish to publicly disagree, then they would have no alternative but to resign as a trustee before being free to speak. I would be interested in the views of WMUK members and have set up a poll at [http://www.doodle.com/ffuh95eiy4mptget Doodle]. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

:This is an absolutely horrendous proposal and goes right against the heart of the principles of openness and transparency which underpins the Wikimedia movement, and upon which Wikimedia UK was founded on. Even the WMF Board now list individual trustees' votes on a resolution.[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency] This is nothing more than a half-assed attempt to hide division within the heart of the current board of trustees that only serve to reduce accountability of individual trustee and damages the chapter. Whoever proposed this, shame on you! -- [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 16:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:: I'm not sure where Fæ is coming from here - a search of my inbox for "cabinet voting" doesn't bring up anything. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 16:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
::: See, for example, the direct advice to the Board from Jon Davis "[WMUK Board] Confirmation of our discussion" @25 September 2012 21:40. Look for "cabinet responsibility" and/or "cabinet rules" rather than "cabinet voting". Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

:If this is a genuine proposal, then it is obviously an extremely bad one. Wikimedia UK is a democratically run organisation, which means the electorate needs to know individual opinions in order to hold the board to account (directly, through their votes, and in other ways). Is that actually the proposal, or is someone just suggesting a "disagree and commit" approach where, once the vote is over and you've lost, you commit to following the agreed course of action and to supporting it in the sense of doing what you can to make it a success? Disagreeing and committing can be a very effective way of handling a body which has both a decision making role and a role in executing those decisions (as the WMUK board does). Being forced to pretending that you don't disagree, on the other hand, is a tyranny of the majority. Setting up a Doodle poll, by the way, is a very bad way to handle this situation - it's much better to discuss it than to count heads. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 17:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

:Katie - the trustees already have "collective responsibility" for the organisation. See, for instance, the Charity Commission guidelines here: http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc3.aspx#e8
:I am not exactly sure what Fae thinks is being proposed. Certainly, we've received advice saying that on issues like those we've been dealing with in the last couple of weeks, we ought to minute which trustees are in favour of, and which against, particular proposals. (i.e. putting us more in line with the Wikimedia Foundation's practice). I don't know where the idea " It may also be used to ensure all trustees vote the same way in a public vote" comes from.
:The relevant part of the existing [[Trustee Code of Conduct]] says; "I will participate in collective decision making, accept a majority decision of the board and will not act individually unless specifically authorised to do so."
:Many thanks, [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 17:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
::"Collective responsibility" is not "Cabinet rules", please refer to the email from Jon to the Board, I reference above in my reply to Mike. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Collective responsibility was my choice of wording in describing the initial suggestion and I apologise if I caused any confusion. My comment relate to what Fae suggest was being proposed and not the collective decision making process described within the Trustee Code of Conduct and CC's advice. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 18:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I was going to comment but Katie has expressed my opinions much more clearly than I could. What KTC said [[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] ([[User talk:Filceolaire|talk]]) 18:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, this was the advice from Jon to the Board on 25 September:

{{Quote|That the board explicitly undertake to support these decisions and actions subsequent to these decisions. (accepting 'cabinet responsibility' on this issue).}}

The fact that the Chief Executive has made a firm proposal to adopt a system of cabinet responsibility is what I mean by "current discussions" in my first comment on this thread.

Jon's recommendation was clarified by advice from our governance expert Peter Williams on 26 September, who stated:

{{Quote|I think it is important that you mention the 'cabinet rules' issue because at our away day at least one trustee spoke against that principle and said that individual trustees should make clear to 'the community' where they individually stood, and that they should feel free to pursue an independent line in person and on-line. In view of the importance of regaining the confidence of the Foundation, I strongly feel that on this issue it would be good to require self-discipline. In this way the Foundation will know that good governance practice is being followed. In addition WMUK members and the community can be left in doubt about the direction of travel. That is not to say that discussions about the decision will not continue in camera around the Boardroom table, if needed. Board members who cannot sign up to 'cabinet responsibility' might have to consider their position.}}

I believe Peter may have had me in mind when he referred to someone speaking against the principle, as I do believe it is a good thing to make it clear to "the community" where I stand on the most important issues, in fact I believe it to be a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the Nolan principles described in the [[Trustee Code of Conduct]] and, frankly, I find it increasing disturbing that we are moving to working practices or a new system of Board behaviour where I may only ever be allowed to speak in-camera on our most important issues. This is quite different from a reasonable and common interpretation of collective responsibility where I would always support final consensus when it is agreed for the benefit of the charity, but would still be free to vote against the majority and be able to explain, publicly, why I did so — if I felt this was in the public interest and in line with our stated [[values]].

The alternative of forcing trustees to resign in order to have a right of free speech seems counter-intuitive when reviewed against our [[values]] ("To be transparent and open") and against our [[Trustee Code of Conduct]] when no expressly confidential material is involved ("The Trustees ... and should be as open as possible about their decisions and action that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider interest clearly demands.").

As for the definition of "Cabinet rules", I was going by the most common definition as shown at {{w|Cabinet collective responsibility}}. If my fellow trustees want to make up an alternative definition that suits Wikimedia UK, I would be happy to follow the consensus definition should it ever be adopted by the Board. Cheers --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:Thank you for elaborating. I think it is clear that the board needs to thank their governance expert for his advice, but explain that such a policy would not be consistent with our values of transparency and openness. The WMF also subscribes to these values, so would be very suspicious if the board were to adopt such a policy. Has anyone on the board actually suggested following that advice? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 23:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) You might want to change your "governance expert", especially as the WMF has been burned by the problems of collective responsibility and moved to a more open model. Take [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Personal_Image_Hiding_Feature the recent image filter vote]. OK on this issue they all voted the same way - but crucially they have moved to naming those who vote for or against motions. This has several advantages over collective responsibility, in particular if the movement and the board are both divided it avoids the debate becoming a WMF v the community split. Community cohesion is much easier to maintain if the losing minority know that they have board members who are arguing their case. Of course you need to make sure that trustees are clear when they are speaking in a minority or personal capacity, and if you have particular trustees who lead on particular topics it is important that they share the majority view of the board on that topic. But it would be quite bizarre for WMUK to move to a system that the WMF has upgraded from in the belief that this would somehow impress the WMF. Collective responsibility is somewhat defensible idea in politics, because people vote for parties at least as much as they do politicians and arguably they expect single party cabinets to be cohesive. But outside politics it is pernicious and disempowers the members as voters because they don't know which of the trustees really believed in a particular proposal. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 23:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
::I'm afraid I have to agree that the charity has, here, received some poor (or at least unsuited) advice. Cabinet responsibility is important in political systems that a) involve more than one party and b) has a system of collective responsibility. We fit neither situation, and so cabinet responsibility would be very bad governance for us, as we rely on accountability and openness to succeed. --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 08:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

:It's probably helpful if I share some more of the emai l Fae is quoting above. I think there's a misapprehension taking hold. Our previous practice has been to ''not'' record which Trustees have voted which way on which motions - not out of a desire to hide anything, but because decisions have generally been taken by consensus. The advice we've received recently has been that we ''ought'' to record which Trustees have voted in which directions, particularly in sensitive situations. To quote another relevant section of the email Fae refers to above;
::" [this situation is] one of the few occasions when Boards need to go to a vote formally and record each trustees vote. Even if the vote is 'unanimous' it clarifies for each trustee that they are jointly and severally accountable for the decision made."
:I hope this is useful. [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 09:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if someone could share the entire email and the minutes of the discussion regarding it. Having individual trustees quoting small portions out of context and without any indication of what the board's response to that advice was all in order to support whatever point it is they are trying, cryptically, to make is getting very tiresome. The members of this charity are not pawns to be used and manipulated to achieve your political goals. If the board, or an individual trustee, wants to consult members, they need to share all relevant information so that we can give informed views. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 11:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
:I expressed my view about being able to share information with members on this page at [[#In-camera meetings]]. It is not my intention to use members as pawns, and I am unconvinced that I have political goals unless you count being passionate about our [[Mission]]. Cheers --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

===Are we confusing two issues here?===
The board is collectively responsible for its decisions (or anything it failed to decide upon). All are responsible. That does not mean that all have to agree.

For a big issue this could be quite hard for a board member, being responsible for something they don’t agree with. If they think it is that big a deal they can resign. But that doesn’t mean they have to resign or pretend that they agree with the decision. They can still state their disagreement publicly. If they make a massive fuss about it then may get people’s backs up, so they may want to not say any more on the subject but even that wouldn’t be compulsory.

This may be confusing for some people at some times but we just have to explain to them that this is part of being open.

[[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 14:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:Correct. There is still confusion on the difference between the Charity Commission term "[http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc3a.aspx collective responsibility]" and the more loaded term "{{w|Cabinet collective responsibility|cabinet responsibility}}". The first I have no difficulty in fully supporting and complying with as a trustee of the charity, the second gives me the willies for its potential to damage our value of openness. This was again presented to the Board for the 9 October meeting for the term* to be adopted as a change to trustee behaviour, without explaining what the difference is. Talking informally to a lawyer today, I firmly believe that this enforced behavioural change would represent such a fundamental change to the role expected of trustees that were voted in at the AGM, that this would be a reinterpretation of our [[Articles of Association]] and probably need an EGM to put in place.
:I remain puzzled how such a change would be enforced. If a trustee who had been elected to the board by the members of the charity, were to feel under the Nolan principles that they were required to be honest and open about a problem for the public interest, or for the benefit of members, then it would be very odd indeed for the rest of the board to have the power to force that trustee off the board for saying something that the majority felt was better not discussed openly under some form of "cabinet rules" behavioural policy.
:* Note the terms "cabinet voting", "cabinet responsibility" and "cabinet decision" have all appeared recently during board discussion and lack any clear definition or any explanation to what extent they are any different to "collective responsibility" which already applies '''by default''' to the charity, and does not require the board to start making strange declarations about changing from a board of charity trustees to a "cabinet" as soon as they start worrying about what one lone trustee might say to members about in-camera or other closed discussions.
:Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Membership renewal ==

Hey all. I appreciate that membership (as opposed to donor) renewal is, financially at least, a low priority, but could someone fix the fact that all the wording at /join is completely oblivious to the fact the same web address is used for membership renewals as well as applications? Making a new form takes time, I know, but some bracketed "(or renew)"s would not go amiss :) Thanks, [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]] ([[User talk:Jarry1250|talk]]) 11:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
: Great point, thanks! We've been working on getting membership renewal emails working properly once more, so quite a lot of renewal reminders have gone out today. I've updated the text of the page to show that it can also be used for renewals. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 11:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
: Thanks for this feedback :D Have a look at [[2012_Membership_strategy_consultation]] and [[WMUK_membership_survey_-_suggestions_and_comments]] if you have time to add any comments :D [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Wikimedia Chapters Association ==

I appreciate that this is not exactly a priority at the moment but I was looking through the various wiki pages regarding the [[m:WCA|Wikimedia Chapters Association]], I came across this:

:'''''"A Council Member and the chapter that appoints him should make clear what they expect from each other. A Council Member usually is supposed to inform the chapter about what happens in the WCA, and listen to the chapter. A chapter should be supportive to the CM it appointed and help him to inform the chapter members and give feedback." [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association#What_is_the_status_of_the_Council_Members.3F]

