View source for Engine room

__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{divbox|blue|Welcome to the engine room|This is a place to ask about and discuss the inner workings of the charity.  To discuss our external projects and activities, see how you can get involved or suggest ideas that could help our charitable mission, head over to the [[water cooler]].}}
{|style="float:right;border:solid silver 1px;margin-left:8px;margin-bottom:4px;"
|-
|[[File:Archives.png|x100px]]
|-
|align=center|{{#ifexist:Engine_room/2013|[[/2013|2013]]}}{{#ifexist:Engine_room/2014|<br>[[/2014|2014]]}}
|}
__TOC__

==Museum photography==

Would it be worth putting effort into trying to make this list as extensive as possible for the UK:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:WikiProject_Arts/Museum_photography

04:46, 3 April 2014 (BST)

:There are something like [http://www.museumsassociation.org/about/frequently-asked-questions 2,500 museums in the UK]. A comprehensive list noting how suitable they are for photography would be a pretty serious undertaking. Maybe if we narrow it down to something like the 100 most frequently visited museums. It could very easily end up that the UK would need it's own table or even a separate page. I think it would probably be a useful undertaking. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:49, 3 April 2014 (BST)
:: I wonder if this would be something best done via Wikipedia or Wikidata, rather than commons. On Wikipedia, it could maybe be done with an additional infobox parameter that categorises the museum's article into an appropriate hidden category. On Wikidata, I guess it would need an additional parameter to be added that would allow the (referenced) addition of the information. I'm not sure I can see the point in doing this just on Commons for the Commons community nowadays, when it could be done much more generally. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:11, 4 April 2014 (BST)
:::wikivoyage would be the other interested project. Trying to find out for all of them makes it a decent crowdsourced project. 100 isn't far off what I could dig out of my own archives.[[User:Geni|Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 05:42, 16 April 2014 (BST)

=== Something more proactive? ===
Perhaps we should be doing something more proactive here, and setting out the types of permissions we'd like to see museums give their visitors, and persuading the museums to adopt those permissions? Something along the lines of Creative Commons, but for museum photography permissions? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (BST)
:I suspect a good starting point for defining that is to understand what permissions different institutions currently grant. There is no sense in inventing a wheel before we know whether one has already been invented. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 13:19, 22 April 2014 (BST)
:: I think the commons page gives a reasonable cross-spectrum of the types of permissions that institutions currently grant. I'd agree, though, about reinventing the wheel - I don't know if standard guidance exists for museums here or not. I guess the first step might be to ask an organisation like collections trust or culture24 if they have standard advice they give out at the moment that could be built on, if there's the interest in doing this. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 20:45, 28 April 2014 (BST)

There was some interesting discussion here, but I'm not sure anything has really come of it. Does anyone want to suggest a way forward? [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:44, 2 June 2014 (BST)
:We have barely a handful of active volunteers who are interested in spending time on GLAM photography projects, read this wiki and contribute to guidelines on Commons, and I would advise against making this an employee created initiative. I have to say, there is far greater impact to be had by focusing on other areas of concern, that do not create a guideline wiki page that itself creates volunteer maintenance burden as the page will go out of date every year. At Wikimania there will be representation from several major UK GLAMs, it may be an idea to workshop some ideas there. The NY GLAM workshop in 2012 was bouncing around the idea of a website icon showing the GLAM's commitment to open knowledge, the level to which they allow public photography could be a part of this (e.g. the BM allows photography but not in special exhibitions) which could then be automatically data-mined to supply the sort of guideline table that has been discussed here. I would not underestimate the difficulty of implementing anything pragmatic&mdash;the 2012 concept was simple and highly "sell-able", it has yet to get anywhere and for that reason I would not want to be responsible for delivering it. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:38, 2 June 2014 (BST)

== Where can I find 2014 programmes as opposed to just budget? ==

I was wondering where last year's ideas for activities around this year's centenary of the First World War had gone, or what outcomes there had been in this area even if it had been reduced, considering there was originally '''[[2013_Activity_Plan#World_Wars_I_and_II_project|£20,000]]''' agreed by the trustees to be spent on it. Checking [http://wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=2014_Activity_Plan/GLAM_Outreach&oldid=54330 2014 Activity Plan/GLAM Outreach] I was surprised that this document contains no details of any GLAM projects, in fact it only appears to link to a budget for 2013 and the section on "timelines" remains blank apart from the note ''please add details''.