Looking through the [[m:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association_Charter|WCA Charter]] and [[m:Berlin Agreement]] there doesn't seem to be any basis for this in the founding documents but I notice it was added in by Ziko, the WCA Deputy Chair [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Chapters_Association&direction=next&oldid=3939161]

I wondered whether the WMUK board had done anything in this regard? The only mention I can find is in a brief board minute that referred to an email decision appointing Fae at [[Minutes_30Jun12#Close_(and_post-meeting_decision)]]

Thanks for indulging me! [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 20:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:I have kept the Board informed on what has been happening with the WCA at each board meeting and given my fellow trustees insight on some questions as they arose. We did discuss the balance between having a representative on the Council versus my role as the Chair, though this is not the sort of wide ranging discussion that we keep minutes of. WMUK is funding my expenses to attend CEE conference this weekend as the WCA Chair, on the basis of this being counted against the forecast budget for supporting the WCA. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks for getting back to me. Has the board set out anything in terms of what their priorities are for their representative or similar? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 22:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:::No. You are welcome to draft something. It would be a neat focus for not only the Board to decide how to make this work but also WMUK members to chip in with ideas of what they would like to get out of the WCA and find a better way of expressing the member's views on issues that come up, or even better, propose some resolutions ourselves to the WCA.
:::Note, there is no requirement for the WCA representative to be a trustee of WMUK, so in future we could consider an alternative way of appointing a representative who may not have a seat on the Board; someone like yourself for example... --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
::::I'll have a think. Do you know if any other chapters followed the advice and done something similar? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 23:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Water cooler

2012-10-11T22:20:18Z

AndrewRT: /* Wikimedia Chapters Association */

Water cooler

2012-10-11T20:54:50Z

AndrewRT: /* Wikimedia Chapters Association */ new section

2012 Membership strategy consultation

2012-10-11T20:04:23Z

AndrewRT: /* Recruitment */

==Introduction==

This page is created to collate contributions from interested parties about what Wikimedia UK should consider including in a membership strategy. This is a strategy as opposed to a plan - it is looking at what the aims for developing and sustaining membership growth (in numbers) and development (in terms of a 'skills base' or engaged group) should be as tied to the growth and development of a chapter overall. I've included some key areas that I think need to be considered - please feel free to add others, as many contributors with have the benefit of experience from involvement in the movement and our chapter over several years to bring to the table! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
: Should have clarified - I'm instigating this as, despite my role being primarily about Fundraising, this falls under my remit 'Develop Wikimedia UK’s membership activities and membership communications.' - see [[Fundraiser_job_description]] - I'll be working with the Office and Development Manager (who administers membership records) and the Comms Organiser (who oversees WMUK's overall communications strategy) on how we go about delivering improvements. [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Recruitment==

[[2012_Five_Year_Plan#Members_and_Volunteers| Relevant section of the draft Five Year Plan]]

Broadly speaking, the obvious intent is that membership numbers grow considerably from current numbers (approximately 250). This will present challenges as well as opportunities:
* More administrative time maintaining records and dues
* Communicating well and regularly with members to ensure that it is not just a core of the most active that speak for the majority
* Ensuring that even the least engaged are empowered to contribute on some level
* Increased numbers will lead to a broadening of our base
* A more diverse set of concerns for the Chapter to satistfy.

The suggestions about regional groups are great, and I think would be a strong platform for having a greater reach in areas where we are under-represented and therefore potentially leading to WMUK having broader influence and recruiting more editors.

What sort of recruitment strategies would best meet these challenges, and promote strong regional participation? Should we have regional membership volunteers as a first point of contact, who liaise with the Board or staff on recruitment - ordering resources, helping update membership records, and coordinating events? We may need to create a dedicated place for members to work together online - i.e. a members wiki - could this be considered a benefit? [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:As set out in the draft Five Year Plan, we need to balance growth in numbers with the activity levels of the membership. I'd suggest having a discussion with some of the other larger chapters - WMDE, WMFR, WMNL about things that can be done to avoid ending up with a large inactive membership that takes lots of resource to service.
:Personally I would also like more to be done to link in the membership of WMUK with the communities of UK Wikimedians. One way to do this, for instance, would be to offer free membership to any editor who qualifies for a vote in the WMF elections [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en#Requirements]. In addition a particular effort should be made to encourage the key contributors to UK minority language projects to join WMUK - particularly the Welsh, Irish, Manx, Gaelic and Scots versions but also for immigrant languages where a significant number of contributors come from the UK such as Serbian, Arabic, Polish, Lithuanian etc [http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageEditsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm] [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 20:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
:Another great idea that has been talked about before is having a "self-service shop" where someone, for instance, could download or order online a pack of material that could help you set up a local wikimeet or discuss with your local library how we can do a partnership or whatever. This could be a great way of "scaling up" our activities and involving grassroots members. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 20:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Communications==
I hope, and would prefer, that the suggestions for how members want to hear from WMUK and what about come organically from the results of a members' survey - but we have to consider what those methods of communicating are in place to achieve strategically. I would suggest at least the following:
* Retention of current members
* Recruitment of new members
* Providing a forum to raise concerns and ideas that pertain particularly to members' roles
* Keeping members informed about the work of the Chapter and the Board
* Getting members more involved/informed in policy making reviews
* Getting members more involved in supporting the board and staff to deliver WMUK's programme through participating in advisory groups, giving oversight and advice
* Getting members more involved/engaged with governance, and particularly candidacy for the Board and scrutiny of Board business.

These diverse aims can't all be met with one type of communication - a range of options can be considered, including perhaps e-newsletters, SMS updates, a members wiki or forum, a members hard copy magazine or publication. More suggestions please! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Member benefits==
There is a staggering range of opportunities to invest in member benefits, such as:
* Offering members the opportunity to identify themselves on their user pages with a WMUK membership user box
* Negotiating preferential access to JStore or other online library and journal resources
* Offering an explicit members facility at Development House to host meetings or use if visiting London (and/or similar opportunities in other cities)
* Negotiating discounted entries to cultural and historic institutions
* Access to members-only communications (Magazines, forums etc)
* Access to members-only events, lectures, dinners etc
* Ability to make policy that will advise the board or be binding on the chapter

Please suggest others for consideration!

Member benefits should be aligned to strategic goals - they should encourage members to edit, stand for the board, give their time towards building the movement, and reward them for their time and hard work - recognising their importance and improving retention. They should be rigorously considered in terms of cost-benefit given that charitable donations will fund member benefits - they cannot be excessively expensive unless this is justified by meeting our charitable aims. (unsigned by [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

==Member role; member development==
What do we think the role is for members in WMUK and the movement? How is it different from 'the community', 'Volunteer', 'Editor', 'Donor', 'Reader' etc and how do we link membership to a strategic journey we want people to move on taking them through a process that is both personally fulfilling and benefits our organisation.

This is complicated - many non-members are experienced Wikimedians but similarly, it is likely we might see membership as a 'point of entry' for readers who we want to draw in to becoming more involved in the movement and as editors. I would think as a starting point there are several key characteristics that should define how members are different to other stakeholders and how we might meet those needs and develop members:
* Membership is grounded in governance, as a role that determines our Board composition and approves our accounts.
* Beyond this, Membership could be developed into being more of a forum for generating active volunteers and editors - while not expecting all that all volunteers or editors will be members.
* Members should be seen as a group specifically invested in the interests and direction of Wikimedia UK within the movement - this is less global in approach than the community, or an editor might be.
* Members may naturally become donors, but they could also become ambassadors for Wikimedia UK and serve on Fundraising campaign boards or host fundraising events or drives.
* Should members expect that their membership will afford them an elevated 'stake' in Wikimedia UK, not only in terms of voting rights, but in terms of influencing the direction of the charity? How will this be realised?
* Should members be encouraged to develop advisory policies, in consultation with the community, for the Board to approve or reject within their remit as outlined by the Charity Commission? (unsigned by [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC))
:: I think this is a really important way we as a chapter can realise the vision set out in the [[Volunteer_Policy]]. There's lots of really great stuff set out in there that will keep the chapter close to the values of the Wikimedia movement. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 19:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Membership strategy consultation

2012-10-11T20:01:48Z

AndrewRT: /* Member role; member development */ indent

==Introduction==

This page is created to collate contributions from interested parties about what Wikimedia UK should consider including in a membership strategy. This is a strategy as opposed to a plan - it is looking at what the aims for developing and sustaining membership growth (in numbers) and development (in terms of a 'skills base' or engaged group) should be as tied to the growth and development of a chapter overall. I've included some key areas that I think need to be considered - please feel free to add others, as many contributors with have the benefit of experience from involvement in the movement and our chapter over several years to bring to the table! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
: Should have clarified - I'm instigating this as, despite my role being primarily about Fundraising, this falls under my remit 'Develop Wikimedia UK’s membership activities and membership communications.' - see [[Fundraiser_job_description]] - I'll be working with the Office and Development Manager (who administers membership records) and the Comms Organiser (who oversees WMUK's overall communications strategy) on how we go about delivering improvements. [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Recruitment==

[[2012_Five_Year_Plan#Members_and_Volunteers| Relevant section of the draft Five Year Plan]]

Broadly speaking, the obvious intent is that membership numbers grow considerably from current numbers (approximately 250). This will present challenges as well as opportunities:
* More administrative time maintaining records and dues
* Communicating well and regularly with members to ensure that it is not just a core of the most active that speak for the majority
* Ensuring that even the least engaged are empowered to contribute on some level
* Increased numbers will lead to a broadening of our base
* A more diverse set of concerns for the Chapter to satistfy.

The suggestions about regional groups are great, and I think would be a strong platform for having a greater reach in areas where we are under-represented and therefore potentially leading to WMUK having broader influence and recruiting more editors.

What sort of recruitment strategies would best meet these challenges, and promote strong regional participation? Should we have regional membership volunteers as a first point of contact, who liaise with the Board or staff on recruitment - ordering resources, helping update membership records, and coordinating events? We may need to create a dedicated place for members to work together online - i.e. a members wiki - could this be considered a benefit? [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:As set out in the draft Five Year Plan, we need to balance growth in numbers with the activity levels of the membership. I'd suggest having a discussion with some of the other larger chapters - WMDE, WMFR, WMNL about things that can be done to avoid ending up with a large inactive membership that takes lots of resource to service.
:Personally I would also like more to be done to link in the membership of WMUK with the communities of UK Wikimedians. One way to do this, for instance, would be to offer free membership to any editor who qualifies for a vote in the WMF elections [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en#Requirements]. In addition a particular effort should be made to encourage the key contributors to UK minority language projects to join WMUK - particularly the Welsh, Irish, Manx, Gaelic and Scots versions but also for immigrant languages where a significant number of contributors come from the UK such as Serbian, Arabic, Polish, Lithuanian etc [http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageEditsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm] [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 20:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Communications==
I hope, and would prefer, that the suggestions for how members want to hear from WMUK and what about come organically from the results of a members' survey - but we have to consider what those methods of communicating are in place to achieve strategically. I would suggest at least the following:
* Retention of current members
* Recruitment of new members
* Providing a forum to raise concerns and ideas that pertain particularly to members' roles
* Keeping members informed about the work of the Chapter and the Board
* Getting members more involved/informed in policy making reviews
* Getting members more involved in supporting the board and staff to deliver WMUK's programme through participating in advisory groups, giving oversight and advice
* Getting members more involved/engaged with governance, and particularly candidacy for the Board and scrutiny of Board business.

These diverse aims can't all be met with one type of communication - a range of options can be considered, including perhaps e-newsletters, SMS updates, a members wiki or forum, a members hard copy magazine or publication. More suggestions please! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Member benefits==
There is a staggering range of opportunities to invest in member benefits, such as:
* Offering members the opportunity to identify themselves on their user pages with a WMUK membership user box
* Negotiating preferential access to JStore or other online library and journal resources
* Offering an explicit members facility at Development House to host meetings or use if visiting London (and/or similar opportunities in other cities)
* Negotiating discounted entries to cultural and historic institutions
* Access to members-only communications (Magazines, forums etc)
* Access to members-only events, lectures, dinners etc
* Ability to make policy that will advise the board or be binding on the chapter

Please suggest others for consideration!

Member benefits should be aligned to strategic goals - they should encourage members to edit, stand for the board, give their time towards building the movement, and reward them for their time and hard work - recognising their importance and improving retention. They should be rigorously considered in terms of cost-benefit given that charitable donations will fund member benefits - they cannot be excessively expensive unless this is justified by meeting our charitable aims. (unsigned by [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

==Member role; member development==
What do we think the role is for members in WMUK and the movement? How is it different from 'the community', 'Volunteer', 'Editor', 'Donor', 'Reader' etc and how do we link membership to a strategic journey we want people to move on taking them through a process that is both personally fulfilling and benefits our organisation.

This is complicated - many non-members are experienced Wikimedians but similarly, it is likely we might see membership as a 'point of entry' for readers who we want to draw in to becoming more involved in the movement and as editors. I would think as a starting point there are several key characteristics that should define how members are different to other stakeholders and how we might meet those needs and develop members:
* Membership is grounded in governance, as a role that determines our Board composition and approves our accounts.
* Beyond this, Membership could be developed into being more of a forum for generating active volunteers and editors - while not expecting all that all volunteers or editors will be members.
* Members should be seen as a group specifically invested in the interests and direction of Wikimedia UK within the movement - this is less global in approach than the community, or an editor might be.
* Members may naturally become donors, but they could also become ambassadors for Wikimedia UK and serve on Fundraising campaign boards or host fundraising events or drives.
* Should members expect that their membership will afford them an elevated 'stake' in Wikimedia UK, not only in terms of voting rights, but in terms of influencing the direction of the charity? How will this be realised?
* Should members be encouraged to develop advisory policies, in consultation with the community, for the Board to approve or reject within their remit as outlined by the Charity Commission? (unsigned by [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC))
:: I think this is a really important way we as a chapter can realise the vision set out in the [[Volunteer_Policy]]. There's lots of really great stuff set out in there that will keep the chapter close to the values of the Wikimedia movement. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 19:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Membership strategy consultation

2012-10-11T20:01:25Z

AndrewRT: /* Recruitment */

==Introduction==

This page is created to collate contributions from interested parties about what Wikimedia UK should consider including in a membership strategy. This is a strategy as opposed to a plan - it is looking at what the aims for developing and sustaining membership growth (in numbers) and development (in terms of a 'skills base' or engaged group) should be as tied to the growth and development of a chapter overall. I've included some key areas that I think need to be considered - please feel free to add others, as many contributors with have the benefit of experience from involvement in the movement and our chapter over several years to bring to the table! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
: Should have clarified - I'm instigating this as, despite my role being primarily about Fundraising, this falls under my remit 'Develop Wikimedia UK’s membership activities and membership communications.' - see [[Fundraiser_job_description]] - I'll be working with the Office and Development Manager (who administers membership records) and the Comms Organiser (who oversees WMUK's overall communications strategy) on how we go about delivering improvements. [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Recruitment==

[[2012_Five_Year_Plan#Members_and_Volunteers| Relevant section of the draft Five Year Plan]]

Broadly speaking, the obvious intent is that membership numbers grow considerably from current numbers (approximately 250). This will present challenges as well as opportunities:
* More administrative time maintaining records and dues
* Communicating well and regularly with members to ensure that it is not just a core of the most active that speak for the majority
* Ensuring that even the least engaged are empowered to contribute on some level
* Increased numbers will lead to a broadening of our base
* A more diverse set of concerns for the Chapter to satistfy.

The suggestions about regional groups are great, and I think would be a strong platform for having a greater reach in areas where we are under-represented and therefore potentially leading to WMUK having broader influence and recruiting more editors.

What sort of recruitment strategies would best meet these challenges, and promote strong regional participation? Should we have regional membership volunteers as a first point of contact, who liaise with the Board or staff on recruitment - ordering resources, helping update membership records, and coordinating events? We may need to create a dedicated place for members to work together online - i.e. a members wiki - could this be considered a benefit? [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

:As set out in the draft Five Year Plan, we need to balance growth in numbers with the activity levels of the membership. I'd suggest having a discussion with some of the other larger chapters - WMDE, WMFR, WMNL about things that can be done to avoid ending up with a large inactive membership that takes lots of resource to service.
:Personally I would also like more to be done to link in the membership of WMUK with the communities of UK Wikimedians. One way to do this, for instance, would be to offer free membership to any editor who qualifies for a vote in the WMF elections [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en#Requirements]. In addition a particular effort should be made to encourage the key contributors to UK minority language projects to join WMUK - particularly the Welsh, Irish, Manx, Gaelic and Scots versions but also for immigrant languages where a significant number of contributors come from the UK such as Serbian, Arabic, Polish, Lithuanian etc [http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageEditsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm] [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 20:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Communications==
I hope, and would prefer, that the suggestions for how members want to hear from WMUK and what about come organically from the results of a members' survey - but we have to consider what those methods of communicating are in place to achieve strategically. I would suggest at least the following:
* Retention of current members
* Recruitment of new members
* Providing a forum to raise concerns and ideas that pertain particularly to members' roles
* Keeping members informed about the work of the Chapter and the Board
* Getting members more involved/informed in policy making reviews
* Getting members more involved in supporting the board and staff to deliver WMUK's programme through participating in advisory groups, giving oversight and advice
* Getting members more involved/engaged with governance, and particularly candidacy for the Board and scrutiny of Board business.

These diverse aims can't all be met with one type of communication - a range of options can be considered, including perhaps e-newsletters, SMS updates, a members wiki or forum, a members hard copy magazine or publication. More suggestions please! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Member benefits==
There is a staggering range of opportunities to invest in member benefits, such as:
* Offering members the opportunity to identify themselves on their user pages with a WMUK membership user box
* Negotiating preferential access to JStore or other online library and journal resources
* Offering an explicit members facility at Development House to host meetings or use if visiting London (and/or similar opportunities in other cities)
* Negotiating discounted entries to cultural and historic institutions
* Access to members-only communications (Magazines, forums etc)
* Access to members-only events, lectures, dinners etc
* Ability to make policy that will advise the board or be binding on the chapter

Please suggest others for consideration!

Member benefits should be aligned to strategic goals - they should encourage members to edit, stand for the board, give their time towards building the movement, and reward them for their time and hard work - recognising their importance and improving retention. They should be rigorously considered in terms of cost-benefit given that charitable donations will fund member benefits - they cannot be excessively expensive unless this is justified by meeting our charitable aims. (unsigned by [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

==Member role; member development==
What do we think the role is for members in WMUK and the movement? How is it different from 'the community', 'Volunteer', 'Editor', 'Donor', 'Reader' etc and how do we link membership to a strategic journey we want people to move on taking them through a process that is both personally fulfilling and benefits our organisation.

This is complicated - many non-members are experienced Wikimedians but similarly, it is likely we might see membership as a 'point of entry' for readers who we want to draw in to becoming more involved in the movement and as editors. I would think as a starting point there are several key characteristics that should define how members are different to other stakeholders and how we might meet those needs and develop members:
* Membership is grounded in governance, as a role that determines our Board composition and approves our accounts.
* Beyond this, Membership could be developed into being more of a forum for generating active volunteers and editors - while not expecting all that all volunteers or editors will be members.
* Members should be seen as a group specifically invested in the interests and direction of Wikimedia UK within the movement - this is less global in approach than the community, or an editor might be.
* Members may naturally become donors, but they could also become ambassadors for Wikimedia UK and serve on Fundraising campaign boards or host fundraising events or drives.
* Should members expect that their membership will afford them an elevated 'stake' in Wikimedia UK, not only in terms of voting rights, but in terms of influencing the direction of the charity? How will this be realised?
* Should members be encouraged to develop advisory policies, in consultation with the community, for the Board to approve or reject within their remit as outlined by the Charity Commission? (unsigned by [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC))
: I think this is a really important way we as a chapter can realise the vision set out in the [[Volunteer_Policy]]. There's lots of really great stuff set out in there that will keep the chapter close to the values of the Wikimedia movement. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 19:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Membership strategy consultation

2012-10-11T19:39:02Z

AndrewRT: /* Member role; member development */

==Introduction==

This page is created to collate contributions from interested parties about what Wikimedia UK should consider including in a membership strategy. This is a strategy as opposed to a plan - it is looking at what the aims for developing and sustaining membership growth (in numbers) and development (in terms of a 'skills base' or engaged group) should be as tied to the growth and development of a chapter overall. I've included some key areas that I think need to be considered - please feel free to add others, as many contributors with have the benefit of experience from involvement in the movement and our chapter over several years to bring to the table! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
: Should have clarified - I'm instigating this as, despite my role being primarily about Fundraising, this falls under my remit 'Develop Wikimedia UK’s membership activities and membership communications.' - see [[Fundraiser_job_description]] - I'll be working with the Office and Development Manager (who administers membership records) and the Comms Organiser (who oversees WMUK's overall communications strategy) on how we go about delivering improvements. [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Recruitment==

[[2012_Five_Year_Plan#Members_and_Volunteers| Relevant section of the draft Five Year Plan]]

Broadly speaking, the obvious intent is that membership numbers grow considerably from current numbers (approximately 250). This will present challenges as well as opportunities:
* More administrative time maintaining records and dues
* Communicating well and regularly with members to ensure that it is not just a core of the most active that speak for the majority
* Ensuring that even the least engaged are empowered to contribute on some level
* Increased numbers will lead to a broadening of our base
* A more diverse set of concerns for the Chapter to satistfy.

The suggestions about regional groups are great, and I think would be a strong platform for having a greater reach in areas where we are under-represented and therefore potentially leading to WMUK having broader influence and recruiting more editors.

What sort of recruitment strategies would best meet these challenges, and promote strong regional participation? Should we have regional membership volunteers as a first point of contact, who liaise with the Board or staff on recruitment - ordering resources, helping update membership records, and coordinating events? We may need to create a dedicated place for members to work together online - i.e. a members wiki - could this be considered a benefit? [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Communications==
I hope, and would prefer, that the suggestions for how members want to hear from WMUK and what about come organically from the results of a members' survey - but we have to consider what those methods of communicating are in place to achieve strategically. I would suggest at least the following:
* Retention of current members
* Recruitment of new members
* Providing a forum to raise concerns and ideas that pertain particularly to members' roles
* Keeping members informed about the work of the Chapter and the Board
* Getting members more involved/informed in policy making reviews
* Getting members more involved in supporting the board and staff to deliver WMUK's programme through participating in advisory groups, giving oversight and advice
* Getting members more involved/engaged with governance, and particularly candidacy for the Board and scrutiny of Board business.