Where can I find a tangible 2014 plan for GLAM, with details that can be measured as opposed to reports of stuff that has already happened? --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:07, 9 May 2014 (BST)

:Based on the fact that it has now been a week, this appears to be a "non-success".
:I suggest that the board of trustees consider changing the Activity Plan wording so that there is a realistic expectation given to members that when we discuss plans, the charity means standard budget forecasts, reports of what happened in the previous quarter and actions (not plans) for the coming quarter.
:These would normally be called "reports" and in addition one would expect the CEO to ensure a schedule spanning the funded programmes is maintained (the next 12 months in the case of this charity) and a work breakdown with associated measurable outcomes. The board of trustees may find this a useful strategic discussion at some point soon, in order to help provide the quality of oversight that most large national charities would expect. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 12:21, 15 May 2014 (BST)

::While it has been almost a week since your question, our GLAM Organiser is part-time. A considerable amount of his time has been spent on helping with FDC reporting for Q1 so you may have to wait for an answer. When he is next in I will ask Jonathan Cardy when he has time to answer. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:49, 15 May 2014 (BST)
:::I was expecting either a link to the plan so I could look at it, or a statement saying there is no plan. My question was not intended to be directed at anyone, I certainly am not asking employees direct questions. This could be answered by the CEO, any trustee as they follow and review these documents, or another unpaid volunteer up to date on programme reporting, who might be comfortable answering.
:::As it happens I have been in discussion with Jonathan on other matters in this time. I note that the Activity Plan does not name Jonathan as being responsible for a plan, and that the supporting detailed document says "Daria Cybulska with delegated support from Jonathan Cardy" which I was aware of, but had made no assumptions about. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:09, 15 May 2014 (BST)
::::Likewise Daria and the CEO have been extraordinarily busy in particular with drafting the FDC report. I'm afraid an answer will have to wait until staff workloads are more manageable. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:10, 15 May 2014 (BST)
:::::Thanks. I am sorry that the last week had been a bad time. Again, it was never my intention for this to be seen a question directed to an employee.
:::::{{ping|MichaelMaggs}} Would a trustee or a knowledgeable volunteer like to answer my question? It seems a simple and short one if anyone knows the answer. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 16:57, 15 May 2014 (BST)

:It has now over <s>2 weeks</s> 3 weeks since my question "Where can I find a tangible 2014 plan" was raised. I am sorry if this has been seen as a trick question of some sort, it was not intended that way. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 09:45, 2 June 2014 (BST)

== Proposed amendments to update charity's security and data protection policies: Revised Deadline of 5th June!==

Hi all, 

I am going to be working over the next few days on amending the charity's policies that refer to processing and storage of personal information to bring them up to date or better reflect actual operational practice. What I will do is create sub-pages of the existing policies under a 'proposed revisions' page and then post those links under my posting here. 

I would welcome help by either discussion on the broader themes that may interest our community (balancing the requirements of the law with flexible working and being able to be transparent) here, and specific suggestions for amendments or questions for why I have made amendments on the talk pages of the proposed revision drafts. 

If there is anything I've missed I'm open to hearing about it - some gaps I know we need to fill in the coming months are a data retention policy in line with the Foundation's and a broader statement on data governance and risk which I hope to develop with GovComm. Anything else the (many!) savvy types on privacy and data issues want to highlight - please do. I will try and drop a line linking back here on talk pages to those who I know have expressed interest in these issues in the past. 

This is quite a bit of work so I'll be pushing on with it on top of other things over the next two weeks with a view to propose amended versions to the Board in June by the end of next week (May 23rd) as I will be on annual leave the following week (27th - 30th May) 

If there are policies that are causing obvious concern however I'm prepared to hold back on those to extend the discussion period so please do make that point if you need to. Lets try and keep things to Wiki but if you're concerned I'm not responding promptly please email me (katherine.bavage[@]wikimedia.org.uk).

Thanks all - links to proposed amends pages to follow! [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:44, 13 May 2014 (BST)

: After discussion with Michael as Chair he has agreed that these changes, while important, do not need to be submitted in order to meet deadlines for Board papers, because the board can review and approve/refuse recommended changes on wiki around the meeting rather than at it. This does not preclude there being more high level consideration of data governance matters at board or committee meetings in future - indeed I am envisioning there will be - but that we need to amend these now to ensure the charity remains in compliance with the law and staff are supported to use best practice in carrying out their work.  
: I am therefore proposing an extended deadline, both because it allows more time for community comment should there be some additional, and because it will allow me more time on my return from annual leave* to put in place some completed supporting documentation and other changes. If there are comments made in my absence I am sure other members of staff will respond to requests for info where they can, and of course I'll pick up on my return. 
: * I am on annual leave 26th May - 30th May inclusive and will be back answering emails and working on this following 2nd June. [[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|talk]]) 14:33, 23 May 2014 (BST)