These diverse aims can't all be met with one type of communication - a range of options can be considered, including perhaps e-newsletters, SMS updates, a members wiki or forum, a members hard copy magazine or publication. More suggestions please! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Member benefits==
There is a staggering range of opportunities to invest in member benefits, such as:
* Offering members the opportunity to identify themselves on their user pages with a WMUK membership user box
* Negotiating preferential access to JStore or other online library and journal resources
* Offering an explicit members facility at Development House to host meetings or use if visiting London (and/or similar opportunities in other cities)
* Negotiating discounted entries to cultural and historic institutions
* Access to members-only communications (Magazines, forums etc)
* Access to members-only events, lectures, dinners etc
* Ability to make policy that will advise the board or be binding on the chapter

Please suggest others for consideration!

Member benefits should be aligned to strategic goals - they should encourage members to edit, stand for the board, give their time towards building the movement, and reward them for their time and hard work - recognising their importance and improving retention. They should be rigorously considered in terms of cost-benefit given that charitable donations will fund member benefits - they cannot be excessively expensive unless this is justified by meeting our charitable aims. (unsigned by [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

==Member role; member development==
What do we think the role is for members in WMUK and the movement? How is it different from 'the community', 'Volunteer', 'Editor', 'Donor', 'Reader' etc and how do we link membership to a strategic journey we want people to move on taking them through a process that is both personally fulfilling and benefits our organisation.

This is complicated - many non-members are experienced Wikimedians but similarly, it is likely we might see membership as a 'point of entry' for readers who we want to draw in to becoming more involved in the movement and as editors. I would think as a starting point there are several key characteristics that should define how members are different to other stakeholders and how we might meet those needs and develop members:
* Membership is grounded in governance, as a role that determines our Board composition and approves our accounts.
* Beyond this, Membership could be developed into being more of a forum for generating active volunteers and editors - while not expecting all that all volunteers or editors will be members.
* Members should be seen as a group specifically invested in the interests and direction of Wikimedia UK within the movement - this is less global in approach than the community, or an editor might be.
* Members may naturally become donors, but they could also become ambassadors for Wikimedia UK and serve on Fundraising campaign boards or host fundraising events or drives.
* Should members expect that their membership will afford them an elevated 'stake' in Wikimedia UK, not only in terms of voting rights, but in terms of influencing the direction of the charity? How will this be realised?
* Should members be encouraged to develop advisory policies, in consultation with the community, for the Board to approve or reject within their remit as outlined by the Charity Commission? (unsigned by [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC))
: I think this is a really important way we as a chapter can realise the vision set out in the [[Volunteer_Policy]]. There's lots of really great stuff set out in there that will keep the chapter close to the values of the Wikimedia movement. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 19:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Membership strategy consultation

2012-10-11T19:36:47Z

AndrewRT: /* Member role; member development */

==Introduction==

This page is created to collate contributions from interested parties about what Wikimedia UK should consider including in a membership strategy. This is a strategy as opposed to a plan - it is looking at what the aims for developing and sustaining membership growth (in numbers) and development (in terms of a 'skills base' or engaged group) should be as tied to the growth and development of a chapter overall. I've included some key areas that I think need to be considered - please feel free to add others, as many contributors with have the benefit of experience from involvement in the movement and our chapter over several years to bring to the table! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
: Should have clarified - I'm instigating this as, despite my role being primarily about Fundraising, this falls under my remit 'Develop Wikimedia UK’s membership activities and membership communications.' - see [[Fundraiser_job_description]] - I'll be working with the Office and Development Manager (who administers membership records) and the Comms Organiser (who oversees WMUK's overall communications strategy) on how we go about delivering improvements. [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Recruitment==

[[2012_Five_Year_Plan#Members_and_Volunteers| Relevant section of the draft Five Year Plan]]

Broadly speaking, the obvious intent is that membership numbers grow considerably from current numbers (approximately 250). This will present challenges as well as opportunities:
* More administrative time maintaining records and dues
* Communicating well and regularly with members to ensure that it is not just a core of the most active that speak for the majority
* Ensuring that even the least engaged are empowered to contribute on some level
* Increased numbers will lead to a broadening of our base
* A more diverse set of concerns for the Chapter to satistfy.

The suggestions about regional groups are great, and I think would be a strong platform for having a greater reach in areas where we are under-represented and therefore potentially leading to WMUK having broader influence and recruiting more editors.

What sort of recruitment strategies would best meet these challenges, and promote strong regional participation? Should we have regional membership volunteers as a first point of contact, who liaise with the Board or staff on recruitment - ordering resources, helping update membership records, and coordinating events? We may need to create a dedicated place for members to work together online - i.e. a members wiki - could this be considered a benefit? [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Communications==
I hope, and would prefer, that the suggestions for how members want to hear from WMUK and what about come organically from the results of a members' survey - but we have to consider what those methods of communicating are in place to achieve strategically. I would suggest at least the following:
* Retention of current members
* Recruitment of new members
* Providing a forum to raise concerns and ideas that pertain particularly to members' roles
* Keeping members informed about the work of the Chapter and the Board
* Getting members more involved/informed in policy making reviews
* Getting members more involved in supporting the board and staff to deliver WMUK's programme through participating in advisory groups, giving oversight and advice
* Getting members more involved/engaged with governance, and particularly candidacy for the Board and scrutiny of Board business.

These diverse aims can't all be met with one type of communication - a range of options can be considered, including perhaps e-newsletters, SMS updates, a members wiki or forum, a members hard copy magazine or publication. More suggestions please! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Member benefits==
There is a staggering range of opportunities to invest in member benefits, such as:
* Offering members the opportunity to identify themselves on their user pages with a WMUK membership user box
* Negotiating preferential access to JStore or other online library and journal resources
* Offering an explicit members facility at Development House to host meetings or use if visiting London (and/or similar opportunities in other cities)
* Negotiating discounted entries to cultural and historic institutions
* Access to members-only communications (Magazines, forums etc)
* Access to members-only events, lectures, dinners etc
* Ability to make policy that will advise the board or be binding on the chapter

Please suggest others for consideration!

Member benefits should be aligned to strategic goals - they should encourage members to edit, stand for the board, give their time towards building the movement, and reward them for their time and hard work - recognising their importance and improving retention. They should be rigorously considered in terms of cost-benefit given that charitable donations will fund member benefits - they cannot be excessively expensive unless this is justified by meeting our charitable aims. (unsigned by [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

==Member role; member development==
What do we think the role is for members in WMUK and the movement? How is it different from 'the community', 'Volunteer', 'Editor', 'Donor', 'Reader' etc and how do we link membership to a strategic journey we want people to move on taking them through a process that is both personally fulfilling and benefits our organisation.

This is complicated - many non-members are experienced Wikimedians but similarly, it is likely we might see membership as a 'point of entry' for readers who we want to draw in to becoming more involved in the movement and as editors. I would think as a starting point there are several key characteristics that should define how members are different to other stakeholders and how we might meet those needs and develop members:
* Membership is grounded in governance, as a role that determines our Board composition and approves our accounts.
* Beyond this, Membership could be developed into being more of a forum for generating active volunteers and editors - while not expecting all that all volunteers or editors will be members.
* Members should be seen as a group specifically invested in the interests and direction of Wikimedia UK within the movement - this is less global in approach than the community, or an editor might be.
* Members may naturally become donors, but they could also become ambassadors for Wikimedia UK and serve on Fundraising campaign boards or host fundraising events or drives.
* Should members expect that their membership will afford them an elevated 'stake' in Wikimedia UK, not only in terms of voting rights, but in terms of influencing the direction of the charity? How will this be realised?
* Should members be encouraged to develop advisory policies, in consultation with the community, for the Board to approve or reject within their remit as outlined by the Charity Commission? (unsigned by [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

2012 Membership strategy consultation

2012-10-11T19:36:37Z

AndrewRT: /* Member benefits */

==Introduction==

This page is created to collate contributions from interested parties about what Wikimedia UK should consider including in a membership strategy. This is a strategy as opposed to a plan - it is looking at what the aims for developing and sustaining membership growth (in numbers) and development (in terms of a 'skills base' or engaged group) should be as tied to the growth and development of a chapter overall. I've included some key areas that I think need to be considered - please feel free to add others, as many contributors with have the benefit of experience from involvement in the movement and our chapter over several years to bring to the table! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
: Should have clarified - I'm instigating this as, despite my role being primarily about Fundraising, this falls under my remit 'Develop Wikimedia UK’s membership activities and membership communications.' - see [[Fundraiser_job_description]] - I'll be working with the Office and Development Manager (who administers membership records) and the Comms Organiser (who oversees WMUK's overall communications strategy) on how we go about delivering improvements. [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Recruitment==

[[2012_Five_Year_Plan#Members_and_Volunteers| Relevant section of the draft Five Year Plan]]

Broadly speaking, the obvious intent is that membership numbers grow considerably from current numbers (approximately 250). This will present challenges as well as opportunities:
* More administrative time maintaining records and dues
* Communicating well and regularly with members to ensure that it is not just a core of the most active that speak for the majority
* Ensuring that even the least engaged are empowered to contribute on some level
* Increased numbers will lead to a broadening of our base
* A more diverse set of concerns for the Chapter to satistfy.

The suggestions about regional groups are great, and I think would be a strong platform for having a greater reach in areas where we are under-represented and therefore potentially leading to WMUK having broader influence and recruiting more editors.

What sort of recruitment strategies would best meet these challenges, and promote strong regional participation? Should we have regional membership volunteers as a first point of contact, who liaise with the Board or staff on recruitment - ordering resources, helping update membership records, and coordinating events? We may need to create a dedicated place for members to work together online - i.e. a members wiki - could this be considered a benefit? [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Communications==
I hope, and would prefer, that the suggestions for how members want to hear from WMUK and what about come organically from the results of a members' survey - but we have to consider what those methods of communicating are in place to achieve strategically. I would suggest at least the following:
* Retention of current members
* Recruitment of new members
* Providing a forum to raise concerns and ideas that pertain particularly to members' roles
* Keeping members informed about the work of the Chapter and the Board
* Getting members more involved/informed in policy making reviews
* Getting members more involved in supporting the board and staff to deliver WMUK's programme through participating in advisory groups, giving oversight and advice
* Getting members more involved/engaged with governance, and particularly candidacy for the Board and scrutiny of Board business.

These diverse aims can't all be met with one type of communication - a range of options can be considered, including perhaps e-newsletters, SMS updates, a members wiki or forum, a members hard copy magazine or publication. More suggestions please! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

==Member benefits==
There is a staggering range of opportunities to invest in member benefits, such as:
* Offering members the opportunity to identify themselves on their user pages with a WMUK membership user box
* Negotiating preferential access to JStore or other online library and journal resources
* Offering an explicit members facility at Development House to host meetings or use if visiting London (and/or similar opportunities in other cities)
* Negotiating discounted entries to cultural and historic institutions
* Access to members-only communications (Magazines, forums etc)
* Access to members-only events, lectures, dinners etc
* Ability to make policy that will advise the board or be binding on the chapter

Please suggest others for consideration!

Member benefits should be aligned to strategic goals - they should encourage members to edit, stand for the board, give their time towards building the movement, and reward them for their time and hard work - recognising their importance and improving retention. They should be rigorously considered in terms of cost-benefit given that charitable donations will fund member benefits - they cannot be excessively expensive unless this is justified by meeting our charitable aims. (unsigned by [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

==Member role; member development==
What do we think the role is for members in WMUK and the movement? How is it different from 'the community', 'Volunteer', 'Editor', 'Donor', 'Reader' etc and how do we link membership to a strategic journey we want people to move on taking them through a process that is both personally fulfilling and benefits our organisation.