::There is no issue with this decision, however are two lines of logic to this which may need the board to revisit trustee processes, so I'm separating them:
::# ''Out of meeting decision making'' - As I recall, a key reason that the board introduced votes of trustees outside of board meetings was to easily enable trustees to make decisions on policy changes in advance of a board meeting. This nicely reduces the workload for meetings and trustees can take a more relaxed approach to reviewing material and asking questions (because on-wiki votes can run for a month). In practice, Operations then consider the decision made, however the legal ratification has to still occur at the scheduled board meeting, for technical reasons more than common-sense ones. From what I have seen this year, I am unsure how well this is being practically applied by the board, or if it is particularly helpful if the board has become less proactive than in years past.
::# ''CEO authority'' - There is a division between operational procedures/detailed policy, and policies that require authorization by the board of trustees. Having delegated a scope of authority and responsibility to the CEO, practical decisions at the operational level should be up to the CEO, which may include changing practices to adopt a draft policy. He is then held to account for outcomes of whatever practical decisions he has made in-between board meetings. In the case of data policies, there may well be immediate need to make operational decisions against currently authorized policy, however this would be the difference between handling an incident and correctly communicating it, and legally agreeing how the articles are implemented by the charity.
::In the second issue of CEO authority, I doubt that the way that authority has been delegated to the CEO makes the boundaries very clear, this is not necessarily a "non-success", as within a slowly maturing organization it is often better to let bureaucracy be changed by experience rather than dubious hypothesis. Certainly, wiki-lawyering it to death would be unhelpful. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:55, 23 May 2014 (BST)

===Page links===
* [[Access control approval guidelines/Proposed revision June 2014]]
* [[Annual security audit checklist/Proposed revisions June 2014]]
* [[Data Breach Policy/Proposed revisions June 2014]]
* [[Remote Access Policy/Proposed revision June 2014]]
* [[Training Policy and Control List/Proposed revisions June 2014]]

== International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance part two ==

Hello everyone. I wanted to bring this back on the agenda. For clarity, I initially [[Water_cooler/2013#International_Principles_on_the_Application_of_Human_Rights_to_Communications_Surveillance|proposed that Wikimedia UK gets involved with this somehow here]] last year. The reason I am bringing this up again is because the [https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/05/09/opposing-mass-surveillance-on-the-internet/ Wikimedia Foundation has announced that it has signed the principles]. Essentially, the principles make a statement against mass surveillance of internet users. Again, I think that this is in scope and showing support for these principles is important. I hope that we can revisit this issue. You can [https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/TEXT read the principles here]. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:19, 14 May 2014 (BST)

:I am surprised and disappointed that this is being lobbied for a second time. The text has not changed or improved since the previous discussion [[Water_cooler/2013#International_Principles_on_the_Application_of_Human_Rights_to_Communications_Surveillance|here]]. The document will be offensive to many, as LGBT minorities have been explicitly excluded from the "Legitimate Aim" section, despite "sexual orientation" being mentioned in the unenforceable preamble. Were the board of trustees to choose to support this document they would be going against the spirit of, and possibly be in breach of, "Wikimedia UK as Service Provider" in [[Diversity and Equalities Policy]] and value 5 of [[Vision, values and mission]].

:I am not aware of the WMF seeking any consultation with the community. I would be happy to be provided with some links if this has happened. I have posted the same request on the WMF blog post.

:I have alerted the Wikimedia LGBT group [[meta:Talk:Wikimedia_LGBT#Opposing_Mass_Surveillance_on_the_Internet_-_apart_from_LGBT_minorities|here]]. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:33, 14 May 2014 (BST)