This is complicated - many non-members are experienced Wikimedians but similarly, it is likely we might see membership as a 'point of entry' for readers who we want to draw in to becoming more involved in the movement and as editors. I would think as a starting point there are several key characteristics that should define how members are different to other stakeholders and how we might meet those needs and develop members:
* Membership is grounded in governance, as a role that determines our Board composition and approves our accounts.
* Beyond this, Membership could be developed into being more of a forum for generating active volunteers and editors - while not expecting all that all volunteers or editors will be members.
* Members should be seen as a group specifically invested in the interests and direction of Wikimedia UK within the movement - this is less global in approach than the community, or an editor might be.
* Members may naturally become donors, but they could also become ambassadors for Wikimedia UK and serve on Fundraising campaign boards or host fundraising events or drives.
* Should members expect that their membership will afford them an elevated 'stake' in Wikimedia UK, not only in terms of voting rights, but in terms of influencing the direction of the charity? How will this be realised?
* Should members be encouraged to develop advisory policies, in consultation with the community, for the Board to approve or reject within their remit as outlined by the Charity Commission?

WMUK membership survey - suggestions and comments

2012-10-11T19:34:38Z

AndrewRT: /* Election rules change */

Hello everyone.

Wikimedia UK is in the process of designing and developing a survey of our members. A sensible approach is for us to speak with you all about the things that you are interested in, rather than what we think you might be interested in.

To this end, we'd like to hear your suggestions and comments. What would you like to tell us about? What kind of information would you like to share? About which areas of our work and our organisation do you have strong opinions?

Talk to us here. Thanks for your time. --[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

== Two surveys ==
I would like to suggest to cut the survey in two parts (not sure how that should happen technically, but it should come down to it that it is totally fine if you leave after part 1 and you can simply click 'i dont want to take part 2'.). The first part should be the default, easy to answer part. What do you think about the color of the walls in our office on a scale from 1 to 5, what would you feel if the chair would grow a moustache on a scale from 1 to 5 etc and what is your general satisfaction as a) a member 1-5, b) as a community member 1-5 and c) as a member of the general audience 1-5. Just a bunch of scaling questions where the main outcome is the average scores and distributions.

Part 2 would be more input questions. Questions that are designed to get intelligent and constructive feedback, things where one single answer is more important than the weighed average or even distribution. Where answers make you think, and realize that while he's the only one saying it, he has a darn good point (how would you like us to communicate with you, how can we make the impact we have on your community activities bigger, what are qualities you're currently missing in our staff and/or the board or how could we persuade you to candidate for the board).

Just a thought :) (oh, and some of the example questions above might actually be serious suggestions ;)). [[User:Lodewijk|Lodewijk]] ([[User talk:Lodewijk|talk]]) 00:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

:Hi [[User:Lodewijk|Lodewijk]] - It is pretty easy to do this with the survey tool we use (survey monkey) but I wondered why you felt a split approach was needed - was it so we could collect bog standard attitudinal and demographic data as 'required questions' and allow people to opt out of the more nuanced feedback questions? I would have felt that a survey with piped questions based on previous answers was fine, especially as we don't have to make any of the questions 'required to answer' unless we want to! Thanks for the suggested questions too :) [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Could we ask two questions ==
1. Their experiences as a newbie and what was good/could be better.

2. If they feel excluded for any reason - mobility, gender, geography, sexuality, race... and if so what we should do about it

== Draft survey and Membership Strategy==
Hi everyone! I'm going to send a reminder round the Wikimedia-uk list today about this, but given the feedback so far I've got some ideas to get started with writing the survey! I'll put a table in here with some suggestions and I'd be really grateful for feedback on the talk page, and suggestions for further questions here.

I'd like to run the survey for two weeks and have it close at the end of the month or early November. This is so the results can be collated and shared here (with raw data too for interested parties who want it), and take any further feedback those generate to the Board. This is in order for them to make some decisions about what benefits and opportunities we pursue for members, alongside how we keep members updated and well informed about the Chapter, board and staff.

To complement this I'm also starting an on-wiki dissuasion at [[2012 Membership strategy consultation]] where I would welcome input from members and non members alike about the direction our membership strategy could take in terms of recruitment, benefits, development and overall goals. Please go have a look and put some thoughts there too! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Election rules change ==

Not the most important issue, I understand, but if you are doing a membership survey it would be useful to ask a question to see whether the proposed change in election system [https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting_System] would make people less likely to vote (as some people have said might) [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 19:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Minutes 2012-10-09

2012-10-11T18:57:23Z

AndrewRT: /* Appointment of reviewer */ expand (not obvious what CC is)

=[[Board meetings|Meeting]] № 7 — 9 October 2012=
==Logistics==
===Agenda===
Agenda: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Agenda_9Oct12
# Minutes of previous meetings (including decision on publication of previous in-camera minutes, if not already effected)
# Publicly record the agreement and the process followed for <http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundation-and-wikimedia-uk/>
# Update on process for selecting and agreeing terms of reference to an independent reviewer. (If possible: resolution to adopt an independent reviewer and agree terms of reference)
# Interim actions relating to conflict of interest policy and practice

===Attendees===
Trustees:
* Chris
* Doug
* Fæ
* Mike
* Saad
* John

Staff:
* Jon Davies
* Richard

Legal:
* Tom Murdoch

Observers:
* Andrew Turvey

The meeting started at 19.35.

== Governance Review ==

=== Terms of Reference ===
Tom Murdoch updated the Board on the latest changes to the draft terms of reference for the expert consultant. After a discussion (held in-camera) of various details of the terms, CK moved a resolution.

'''Resolved, to adopt the terms of reference as presented to the Board on 9 October 2012, with or without the change made to 4.2.'''

* CK: Aye
* MP: Aye
* John: Aye
* Doug: Aye
* Fæ: Abstain (see below)
* Saad: Aye

The motion was hence passed, with 5 in favour and 1 abstention.

Fæ - ''"I am left wondering why the board would be asked to decide whether to accept the terms or not, after the interviews have been conducted. Unless I am missing something here, it no longer seems relevant for the board to spend time discussing this, if the decision has been made operationally, then this can by definition no longer be a decision for the trustees, and we should record this in our board meeting as such. The document has not been available for me to read, discuss or raise further questions on in advance of the board meeting."''

=== Appointment of reviewer ===
Jon Davies and John Byrne reported to the Board on the interviews with the expert consultants, which had been conducted by phone with a WMF representative present. Tom Murdoch (Stone King) commented on various points, including those that arose from the trustees. Jon Davies and John Byrne made their recommendations, and an in-camera discussion followed.

(AT left at this point)

'''Resolved, that the Board would be happy with either of the two proposed expert reviewers, with a preference to the ex-Charity Commission candidate. Resolved, that the details of the appointment of the expert reviewer, including further conversations to be had, are delegated to CK, JB, JD.'''

* CK: Aye
* MP: Aye
* John: Aye
* Doug: Aye (see below)
* Fæ: Abstain (see below)
* Saad: Aye

Passed 5 in favour 1 abstention

Fæ explanation of abstain vote: ''"I have not been invited to be involved in the interview process. An email providing questions that were likely to be asked in the interviews was circulated to trustees after interviews started. No process was agreed with the trustees in advance of interviews starting. This resolution was not drafted in advance of the board meeting. The interviews were started before the board had agreed to adopt the terms of reference and before the terms were in a state to be proposed to the UK Board."''

Doug noted that he was concerned that the experienced candidate would do too little of the work himself, and CK, JB and JD were aware of these concerns and would take them forward.

There was an 8 minute break at this point, until 21:03.

(Present: MP, Fæ, Doug, John, Chris, Richard, Saad, Jon)

==Working practices for in-camera minutes==
CK thought it would be helpful to publish in-camera minutes where possible. The 19th is of particular interest, says Fae.

{{action|7.1}} MP to assemble a list of public and in-camera minutes which are ready for approval or have previously been approved, and set up a voting page on the office wiki to approve them and decide whether they should be made public or not. New in-camera minutes will be posted to the board wiki for now, and moved onto the office or public wikis as the board decides. Office to assist MP wherever possible.

==Publicly record the agreement and the process followed for <http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/09/joint-statement-from-wikimedia-foundation-and-wikimedia-uk/>==
Fae asked that this process be minuted properly. CK agreed and said that this was a good idea.

(AT rejoined the conference at this point.)

Joint statement of process

;Tuesday 24 September:
*Board telecon agreed a statement for review with the WMF. In-camera minutes were recorded.
;Wednesday 25 September:
*The statement was reviewed with Stone King (the WMUK lawyers).
;Friday 28 September:
*At c.19:30 a conference call finished between CK, JB and JD and representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation (Sue Gardner, Geoff Brigham, Jay Walsh). CK then finalized the wording of the amendments to the draft statement that had been agreed during the call with Geoff/Jay. An agreed text was then circulated to the Board list (at 20:17) and CK attempted to contact all Board members (except Saad who CK understood to be on an aeroplane). CK reached JD, MP (by email), DT, JB who indicated they agreed for the statement to be published with some further changes. Fæ was available but was regrettably not consulted.
*Fae asked for it to be minuted that no vote was recorded. We had used similar processes for interim statements in the past, but he felt that the process followed was not appropriate for this statement.
*The blog post was published at 21:12.
*One of MP's requested changes wasn't made prior to the publication of the blog post, but was subsequently resolved by email without changes being made.

==Jon's further recommendation's==
Second page of Jon's report, item 3: JD asked that we recognise it will cost extra funds to pay the lawyers to give evidence for the review.
A decision to adopt this recommendation was made. For: John, Chris, Doug, Saad, Mike.

JD asked that we move forward, and recommended that we get Stevie to build a positive PR campaign over the next four months (in terms of positive press coverage). In addition, Katherine and Stevie to plan for PR during the fundraiser, to prepare for any issues. The board were happy with these recommendations.

Finally, JD suggested a statement to be issued by the board. The discussion around this was recorded in-camera.

Next scheduled meeting is on 17 November.

The meeting closed at 22:09.

[[Category:Board meetings 2012|20121009]]

User:AndrewRT/Why change the voting system

2012-10-02T23:12:34Z

AndrewRT: +things not change

**** THIS IS A DRAFT - PLEASE HELP EXPAND ****

A motion has been proposed to change the voting system used to elect the Wikimedia UK board. The arguments in favour of the change, and the drawbacks of making this change are set out below.

=== Current system ===

(set out current approval voting system)

=== Proposed system ===

(set out proposed STV system)
(and alternative Schulze)
(and any others suggested?)

=== What won't change ===

(number of board members; power of board to coopt replacement trustees; mention two year terms; majority approval requirements; board still elected by the members; members can still vote electronically; tellers can organise any way to cast votes)

=== Support ===

The change has the support of ...

=== Opposition ===

The change is opposed by ...

=== Advantages ===

The change is proposed because:

# STV allows the members to differentiate between candidates they support strongly and support weakly
# STV means that the result better reflects the different interests and background of the membership
...

=== Drawbacks ===

The disadvantages of the change are:

# It makes it harder for members to vote, particularly those who are not familiar with the people standing for election, and this may reduce turnout and member engagement
# It could encourage candidates to focus on differences and appeal to narrow factions and interests among the membership
# Places far too much weight onto first choices in a multi-seat election

User:AndrewRT/Why change the voting system

2012-10-02T22:06:44Z

AndrewRT:

**** THIS IS A DRAFT - PLEASE HELP EXPAND ****

A motion has been proposed to change the voting system used to elect the Wikimedia UK board. The arguments in favour of the change, and the drawbacks of making this change are set out below.

=== Current system ===

(set out current approval voting system)

=== Proposed system ===

(set out proposed STV system)

=== What won't change ===

(mention two year terms; majority approval requirements; board still elected by the members; members can still vote electronically; tellers can organise any way to cast votes)

=== Support ===

The change has the support of ...

=== Opposition ===

The change is opposed by ...

=== Advantages ===

The change is proposed because:

# STV allows the members to differentiate between candidates they support strongly and support weakly
# STV means that the result better reflects the different interests and background of the membership
...

=== Drawbacks ===

The disadvantages of the change are:

# It makes it harder for members to vote, particularly those who are not familiar with the people standing for election, and this may reduce turnout and member engagement
# It could encourage candidates to focus on differences and appeal to narrow factions and interests among the membership

User:AndrewRT/Why change the voting system

2012-10-02T22:03:39Z

AndrewRT: /* Advantages */

A motion has been proposed to change the voting system used to elect the Wikimedia UK board. The arguments in favour of the change, and the drawbacks of making this change are set out below.

=== Current system ===

(set out current approval voting system)

=== Proposed system ===

(set out proposed STV system)

=== What won't change ===

(mention two year terms; majority approval requirements; board still elected by the members; members can still vote electronically; tellers can organise any way to cast votes)

=== Support ===

The change has the support of ...

=== Opposition ===

The change is opposed by ...

=== Advantages ===

The change is proposed because:

# STV allows the members to differentiate between candidates they support strongly and support weakly
# STV means that the result better reflects the different interests and background of the membership
...

=== Drawbacks ===

The disadvantages of the change are:

# It makes it harder for members to vote, particularly those who are not familiar with the people standing for election, and this may reduce turnout and member engagement
# It could encourage candidates to focus on differences and appeal to narrow factions and interests among the membership

User:AndrewRT/Why change the voting system

2012-10-02T22:03:20Z

AndrewRT: /* Drawbacks */

A motion has been proposed to change the voting system used to elect the Wikimedia UK board. The arguments in favour of the change, and the drawbacks of making this change are set out below.

=== Current system ===

(set out current approval voting system)

=== Proposed system ===

(set out proposed STV system)

=== What won't change ===

(mention two year terms; majority approval requirements; board still elected by the members; members can still vote electronically; tellers can organise any way to cast votes)

=== Support ===

The change has the support of ...

=== Opposition ===

The change is opposed by ...

=== Advantages ===

The change is proposed because:

# STV allows the members to differentiate between candidates
# STV means that the result better reflects the different interests and background of the membership
...

=== Drawbacks ===

The disadvantages of the change are:

# It makes it harder for members to vote, particularly those who are not familiar with the people standing for election, and this may reduce turnout and member engagement
# It could encourage candidates to focus on differences and appeal to narrow factions and interests among the membership

User:AndrewRT/Why change the voting system

2012-10-02T21:53:42Z

AndrewRT: /* What won't change */

A motion has been proposed to change the voting system used to elect the Wikimedia UK board. The arguments in favour of the change, and the drawbacks of making this change are set out below.

=== Current system ===

(set out current approval voting system)

=== Proposed system ===

(set out proposed STV system)

=== What won't change ===

(mention two year terms; majority approval requirements; board still elected by the members; members can still vote electronically; tellers can organise any way to cast votes)

=== Support ===

The change has the support of ...

=== Opposition ===

The change is opposed by ...

=== Advantages ===

The change is proposed because:

# STV allows the members to differentiate between candidates
# STV means that the result better reflects the different interests and background of the membership
...

=== Drawbacks ===

The disadvantages of the change are:

# ...
# ...

User:AndrewRT/Why change the voting system

2012-10-02T21:51:56Z

AndrewRT: start page

User:LondonStatto/Proposed EGM Motion on Voting System

2012-10-02T21:45:10Z

AndrewRT: link to new page

Wikimedia UK '''notes''' the results of the 2011 and 2012 elections for Directors under the present Election Rules.

Wikimedia UK '''believes''' that the Approval Voting system is no longer fit for purpose as it does not allow voters sufficient discrimination between candidates.

Wikimedia UK '''believes''' that [[User:AndrewRT/Why change the voting system|the Single Transferable Vote system is preferable]] as the voting system for the election of Directors.

Wikimedia UK '''resolves''' to adopt the [[User:LondonStatto/Proposed STV Election Rules|proposed Election Rules attached]] as the Election Rules, replacing the existing [[Election Rules]].

Talk:WikiConference UK 2013

2012-09-29T21:32:47Z

AndrewRT: /* Possible speakers */

==Possible locations==
(Both venues and cities)
* Manchester?
** Possible venues: {{w|University of Manchester}} (lecture room or seminar room, or something from [http://www.conference.manchester.ac.uk/portal]), {{w|Mediacity}} (if they have large meeting rooms), {{w|Manchester Town Hall}}. Other options at [http://conferences.visitmanchester.com/].
** I helped host an event at [http://www.thelowry.com/ The Lowry] with a previous employer. Really lovely venue with plenty of space, on-site catering and so on. Might be expensive though. --[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
*** Manchester University would charge ~£36 inc VAT/head, so £3,600 for 100 people, for "use of a plenary meeting room equipped with standard a/v equipment, up to three servings of teas/coffees and biscuits and lunch" - an extra 40-90 seater room would cost around ~£300. See e.g. [http://www.conference.manchester.ac.uk/our-venues/73-staff-house-conference-centre] for more details.
*** Have tweeted at @MediaCityUK asking for info about possible locations there, and have contacted VisitManchester about options from them, and also the Lowry asking for their info. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 18:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
**** The Lowry have sent me a quote, which I've shared with the confcom mailing list and posted on the [http://internal.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/WikiConference_UK_2013_quotes|WMUK internal wiki]. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
* Birmingham
** Possible venues: [http://www.etcvenues.co.uk/venues/maple-house etc.venues].
* Nottingham?
* Edinburgh?
** Can the charity hold the AGM outside England and Wales? [[User:LoopZilla|Gordo]] ([[User talk:LoopZilla|talk]]) 21:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
*** That might be useful to get advice on. I've had a quick look and can't find anything in the Companies Act or on the Charity Commission website to say either way. It's worth resolving for future reference even if not for 2013 as even if we decide to hold the event elsewhere we may want to go to Scotland in the future. [[User:LondonStatto|LondonStatto]] ([[User talk:LondonStatto|talk]]) 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
*** Personally I favour either Birmingham or (if permissible) Edinburgh. [[User:LondonStatto|LondonStatto]] ([[User talk:LondonStatto|talk]]) 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
**** For me, the main consideration would be how we can maximise the number of members who attend. Thinking about it in this way, Birmingham seems a sensible choice - although I haven't seen data on where our members are located, it's central and certainly cheaper than London. --[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
***A E&W registered charity, and E&W private company (both of which applies to WMUK) are not legally required to hold an AGM unless its articles specify otherwise.[http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc48.aspx#28][http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/ca_gba7.shtml#three] WMUK articles [[Articles_of_Association#General_meetings|does require]] an AGM, but does not specify a limit on location. By that reading, the AGM can be held on the Moon if the company wants. Of course, there might be a problem with reaching a quorum that way. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 00:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

==Possible speakers==
(External speakers that could attract more of our members)

Just off the top of my head, and in no particular order, some organisations we've been working with who could provide speakers:

* JISC
* British Library
* Imperial War Museum
* Eurpoeana
* Other chapters
* Digital Disruption / Demos
* Creative Commons

Topics we could look at:

* Copyright
* Education (perhaps the outcomes of EduWiki or anyone inspired by it)
* Mature content
* Visual editor (James Forrester?)
* GLAM
* Non-English native languages (Robin Owain?)
* Projects / partnerships arising from the draft activity plan for 2013

--[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
: I would like to do a session looking at the longer term vision for the chapter if possible? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 21:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

== Venue requirements ==

Here's a quick brainstorm for what we need out of the venue for the conference:

* Venue
** Capacity for 100 people conference-style in a main room
** Capacity for 50 people conference-style in a separate, nearby room (for a parallel session)
** Should be reasonable quality, but does not need to be a prestige location
* Location
** Should be located in the United Kingdom
** Should be close to a major train station
** Ideally would have on-site (or nearby) car parking available
* Catering:
** Tea/coffee and biscuits at the start of the day and at mid-afternoon
** Light lunch (sandwiches, cakes) in the middle of the day
* Technology
** Robust wireless internet access, and ideally a reasonable number of power sockets available to attendees.
** Digital projectors and reasonably-sized display screens (WMUK has laptops available, so these aren't needed).
** Either in-house AV facilities, or no objections to us bringing in our own AV/webstreaming

What have I missed? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 18:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

:It's not required, but I think an idea on whether there would be on-site or partnered nearby accommodation for anyone who might arrive the previous day would also be useful. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 21:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

== Location decision ==

The [[Conference Committee]] is currently considering location for the 2013 WikiConference UK and AGM. So far we have quotes for the following locations.

* Birmingham x 1
* Coventry x 1
* Edinburgh x 1
* Lincoln x 1
* Manchester x 3
* Oxford x 2-3

Do you consider that's enough to make a decision from, or do you believe the committee should gather more quotes from possibly other cities first? What do you think about the cities being considered in particular? -- [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 14:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

:As I said at the GLAM-Camp, centrality & good transport are key; we don't pay travel expenses for AGMs. I think that rules out Edinburgh, especially as we have so far failed to get even meet-ups going there. That would produce a very low physical turn-out I think, which would be a pity. There are a number of other cities in the Midlands/North that are options, but I think these bids (which I haven't seen) are easily enought to be getting on with, unless another comes along by itself. There's no need to seek out more I think; there are up to 10 here. After Bristol then London a move some way north seems appropriate. Alternatively, just doing it in the office in London would work pretty well, and presumably save some money. The big basement room is large enough I think. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 15:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

:Most of those cities are fine, though I'm a little bit surprised to see Lincoln there. The practical issue is that we need a city that is convenient for long distance trains, and a venue in that city that is very close to the train station. It would also help if the event was available via live streaming, that way one could attend without travelling. Other cities which you could consider are York, Rugby, Durham and Leeds. I'd suggest that we stick to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_Main_Line East Coast] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Main_Line West Coast] Main lines. It also makes sense to rotate around the country - perhaps we could adopt a rule of each venue being an hours journey from the two previous AGMs. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 15:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
::The location is what volunteers and staff have gotten quotes for. There wasn't a this is a good idea and that is a bad idea and so don't bother, except for the part that it should be a location outside of London. I would oppose that last part. We already (unofficially) alternate between London and non-London and I think that's good. I don't see why we should restrict our choice of location based on how far away it is from the previous AGMs. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 16:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:::OK lets decide 2013 based on those quotes and have a separate thread for the policy re future venues. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 07:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
::::I don't know if I'm coming to this discussion too late, kbut I would like to suggest Cardiff for two reasons: firstly, all AGMs so far have been on England and it would be useful to have a non-England one occasionally; secondly, Cardiff is close to Monmouth, where we have had such a successful event so a conference there would be a great follow up. Cardiff is relatively easy to get to from both London and Birmingham. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 21:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