::For those interested, Roshni Patel of the Wikimedia Foundation addresses Fae's concerns directly:
::{{quote|"Hi Fae,<p>Prior to signing on to the Necessary and Proportionate Principles, we consulted the advocacy advisors. You can find that [https://www.mail-archive.com/advocacy_advisors@lists.wikimedia.org/msg00115.html here].<p>The list of prohibited discriminations under the “Legitimate Aim” principle is non-exclusive and includes “other status.” Given that sexual orientation was listed in the preamble, it would certainly be included under “other status”.}}
::I am certain that if LGBT groups were directly excluded the Wikimedia Foundation would not have signed the principles. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 09:54, 15 May 2014 (BST)
:::Patel has given a tangential reply rather than a direct response to the issues. I'm afraid Patel's assumption is unfounded, from this it can be seen that there has been no community consultation where interested groups, such as Wikimedia LGBT, might be allowed to have a voice before the WMF made this irrevocable action. It should be noted that Patel's post is not a statement for the WMF. Though she is being employed or sponsored by the WMF as a 'Fellow', her profile on the Foundation website is quick to ensure that nothing she publishes represents the WMF, unless explicitly stated otherwise. I will be responding, probably later today.
:::With regard to your being "certain that if LGBT groups were directly excluded the Wikimedia Foundation would not have signed the principles", you are welcome to hold those beliefs, however I am discussing the blog post and can only go by what is written there and the words of the document that the WMF has now committed itself to. Based on advice I have been given on the Advocacy Advisors email list, the WMF should follow [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Association_Guideline their own consultation policy], and this appears to have explicitly not happened in this instance.
:::Wikimedia UK does not ''need'' to have an opinion on these principles, the charity can just say "good work" or similar. Again I am disappointed to see this being lobbied for so hard here, when the previous community discussion was, at best, controversial. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:20, 15 May 2014 (BST)
:::: I have not been following the discussion which led to the WMF signing up to these principles and don't intend to go trawling over loads of discussions  to find out who was consulted and who thought what.  The WMF will no doubt have had good reasons for wanting to sign up.  However I also feel that a set of principles which has a section on legitimate use of surveillance and specifically omits sexual orientation from a list of exclusions is very seriously defective. WMUK should consider whether it is in the best interests of the charity to sign up to a set of principles which, for example, the Ugandan government could comply with while undertaking surveillance for the purpose of targeting gay men for arrest and imprisonment. Since our signature is not needed on these principles I will take a lot of persuading that they are a good thing for us to do. [[User:Mccapra|Mccapra]] ([[User talk:Mccapra|talk]]) 17:33, 17 May 2014 (BST)

== Trustee Expenses ==
:''Details posted on the engine room in response to a request at [[Engine room/2014#Attendees at the Wikimedia Conference 2014?]]

As the previous discussion has been manually archived [[/2014#Attendees at the Wikimedia Conference 2014?|here]], I have created this second thread so that the costs which are due to be reported by 22 May (2 days time) can be linked and may be discussed by volunteers on this noticeboard. It should be noted that some of the expenses have been declared on [[Expenses 2013-2014]], it cannot be presumed to be a complete declaration. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:42, 20 May 2014 (BST)
:Hello Fae! I was going to create a new post, don't worry. I have posted the Q1 expenses at [[Expenses 2014-2015]]. The board are going to be discussing what level of expenses is appropriate - the policy as written needs more clarity. The general feeling is that expenses will be dealt with using a quarterly summary against named persons, split into appropriate groups of travel, accommodation, subsistence, per diems, etc. The board will be discussing this on 7 June but I don't want to pre-empt their decision. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:41, 21 May 2014 (BST)

I have changed the title back to be more accurate.

What was requested, and committed to, in the archived discussion was "When the total costs are published, could someone add a link here so that future volunteers can find it more easily?" The total costs as defined earlier in the same discussion were "the costs of sending 8 people to this conference", not just those that happen to have been trustees at the time. Again, this is not a request from me to any employee. If the WMUK treasurer wants to give a summary of these costs as a follow unpaid volunteer, that would be cool. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:55, 21 May 2014 (BST)

:I have changed the title back because the page covers more than the Wikimedia Conference (and using the same title as a previous thread it would have made the information more difficult to find once archived) and have added a link back to the Berlin discussion at the start of this section. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 16:50, 21 May 2014 (BST)
::You may wish to think about an accurate title rather than simply reverting, the original point of this thread is not addressed by an update of [[Expenses 2014-2015|Trustee Expenses]], as that would only obscure what the actual total costs of sending attendees to the conference was, which would not be a benefit with regard to transparency and could not be considered a matter of privacy for any individual. It might be an idea to follow the BRD principle on the Engine room, it works well on the projects. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 23:12, 21 May 2014 (BST)
:::Perhaps it would be best to avoid using [[:en:WP:3LA|3LAs]] in public conversations without at the very least a link explaining that BRD means [[:en:WP:BRD|Bold Revert Discuss]]. People more familiar with say the conventions and discourse of Wikimedia Commons than that of Wikipedia may find that such jargon is not immediately accessible. So perhaps we should try not to exclude people where a few extra key strokes would makes things clearer ;-) [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:28, 22 May 2014 (BST)
::::Well, being the Engine room, I suspect that all likely readers of this will know it is 'bold' rather than 'block'. Being a supporter of plain English and mindful of international projects, I have designed wiki tools to help convert wiki acronyms to phrases, however the context matters with these things. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:57, 22 May 2014 (BST)
:Hi Fae. I'm sorry, I misunderstood your previous post and thought you were asking for trustee expenses. I'll see what I can pull up with regard to total cost of the conference and post it in a new section here. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:57, 22 May 2014 (BST)
::Hello Fae: this is a quick reply to say that finding the total cost is proving more difficult than I first expected. I cannot easily distinguish spends from this event as I didn't plan to do so in advance, and as a result I would have to complete a line-by-line review of the purchase ledger for the month prior to and the month after the event to pull out the full costs. This would be several hours of work and it wouldn't be cost-effective. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:34, 30 May 2014 (BST)