==Policy for 2013 and beyond==
:::As a Londoner I'm of course happy if everyone else is happy with a London non-London alternation. Though I think that is a little over greedy of us. My proposal of each venue being an hours journey from the two previous AGMs would be compatible with a London every third year system, which I would regard as fairer. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 14:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Well; from London it's slightly cheaper and quicker to get to Lincoln than Manchester :) Getting across country is a bit more difficult - but ultimately if we pick ''anywhere other than London'', even on the mainlines, one half of the country faces a transport problem. I've done a lot of research into this (Lincoln is my proposal) and it's a six-and-two-threes situations. One reason I think Lincoln is an interesting option is because we haven't done a lot in that area of the country (and it is a gorgeous historical city as well, prime opportunity for an editing session). There are things happening London, Bristol, Birmingham/Conventy, Monmouth, Manchester, Leicster. So it's broadening our coverage :D I also looked at York, which is easy to get to, but I am too far away from it to organise anything. Leeds of Sheffield are possible options where I also have links, but Lincoln was easiest :D I think moving forward we should list some sort of decision criteria for picking a venue, then just get some shortlisted. --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 11:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::If Lincoln is cheaper and quicker from London than Manchester is then I apologise to the people of Lincoln for maligning them. I think that we, and myself in particular have drifted from discussuing 2013 to discussing our general criteria. We need to have that discussion, and I doubt it will be too difficult to get some sort of consensus. If we do London every third year and each ''anywhere other than London'' venue is at least an hour from the previous non-London venue then we will get an element of rotation round the country.But we also need things like proximity to public transport, cost, accessibility for the disabled, and how close the venue is to the mainline station. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 07:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
:I live in Nottingham and I'm afraid I also support the London/non-London rotation as London is easier for me to get to than nearly any other city in the UK. Also, the south-east is where most of the population lives - see [http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/UnitedKingdom_GriddedPopulationCartogramHD.jpg here] [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 21:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:WikiConference UK 2013

2012-09-29T21:29:06Z

AndrewRT: /* Policy for 2013 and beyond */

==Possible locations==
(Both venues and cities)
* Manchester?
** Possible venues: {{w|University of Manchester}} (lecture room or seminar room, or something from [http://www.conference.manchester.ac.uk/portal]), {{w|Mediacity}} (if they have large meeting rooms), {{w|Manchester Town Hall}}. Other options at [http://conferences.visitmanchester.com/].
** I helped host an event at [http://www.thelowry.com/ The Lowry] with a previous employer. Really lovely venue with plenty of space, on-site catering and so on. Might be expensive though. --[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
*** Manchester University would charge ~£36 inc VAT/head, so £3,600 for 100 people, for "use of a plenary meeting room equipped with standard a/v equipment, up to three servings of teas/coffees and biscuits and lunch" - an extra 40-90 seater room would cost around ~£300. See e.g. [http://www.conference.manchester.ac.uk/our-venues/73-staff-house-conference-centre] for more details.
*** Have tweeted at @MediaCityUK asking for info about possible locations there, and have contacted VisitManchester about options from them, and also the Lowry asking for their info. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 18:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
**** The Lowry have sent me a quote, which I've shared with the confcom mailing list and posted on the [http://internal.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/WikiConference_UK_2013_quotes|WMUK internal wiki]. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
* Birmingham
** Possible venues: [http://www.etcvenues.co.uk/venues/maple-house etc.venues].
* Nottingham?
* Edinburgh?
** Can the charity hold the AGM outside England and Wales? [[User:LoopZilla|Gordo]] ([[User talk:LoopZilla|talk]]) 21:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
*** That might be useful to get advice on. I've had a quick look and can't find anything in the Companies Act or on the Charity Commission website to say either way. It's worth resolving for future reference even if not for 2013 as even if we decide to hold the event elsewhere we may want to go to Scotland in the future. [[User:LondonStatto|LondonStatto]] ([[User talk:LondonStatto|talk]]) 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
*** Personally I favour either Birmingham or (if permissible) Edinburgh. [[User:LondonStatto|LondonStatto]] ([[User talk:LondonStatto|talk]]) 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
**** For me, the main consideration would be how we can maximise the number of members who attend. Thinking about it in this way, Birmingham seems a sensible choice - although I haven't seen data on where our members are located, it's central and certainly cheaper than London. --[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
***A E&W registered charity, and E&W private company (both of which applies to WMUK) are not legally required to hold an AGM unless its articles specify otherwise.[http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc48.aspx#28][http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/ca_gba7.shtml#three] WMUK articles [[Articles_of_Association#General_meetings|does require]] an AGM, but does not specify a limit on location. By that reading, the AGM can be held on the Moon if the company wants. Of course, there might be a problem with reaching a quorum that way. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 00:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

==Possible speakers==
(External speakers that could attract more of our members)

Just off the top of my head, and in no particular order, some organisations we've been working with who could provide speakers:

* JISC
* British Library
* Imperial War Museum
* Eurpoeana
* Other chapters
* Digital Disruption / Demos
* Creative Commons

Topics we could look at:

* Copyright
* Education (perhaps the outcomes of EduWiki or anyone inspired by it)
* Mature content
* Visual editor (James Forrester?)
* GLAM
* Non-English native languages (Robin Owain?)
* Projects / partnerships arising from the draft activity plan for 2013

--[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

== Venue requirements ==

Here's a quick brainstorm for what we need out of the venue for the conference:

* Venue
** Capacity for 100 people conference-style in a main room
** Capacity for 50 people conference-style in a separate, nearby room (for a parallel session)
** Should be reasonable quality, but does not need to be a prestige location
* Location
** Should be located in the United Kingdom
** Should be close to a major train station
** Ideally would have on-site (or nearby) car parking available
* Catering:
** Tea/coffee and biscuits at the start of the day and at mid-afternoon
** Light lunch (sandwiches, cakes) in the middle of the day
* Technology
** Robust wireless internet access, and ideally a reasonable number of power sockets available to attendees.
** Digital projectors and reasonably-sized display screens (WMUK has laptops available, so these aren't needed).
** Either in-house AV facilities, or no objections to us bringing in our own AV/webstreaming

What have I missed? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 18:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

:It's not required, but I think an idea on whether there would be on-site or partnered nearby accommodation for anyone who might arrive the previous day would also be useful. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 21:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

== Location decision ==

The [[Conference Committee]] is currently considering location for the 2013 WikiConference UK and AGM. So far we have quotes for the following locations.

* Birmingham x 1
* Coventry x 1
* Edinburgh x 1
* Lincoln x 1
* Manchester x 3
* Oxford x 2-3

Do you consider that's enough to make a decision from, or do you believe the committee should gather more quotes from possibly other cities first? What do you think about the cities being considered in particular? -- [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 14:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

:As I said at the GLAM-Camp, centrality & good transport are key; we don't pay travel expenses for AGMs. I think that rules out Edinburgh, especially as we have so far failed to get even meet-ups going there. That would produce a very low physical turn-out I think, which would be a pity. There are a number of other cities in the Midlands/North that are options, but I think these bids (which I haven't seen) are easily enought to be getting on with, unless another comes along by itself. There's no need to seek out more I think; there are up to 10 here. After Bristol then London a move some way north seems appropriate. Alternatively, just doing it in the office in London would work pretty well, and presumably save some money. The big basement room is large enough I think. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 15:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

:Most of those cities are fine, though I'm a little bit surprised to see Lincoln there. The practical issue is that we need a city that is convenient for long distance trains, and a venue in that city that is very close to the train station. It would also help if the event was available via live streaming, that way one could attend without travelling. Other cities which you could consider are York, Rugby, Durham and Leeds. I'd suggest that we stick to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_Main_Line East Coast] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Main_Line West Coast] Main lines. It also makes sense to rotate around the country - perhaps we could adopt a rule of each venue being an hours journey from the two previous AGMs. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 15:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
::The location is what volunteers and staff have gotten quotes for. There wasn't a this is a good idea and that is a bad idea and so don't bother, except for the part that it should be a location outside of London. I would oppose that last part. We already (unofficially) alternate between London and non-London and I think that's good. I don't see why we should restrict our choice of location based on how far away it is from the previous AGMs. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 16:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:::OK lets decide 2013 based on those quotes and have a separate thread for the policy re future venues. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 07:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
::::I don't know if I'm coming to this discussion too late, kbut I would like to suggest Cardiff for two reasons: firstly, all AGMs so far have been on England and it would be useful to have a non-England one occasionally; secondly, Cardiff is close to Monmouth, where we have had such a successful event so a conference there would be a great follow up. Cardiff is relatively easy to get to from both London and Birmingham. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 21:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

==Policy for 2013 and beyond==
:::As a Londoner I'm of course happy if everyone else is happy with a London non-London alternation. Though I think that is a little over greedy of us. My proposal of each venue being an hours journey from the two previous AGMs would be compatible with a London every third year system, which I would regard as fairer. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 14:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Well; from London it's slightly cheaper and quicker to get to Lincoln than Manchester :) Getting across country is a bit more difficult - but ultimately if we pick ''anywhere other than London'', even on the mainlines, one half of the country faces a transport problem. I've done a lot of research into this (Lincoln is my proposal) and it's a six-and-two-threes situations. One reason I think Lincoln is an interesting option is because we haven't done a lot in that area of the country (and it is a gorgeous historical city as well, prime opportunity for an editing session). There are things happening London, Bristol, Birmingham/Conventy, Monmouth, Manchester, Leicster. So it's broadening our coverage :D I also looked at York, which is easy to get to, but I am too far away from it to organise anything. Leeds of Sheffield are possible options where I also have links, but Lincoln was easiest :D I think moving forward we should list some sort of decision criteria for picking a venue, then just get some shortlisted. --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 11:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::If Lincoln is cheaper and quicker from London than Manchester is then I apologise to the people of Lincoln for maligning them. I think that we, and myself in particular have drifted from discussuing 2013 to discussing our general criteria. We need to have that discussion, and I doubt it will be too difficult to get some sort of consensus. If we do London every third year and each ''anywhere other than London'' venue is at least an hour from the previous non-London venue then we will get an element of rotation round the country.But we also need things like proximity to public transport, cost, accessibility for the disabled, and how close the venue is to the mainline station. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 07:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
:I live in Nottingham and I'm afraid I also support the London/non-London rotation as London is easier for me to get to than nearly any other city in the UK. Also, the south-east is where most of the population lives - see [http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/UnitedKingdom_GriddedPopulationCartogramHD.jpg here] [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 21:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:WikiConference UK 2013