:::Then an efficient way of replying to my request made five weeks ago, when there were commitments to report the total costs of (highly controversially amongst the international volunteer community) sending 8 people to the Wikimedia Conference 2014, would have been that '''"no, those costs are never going to be reported"'''. It seems a great pity that so much volunteer and paid employee time was not saved by answering the original question with "no". --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:47, 30 May 2014 (BST)
::::Not wishing to put my hand too far into the hornets' nest, but perhaps it might be possible to come up with a rough estimate (presumably air fares and hotel bookings would be relatively easy to find, but I'm only guessing)? [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 21:50, 30 May 2014 (BST)
:::::If I did, I could't guarantee any useful level of accuracy. Some people drove there, some flew, and not everyone flew from the same country IIRC - and some people took entirely different flight companies. Again, if I'm remembering it correctly, some of our staff were asked to stay an extra day to meet with the WMF and help work on metrics together, and the WMF reimbursed us for bits of that, but not all of it. It's very complex, and I don't want to give a figure that would be misleading. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 23:28, 30 May 2014 (BST)
:::::: I'm not sure I understand why it's so complicated. Isn't it just a matter of getting the amounts from the 8 claim forms, plus any flights and hotels that were paid for directly? That should be possible to do accurately, even if it's not 100% complete... Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 12:06, 31 May 2014 (BST)
::::::: Not really... I'd be looking at a list of transactions from two bank accounts spanning two months, and ALTO card transactions for five cards for the same period. There aren't necessarily eight claim forms either - there could be more than or fewer than eight. This is one of the reasons it's so complex - in addition to that, they're all mixed in with other transactions, and some of the claim forms are claims for more more than one event, and some are receipts in German, etc etc. Our system isn't designed to report on individual projects - it's designed to report on whole budgets. Drilling down lower than that is a lot of work. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:35, 31 May 2014 (BST)


I would like to propose to the board of trustees, and especially the treasurer, that the charity immediately changes its financial management system to one that can efficiently report expenses by date they were incurred and claimant, without requiring "several hours of work" for an employee. Can someone (not necessarily a paid employee) advise where that would best be proposed? Implementing such an improvement to standard reports by the charity in order to ensure transparency and openness, might be a good response to [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/072290.html my email to wikimedia-l]. In the case in hand, filtering expenses by 8 names for the conference period, and then finding any additional pre-booked travel in the month before for the same set of names, should take an employee minutes rather than hours; a system that cannot provide this is not fit for purpose.

For those of us that remember back to a time before the charity had employees, let alone the 17 we have now, expenses were entirely reported and managed by unpaid volunteers. It was not an efficient or effective system, but compared to the many hours it now takes to create a simple report of expenses against a major annual conference event, after 4 years of improvement and investment, the current system and processes are no more effective at producing the reports we need to ensure transparency, from the point of view of members who would like to be able to see meaningful and appropriate financial reports in a ''timely'' fashion.

Note: link added at [[Talk:Agenda_7Jun14]], though unsure if notes from members are welcome on the agenda or will be ignored. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 07:18, 1 June 2014 (BST)

:: There is no intention to hide the costs to the chapter of the Chapter's involvement in the Wikiconference in Berlin, but it is not a simple calculation. I hope the detail below re-assures those who are interested.<p>One person was asking for trustee expenses, others are asking how much we (WMUK) spent on the entire conference (including staff, volunteers, speakers, trustees etc). I hope to clarify this here.<p>So for trustee expenses: it is worth reminding ourselves that not all of the board went as ''trustees'', as two (at least) were invited as speakers - reporting that as a trustee cost wouldn't be accurate so needs to be accounted for differently. As to staff – I attended as the Chief Executive, but the other two staff were also invited speakers. One of the staff had some costs paid by the Foundation.<p>As to the cost mine was probably on the low end, as I booked my flight early and always use public transport or bicycles, but from recollection (and I have to sign off all trustee expenses) the total cost to the chapter is close to £2600 but sometimes expenses come in very late and there could be a plane fare lurking somewhere. My expenses are [[Expenses_2014-2015|here]] and give a good baseline.<p>The trustees are discussing how best to itemise expenses in a way that ensures an appropriate level of transparency at the board meeting this Saturday. It also needs to take into account the staff time involved in doing this which could be better spent supporting our programme.<p>I do not know why anyone would call the conference a 'junket', that needs a citation I'd think, but it was, as I have explained before in detail, a productive working three days at a reasonable cost to the chapter. If you think it was a junket then the whole conference could be judged a waste of money and the previous ones as well - and they aren't. The reality is that these are important working conferences where chapters and other organisations meet to discuss best practice.<p>I know that what I have written will not satisfy everyone but it is offered in good faith and the spirit of transparency we aspire to.<p>[[User:Jon Davies (WMUK)|Jon Davies (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Jon Davies (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:35, 2 June 2014 (BST)