2012-09-29T21:24:02Z

AndrewRT: /* Location decision */

==Possible locations==
(Both venues and cities)
* Manchester?
** Possible venues: {{w|University of Manchester}} (lecture room or seminar room, or something from [http://www.conference.manchester.ac.uk/portal]), {{w|Mediacity}} (if they have large meeting rooms), {{w|Manchester Town Hall}}. Other options at [http://conferences.visitmanchester.com/].
** I helped host an event at [http://www.thelowry.com/ The Lowry] with a previous employer. Really lovely venue with plenty of space, on-site catering and so on. Might be expensive though. --[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
*** Manchester University would charge ~£36 inc VAT/head, so £3,600 for 100 people, for "use of a plenary meeting room equipped with standard a/v equipment, up to three servings of teas/coffees and biscuits and lunch" - an extra 40-90 seater room would cost around ~£300. See e.g. [http://www.conference.manchester.ac.uk/our-venues/73-staff-house-conference-centre] for more details.
*** Have tweeted at @MediaCityUK asking for info about possible locations there, and have contacted VisitManchester about options from them, and also the Lowry asking for their info. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 18:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
**** The Lowry have sent me a quote, which I've shared with the confcom mailing list and posted on the [http://internal.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/WikiConference_UK_2013_quotes|WMUK internal wiki]. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
* Birmingham
** Possible venues: [http://www.etcvenues.co.uk/venues/maple-house etc.venues].
* Nottingham?
* Edinburgh?
** Can the charity hold the AGM outside England and Wales? [[User:LoopZilla|Gordo]] ([[User talk:LoopZilla|talk]]) 21:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
*** That might be useful to get advice on. I've had a quick look and can't find anything in the Companies Act or on the Charity Commission website to say either way. It's worth resolving for future reference even if not for 2013 as even if we decide to hold the event elsewhere we may want to go to Scotland in the future. [[User:LondonStatto|LondonStatto]] ([[User talk:LondonStatto|talk]]) 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
*** Personally I favour either Birmingham or (if permissible) Edinburgh. [[User:LondonStatto|LondonStatto]] ([[User talk:LondonStatto|talk]]) 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
**** For me, the main consideration would be how we can maximise the number of members who attend. Thinking about it in this way, Birmingham seems a sensible choice - although I haven't seen data on where our members are located, it's central and certainly cheaper than London. --[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
***A E&W registered charity, and E&W private company (both of which applies to WMUK) are not legally required to hold an AGM unless its articles specify otherwise.[http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc48.aspx#28][http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/ca_gba7.shtml#three] WMUK articles [[Articles_of_Association#General_meetings|does require]] an AGM, but does not specify a limit on location. By that reading, the AGM can be held on the Moon if the company wants. Of course, there might be a problem with reaching a quorum that way. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 00:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

==Possible speakers==
(External speakers that could attract more of our members)

Just off the top of my head, and in no particular order, some organisations we've been working with who could provide speakers:

* JISC
* British Library
* Imperial War Museum
* Eurpoeana
* Other chapters
* Digital Disruption / Demos
* Creative Commons

Topics we could look at:

* Copyright
* Education (perhaps the outcomes of EduWiki or anyone inspired by it)
* Mature content
* Visual editor (James Forrester?)
* GLAM
* Non-English native languages (Robin Owain?)
* Projects / partnerships arising from the draft activity plan for 2013

--[[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

== Venue requirements ==

Here's a quick brainstorm for what we need out of the venue for the conference:

* Venue
** Capacity for 100 people conference-style in a main room
** Capacity for 50 people conference-style in a separate, nearby room (for a parallel session)
** Should be reasonable quality, but does not need to be a prestige location
* Location
** Should be located in the United Kingdom
** Should be close to a major train station
** Ideally would have on-site (or nearby) car parking available
* Catering:
** Tea/coffee and biscuits at the start of the day and at mid-afternoon
** Light lunch (sandwiches, cakes) in the middle of the day
* Technology
** Robust wireless internet access, and ideally a reasonable number of power sockets available to attendees.
** Digital projectors and reasonably-sized display screens (WMUK has laptops available, so these aren't needed).
** Either in-house AV facilities, or no objections to us bringing in our own AV/webstreaming

What have I missed? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 18:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

:It's not required, but I think an idea on whether there would be on-site or partnered nearby accommodation for anyone who might arrive the previous day would also be useful. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 21:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

== Location decision ==

The [[Conference Committee]] is currently considering location for the 2013 WikiConference UK and AGM. So far we have quotes for the following locations.

* Birmingham x 1
* Coventry x 1
* Edinburgh x 1
* Lincoln x 1
* Manchester x 3
* Oxford x 2-3

Do you consider that's enough to make a decision from, or do you believe the committee should gather more quotes from possibly other cities first? What do you think about the cities being considered in particular? -- [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 14:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

:As I said at the GLAM-Camp, centrality & good transport are key; we don't pay travel expenses for AGMs. I think that rules out Edinburgh, especially as we have so far failed to get even meet-ups going there. That would produce a very low physical turn-out I think, which would be a pity. There are a number of other cities in the Midlands/North that are options, but I think these bids (which I haven't seen) are easily enought to be getting on with, unless another comes along by itself. There's no need to seek out more I think; there are up to 10 here. After Bristol then London a move some way north seems appropriate. Alternatively, just doing it in the office in London would work pretty well, and presumably save some money. The big basement room is large enough I think. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 15:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

:Most of those cities are fine, though I'm a little bit surprised to see Lincoln there. The practical issue is that we need a city that is convenient for long distance trains, and a venue in that city that is very close to the train station. It would also help if the event was available via live streaming, that way one could attend without travelling. Other cities which you could consider are York, Rugby, Durham and Leeds. I'd suggest that we stick to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_Main_Line East Coast] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Main_Line West Coast] Main lines. It also makes sense to rotate around the country - perhaps we could adopt a rule of each venue being an hours journey from the two previous AGMs. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 15:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
::The location is what volunteers and staff have gotten quotes for. There wasn't a this is a good idea and that is a bad idea and so don't bother, except for the part that it should be a location outside of London. I would oppose that last part. We already (unofficially) alternate between London and non-London and I think that's good. I don't see why we should restrict our choice of location based on how far away it is from the previous AGMs. [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 16:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:::OK lets decide 2013 based on those quotes and have a separate thread for the policy re future venues. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 07:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
::::I don't know if I'm coming to this discussion too late, kbut I would like to suggest Cardiff for two reasons: firstly, all AGMs so far have been on England and it would be useful to have a non-England one occasionally; secondly, Cardiff is close to Monmouth, where we have had such a successful event so a conference there would be a great follow up. Cardiff is relatively easy to get to from both London and Birmingham. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] ([[User talk:AndrewRT|talk]]) 21:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

==Policy for 2013 and beyond==
:::As a Londoner I'm of course happy if everyone else is happy with a London non-London alternation. Though I think that is a little over greedy of us. My proposal of each venue being an hours journey from the two previous AGMs would be compatible with a London every third year system, which I would regard as fairer. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 14:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Well; from London it's slightly cheaper and quicker to get to Lincoln than Manchester :) Getting across country is a bit more difficult - but ultimately if we pick ''anywhere other than London'', even on the mainlines, one half of the country faces a transport problem. I've done a lot of research into this (Lincoln is my proposal) and it's a six-and-two-threes situations. One reason I think Lincoln is an interesting option is because we haven't done a lot in that area of the country (and it is a gorgeous historical city as well, prime opportunity for an editing session). There are things happening London, Bristol, Birmingham/Conventy, Monmouth, Manchester, Leicster. So it's broadening our coverage :D I also looked at York, which is easy to get to, but I am too far away from it to organise anything. Leeds of Sheffield are possible options where I also have links, but Lincoln was easiest :D I think moving forward we should list some sort of decision criteria for picking a venue, then just get some shortlisted. --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 11:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::If Lincoln is cheaper and quicker from London than Manchester is then I apologise to the people of Lincoln for maligning them. I think that we, and myself in particular have drifted from discussuing 2013 to discussing our general criteria. We need to have that discussion, and I doubt it will be too difficult to get some sort of consensus. If we do London every third year and each ''anywhere other than London'' venue is at least an hour from the previous non-London venue then we will get an element of rotation round the country.But we also need things like proximity to public transport, cost, accessibility for the disabled, and how close the venue is to the mainline station. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 07:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User:LondonStatto/Proposed EGM Motion on Voting System

2012-09-29T20:45:29Z

AndrewRT: not sure if you welcome edits here - i suggest removing the last as I don't think we should set a precedent that the members have to approve specific purchases by the board

Wikimedia UK '''notes''' the results of the 2011 and 2012 elections for Directors under the present Election Rules.

Wikimedia UK '''believes''' that the Approval Voting system is no longer fit for purpose as it does not allow voters sufficient discrimination between candidates.

Wikimedia UK '''believes''' that the Single Transferable Vote system is preferable as the voting system for the election of Directors.

Wikimedia UK '''resolves''' to adopt the [[User:LondonStatto/Proposed STV Election Rules|proposed Election Rules attached]] as the Election Rules, replacing the existing [[Election Rules]].

User:AndrewRT/Five year plan

2012-09-29T00:39:56Z

AndrewRT: /* Income */

Sandbox for creating a summary goals for the [[2012_Five_Year_Plan]] along the lines of the [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/c0/WMF_StrategicPlan2011_spreads.pdf Wikimedia Strategic Plan]

Intention is for these targets to be SMART - i.e. Specific Measurable Achievable Realistic and Timed

== Five overall targets ==

# Links with partner organisations established in the UK are key to the delivery of our mission. We aim to have partnerships with 1% of potential partner organisations - 170 in total - in all six main sectors.
# In order to effectively contribute to these partnerships we need to have significant secure and independent income. To this aim we target income of £7.5m, with at least 50% derived from outside the annual fundraiser.
# Close links with our base in the Wikimedia communities including both editors and readers and both individuals and institutions. We aim to have grown to 4,000 members including at least 1,000 editors.
# We will become established as a significant contributor to public policy and public debates on issues related to our work.
# Our governance standards will match best practice for an organisation of our intended size and prominence.

=== Partnerships ===

How many potential partners are out there?

* 305 [http://www.ucas.com/documents/endofcyclereport.pdf Universities] that use UCAS
* 6,786 [http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/geo/england_all.html Secondary schools] plus 220 [http://skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/aboutus/ Further Education colleges] funded by the SFA
* 5,502 [http://www.cilip.org.uk/membership/enquiry-service/top-enquiries/pages/numberoflibraries.aspx Libraries] (2009 figure)
* 2,389 [http://www.lboro.ac.uk/microsites/infosci/lisu/lampost10/inst10.html#archno Archives] (2009 figure)
* 1,795 [http://www.lboro.ac.uk/microsites/infosci/lisu/lampost10/inst10.html#mlamus museums] accredited by the MLA (2009 figure)
* 97 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_associations_in_the_United_Kingdom Professional Associations]

Total - 17,095

=== Income ===

2011 - £1m. 7.5x growth in five years equates to an annual increase of 50%.

This equates to £44,000 per partnership which is a good "war-chest" to be starting with

=== Community base ===

* 15,000,000 regular readers
* 4,000 registered users on en-wp (ish)

Note a lot of editors will never want to join a "real life" (and real name) community so 1,000 editors (25% penetration) is a fairly ambitious target. The balance of 3,000 is only 0.2% of regular readers - by comparison the National Trust manages to sign up 5% of visitors to its sites as members.

Institutions includes:

* Wikimedia Foundation
* other Wikimedia chapters & organisations
* Organised groups of Wikimedians including wikimeets, wikiprojects, project communities

=== Public policy ===

This includes:
* New technology
* Copyright law
* Public data

"Significant contribution" means being involved in all major formal consultations plus being recognised as a major contributor (i.e. having a seat around the table in the relevant debates)

=== Governance ===

Once the prominence and size is established all else should follow with adoption of best practice.