::Thanks for your interim response here Jon. Three points:
::# Nobody has mentioned a "junket" in this discussion. Please do not confuse parties writing here with those writing (or trolling) on wikimedia-l or wikipediocracy.
::# The concerns raised were the value to Wikimedia of sending 8 people to this conference, which was 3 more than any other chapter, with the vast majority of chapters wisely limiting themselves to a maximum of 3 attendees. This is not the same as claiming the conference was a waste of money. Please do not exaggerate legitimate questions about the finances of the charity, in a way that makes them appear to be critical statements about other parties that they obviously are not.
::# Transparency is a firm requirement for the charity, that is why we ensured it is explicitly in our [[mission]] when we created the charity. This makes it more than an aspiration for the Chief Executive, as the charity's performance must be measured on its delivery against this requirement.
::--[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:28, 2 June 2014 (BST)

:::For reference: Jon's message was also posted on [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072340.htmlthe mailing wikimedia-l list]. In that context, the bit about 'junkets' was in response to Russavia's comment and it does not appear there was confusion, merely replying to two emails in one message. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 13:42, 2 June 2014 (BST)
::::Thanks for the link. Jon was replying to my proposal on 1 June with "If you think it was a junket". Any reader of this page would presume that his reply to my proposal was a reply to my proposal, further my point number 1 addresses this issue. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:22, 2 June 2014 (BST)
::Thanks for posting a rough figure, Jon, and for the explanation as to why it's not so easy to arrive at a precise figure. Personally, I find this useful&mdash;I'm not sure members and interested others gain any greater understanding by having a to-the-penny figure&mdash;but I do agree that it should be easier to track down a more precise figure for a given event or project. Hopefully the board will make some progress on this in their discussion at the weekend. [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 15:50, 2 June 2014 (BST)
:::It is not clear from the agenda for Saturday's meeting of the board of trustees that they will discuss the format for these expenses. I have raised a request that it is discussed at [[Talk:Agenda 7Jun14]]. {{ping|HJ Mitchell}} I suggest you add your support to my request on the agenda talk page if you wish to see this actually discussed. My experience of getting answers to simple and direct questions to the board has been poor over the last few months, some never getting an answer. This could be because my questions are coming from "Fæ" rather than due to their content or validity. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:02, 4 June 2014 (BST)

== Non-renewal of our fundraiser agreement ==

Wikimedia UK regrets to have to announce to the community that the Wikimedia Foundation’s outgoing Executive Director, Sue Gardner, has given us formal notice of her decision under her mandate from the WMF board not to renew our fundraising agreement, thereby excluding us from this year’s fundraiser. Wikimedia UK has written an open letter to Sue regarding this decision, a copy of which can be found [[:File:Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner_regarding_non-renewal.pdf|here]]. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:03, 21 May 2014 (BST)

For those wishing to copy parts of the text to use in discussion, I have created a wiki version of the letter. [[Open_letter_to_Sue_Gardner|This can be found here]]. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 08:27, 21 May 2014 (BST)

:I notice the questions contain the phrase "a year with a demanding target." Is there any reason to believe this year's target is more demanding than next year's? Or could the phrase be replaced by the simpler phrase "a year"? [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 22:30, 29 May 2014 (BST)
::As an open letter, it is not easily revised. If Jon had wished to consult members, this would have happened in advance of publishing it, I doubt there is much value in highlighting phrasing issues. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 08:45, 31 May 2014 (BST)
:::Yaris678 is criticising one of the questions set for us by Sue Gardner, not with WMUK's reply. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 12:33, 1 June 2014 (BST)
::::Thanks, I did misunderstand it. Personally, were I the Chief Executive, I would have taken Sue's question as an opportunity to explain, in non-defensive simple terms, why it would be best to minimize any delay in renewing the fund-raising agreement now that the UK Charity had met ''all'' the governance requirements that the Foundation had previously expressed an interest in. Put in terms of massive year on year losses to the Wikimedia movement, the answer does not appear "impossible" to answer based on my reading.
::::However, there seems little point in adding more here. My views on the strategic value of the charity's decision to publicly reply to Sue with this negative and apparently emotive letter just as she is leaving her position, have been made on Wikimedia-l (where the charity chose [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071879.html to announce it]), which anyone can refer to. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:00, 1 June 2014 (BST)

== 2014 Annual General Meeting ==

Ongoing preparations for this year's AGM can be found at [[2014 Annual General Meeting]] and the linked pages for anyone who wants to follow or join in. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 12:37, 27 May 2014 (BST)

==BBC article - Wikipedia and health==
Article [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27586356 here] and well judged comments from Stevie. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 00:51, 28 May 2014 (BST)
:Thank you, Philafrenzy. For you, and others interested, the story also ran on the [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2639910/Do-NOT-try-diagnose-Wikipedia-90-medical-entries-inaccurate-say-expertsDo.html Mail], [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10857468/Dont-diagnose-yourself-on-Wikipedia-doctors-warn.html Telegraph] and [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dont-use-wikipedia-for-medical-advice-scientists-warn-after-errors-found-9441686.html Independent].  [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:55, 28 May 2014 (BST)
::But where do doctors get ''their'' information? That is the question. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/doctors-1-source-for-healthcare-information-wikipedia/284206/ [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 11:00, 28 May 2014 (BST)
:::An interesting parallel! [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 10:40, 29 May 2014 (BST)
::::Makes you think about the responsibility we have taken on doesn't it? Not only are ordinary people using Wikipedia as their first source for medical information, but doctors are too (though they at least are able to evaluate its reliability). Good job most people don't know how the sausage is made. The idea that our activities carry no responsibility and no obligation and that nobody ''has'' to use Wikipedia, is clearly false. For many people there are no other sources of information. But I am giving a lecture now. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 11:44, 29 May 2014 (BST)
:::::In many ways I agree with you. While as a chapter we don't control content of course, I'm really proud of some of the things we do that have a real and positive impact in terms of content improvement. John Byrne's residency with Cancer Research UK, for example, is a project that will help to improve the content on important articles relating to cancer and cancer treatment, with input from experts and access to the very latest research. Most people's lives are touched by cancer to some extent and those articles are important. I am looking forward to us developing high level and high profile partnerships that work in similar ways in future. [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 12:29, 29 May 2014 (BST)
"Wikipedia, '''like any encyclopaedia''', should not take the place of a qualified medical practitioner." (emphasis mine). Such a good line. That point is worth more than the research that the article is based on. 10 articles! Just 10 articles. And the analysis of each article seems scanty. No analysis of whether important information is missing. And a fact about best practice counted as incorrect, despite being in the NICE guidelines. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 22:49, 29 May 2014 (BST)
:While the message not to diagnose yourself using Wikipedia remains sound, an interview in ''Wikipedia Weekly'' [https://archive.org/details/wikipedia-weekly-111 here] explains in detail some of the errors in the original research. Note particularly that the author is apparently an osteopath from the "soup university" (Campbell University) who invented a new method of research just for this paper. [[User:Philafrenzy|Philafrenzy]] ([[User talk:Philafrenzy|talk]]) 22:16, 31 May 2014 (BST)
::Great interview.  I've [[Wikipedia:En:User talk:Jmh649#Wikipedia Weekly|given]] the guy a barnstar.  [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 15:22, 1 June 2014 (BST)

== Affiliate-selected seats on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation - results ==

Following our [[Engine room/2014#Voting for the affiliate-selected seats on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation|notice last month]] on the Engine Room, the WMUK Board decided to vote for Alice Wiegand and Patricio Lorente in the election for the two affiliate-selected seats on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation.  The result of the election [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072430.html has just been announced], and the two winning candidates were Frieda Brioschi and Patricio Lorente. Congratulations to both of them. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 08:21, 3 June 2014 (BST)

== [[Strategy monitoring plan/Outcomes/2014 Q1|Q1 report card]] ==

A summary of how Wikimedia UK is doing against its KPIs now available. If you want more detail, there's a link at the top of the page to the charity's report to the FDC. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 17:05, 5 June 2014 (BST)

:Could someone explain how the 6.5% value for ''"Percentage of WMUK-related files (e.g. images) in mainspace use on a Wikimedia project (excluding Commons)"'' was calculated? I estimate this as half that value simply using the GLAMourous report. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:07, 5 June 2014 (BST)

::Of course. It is explained [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/WMUK/Progress_report_form/Q1#Program_1 here] under 'Progress against these objectives'. Let me know if you need more information. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:17, 5 June 2014 (BST)

:::No, the calculation is not explained in the FDC report, only the result, which appears untrue.
:::Here's the logic - the figure claimed for Q1 is 37,715 images. The GLAMorous report ''today'' shows that 0.94% of images in 2014 are in use, this is a total number of images of 55,387. On the *best case* assumption that of all additional images, zero count towards the total, this would mean that a maximum of 1.38% (i.e. 0.94%*55387/37715) is possible, not 6.5%.
:::If these figures are reported incorrectly, then the Q2 report will be in danger of showing a catastrophic drop in the percentages to a level which would be impossible if Q1 figures were true.
:::--[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:20, 5 June 2014 (BST)

::::Catscan v2 was used to produce a report of how many files were uploaded to Commons between 1 February and 30 April. Catscan also includes data on which files are in use. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:30, 5 June 2014 (BST)

::::: Could you give a breakdown here, along with the links you used? It should be possible reproduce the figures. I have some experience with catscan and I uploaded most of these files both on Commons and the Welsh Wikipedia, so I am familiar with the outcomes. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 18:38, 5 June 2014 (BST)

::::::You learn something everyday. Catscan v2 does indeed report on file usage, just scroll across the screen and it is the column furthest on the right. [https://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php Here is a link to Catscan v2]. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:43, 5 June 2014 (BST)
::::::Could you perhaps explain more clearly what you mean by "give a breakdown"? I suspect you don't want a list of all the files Catscan return reproduced here. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:44, 5 June 2014 (BST)
::::::<small>I will return to your question some time tomorrow. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 18:46, 5 June 2014 (BST)</small>
:::::::By a breakdown, I mean a more detailed explanation of how 6.5% was calculated so that a volunteer or a member of the FDC can reproduce it for themselves. Presumably some of this was Commons, but it cannot mean the usage of the 37,715 files declared in the FDC report, as the usage of those is well below 2%.
:::::::A link to the catscan reports you used would be useful, against each resulting figure. The only relevant catscan report I can see in the FDC report is <nowiki>http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?language=cy&categories=Llwybrau+Byw&ns[6]=1&before=20140430235959&after=20140201000000&only_new=1&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1&doit=1</nowiki> which does not seem to give any usage information in the table, only the list of files uploaded by me.
:::::::Note that on cy.wp, Categori:Llwybrau Byw has been used, but more accurately the uploaded book covers are in Categori:Prosiect Llyfrau Gwales where there are slightly more images included.

Breaking this down again, the FDC Q1 report states:

''Overall 6.5% (below our target of 13% average for the whole year, but see below), this breaks down into:
:''2.6% of files (980 individual files) uploaded to Commons this quarter are in use on Wikimedia projects excluding Commons.
:''The 2,891 files uploaded to the Welsh Wicipedia are part of a long-standing project to improve coverage of Welsh-language publications. Unfortunately, CatScan does not include file usage for the Welsh Wicipedia, though statistics for the overall project (last updated 11 April) show that 57.4% of the files are in use. Scaling this down to account for the files uploaded in Q1, this means about 1,660 of the files are used, a very impressive amount.

* It is not clear how the "2.6%" of the 37,715 uploaded to Commons is calculated. There is no link in the FDC report to deduce this figure. GLAMorous would seem to be the best tool to show this, and as highlighted above it appears to indicate a lower figure.
* The figure for cy.wp of 57.4% usage was a report generated by me which I am not currently maintaining.[https://cy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wicipedia:Wicibrosiect_Llyfrau_Gwales/dangosfwrdd&oldid=1609262] It was not created using catscan or catscan2, which (as the FDC report states) does not include usage figures. I could probably amend my Faebot report to produce an accurate usage figure based on filtering dates from the File Version History using the API on cy.wp, but this Faebot generated table was designed for a bit of fun within the Llwybrau Byw project, and not designed to be used for FDC reporting.
* Quoting a 6.5% "blended" figure includes cy.wp book cover usage where the images are fair use only, and are problematic. Firstly, as Robin and I have discussed in the past; cy.wp does not have a "mature" policy on Fair Use, however uploaded files should be on a time-limited basis unless they are in use in articles, consequently many unused files should be deleted at some point and then "100%" of uploaded files would be in usage - this would distort the usage metric as it would be changing the sample space for the metric after the event. Secondly the book cover images are ''only'' in use on cy.wp, it is unlikely that they will be used elsewhere and each file would need to be transferred to other projects; a *very* small percentage of covers are out of copyright or ineligible for copyright, however there are no current plans to upload these to Commons. I do not believe this fairly interprets the intention of G1.1 in the Q1 Report Card, it would be more accurate to keep the percentage use figures separate and report them as a tuple, or just stick to the figure from Commons reports and make a note of the success on cy.wp without distorting the more intuitive figure so that the FDC report is as straight-forward as possible.
--[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 05:29, 6 June 2014 (BST)