View source for Meetings/2010-03-16/IRC

__TOC__
==#wikimedia-uk-board==
<pre>
[21:17] <+cfp> hey. glorious silence.
[21:17] == zeyi [~561fa2ac@gateway/web/freenode/x-cozrukynsijkpkpr] has joined #wikimedia-uk-board
[21:17] <AndrewRT> hi cfp
[21:17] <AndrewRT> hi zeyo
[21:17] <mpeel2> cfp: you make it sound like silence is good. :-/
[21:17] <AndrewRT> zeyi
[21:18] <AndrewRT> tango?
[21:18] <zeyi> Hi, everyone
[21:18] <Tango42> hi
[21:18] == steve_ [~522029b9@gateway/web/freenode/x-zdetneigmtqbdhss] has joined #wikimedia-uk-board
[21:18] <AndrewRT> hi steve
[21:18] <mpeel2> Agenda: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2010-03-16/Agenda
[21:19] <mpeel2> Let's move on to steve's corporate report: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2010-03-16/Agenda/Corporate_Report
[21:19] <AndrewRT> steve - anythigng you wanted to raise
[21:19] <+cfp> i've muted skype so if there's anything that needs me to unmute it let me know
[21:19] <steve_> See email just sent round
[21:19] <steve_> this is a 1st draft of presentation for next Monday
[21:19] <steve_> In addition I am meeting Director of HP this friday PM
[21:20] <steve_> And have a meeting 31/03 with Vital (Open Univ) to meet a group of teachers and tell them about what we do and see how we can work with them
[21:20] <AndrewRT> who are you giving the pres to?
[21:20] <steve_> I am also meeting a new contact thru another Bristolian - works at Searchlighter
[21:21] <steve_> apparently well connected with digital archives going back 10 years or so
[21:21] <+Seddon> the stat for website traffic, is from something called comscore
[21:21] <steve_> Just meeting hom for a coffee on Friday
[21:21] <steve_> stats come from http://stats.grok.se/en/top
[21:21] <steve_> page by page counts
[21:22] <Tango42> HP? could you ask about a venue for the our fundraising summit? Bristol isn't an ideal location (we would like to be in london for ease of transport), but investigating all possible avenues would be good.
[21:22] <AndrewRT> who r u giving the presentation to?
[21:22] <steve_> AndrewRT - 110 people will get list of names soon
[21:22] <steve_> BBC, Council and many others relating to people I've met in lastix months
[21:23] <steve_> HP - I could but I thought we'd discounted Bristol as a venue full stop
[21:23] <AndrewRT> ah this is the bristol cc event
[21:24] <Tango42> well, bristol does have an international airport, albeit a small one
[21:24] <steve_> Yep - that is what we discussed by phone Andrew RT
[21:24] <AndrewRT> I'll email some minor comments back but generally loks good!
[21:24] <Tango42> if it's a choice of paying for somewhere in london or getting something free in bristol, bristol might be better
[21:24] <Tango42> i don't suppose HP has a 2ndary london office?
[21:24] <steve_> Bristol could host - and may well be receptive if next Monday goes well but timelines are very tight
[21:24] <AndrewRT> good lukc with this, lets hope we get some good contacts out of it
[21:24] <mpeel2> Tango42: there's enough places in London that we should be able to get one of them for free...
[21:25] <steve_> Andrew RT - contacts are already made - we need 1 to say 'donate' and many will follow
[21:25] <Tango42> one would think so, yes, I haven't started cold calling yet, so I'm not sure how people will respond
[21:25] <mpeel2> HP have a Wood Street office in London.
[21:25] <mpeel2> http://h40059.www4.hp.com/office_locations/london.html
[21:25] <steve_> I know one of the cheapest places in London for a venue was somewhere called Tower 52
[21:25] <steve_> or soemthing like that
[21:25] <AndrewRT> mpeel r u still chairing this meeting? seem to be going off topic
[21:26] <steve_> Dow Jones used to rent it and they were cheapskate tight arses
[21:26] <mpeel2> Tower 42, Steve.
[21:26] <steve_> it is the old Natwest Tower in the City of London
[21:26] <steve_> one of the floors (9th) I think
[21:26] <mpeel2> It is going off topic. Do we need to decide anything here?
[21:26] <steve_> Txs Mike
[21:26] <mpeel2> or can these discussions happen by email / offline?
[21:26] <AndrewRT> steve asked for approval for the presentation
[21:26] <AndrewRT> can board members reply by email?
[21:27] <mpeel2> good plan AndrewRT.
[21:27] <steve_> approval in principle only as it is only 1st draft
[21:27] <zeyi> ok, will do later.
[21:27] <mpeel2> Let's move on - 2010 AGM
[21:27] <steve_> small improvements or major if flawed welcome
[21:27] <AndrewRT> tx zeyi
[21:27] <mpeel2> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_AGM
[21:27] <mpeel2> AndrewRT: do you want to run through what was discussed last week?
[21:27] <Tango42> I'll talk to people about summit venues by email or something later
[21:28] <AndrewRT> not really
[21:28] <mpeel2> ok
[21:28] <AndrewRT> i sent out the motions email
[21:28] <mpeel2> basically the timetable was set down
[21:28] <AndrewRT> and started the annual report
[21:28] <AndrewRT> i want to do the same again net week - please join me if you want to help!
[21:29] <mpeel2> ok - I'll be there AndrewRT. Hope others will come too?
[21:29] <Tango42> let me know when and where and i should be there
[21:29] <mpeel2> it was somewhat quiet last time...
[21:29] <AndrewRT> i only got there at 10
[21:29] == mpeel [~mpeel@wikipedia/Mike-Peel] has joined #wikimedia-uk-board
[21:29] == mode/#wikimedia-uk-board [+v mpeel] by ChanServ
[21:29] <AndrewRT> i'll probably be there about 9pm, Tuesday normal place!
[21:30] <mpeel2> ok, what do we need to discuss this evening?
[21:30] <mpeel2> the motions?
[21:30] <mpeel2> or the notice more generally?
[21:30] <AndrewRT> can we follow teh agenda
[21:30] <Tango42> the notice is fairly standard, isn't it? shouldn't be much to discuss
[21:31] <AndrewRT> i wanted to send out teh notice along the lines of last yr - everyone happy with that?
[21:31] <+mpeel> yup
[21:31] <AndrewRT> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2009_AGM/Notice
[21:31] <AndrewRT> i need to know the precise time and place
[21:31] <+mpeel> Seddon?
[21:32] <AndrewRT> i think we'll just have to decide a time and work round it for the speakers
[21:32] <+Seddon> place is the University College London Student Union
[21:32] <+mpeel> sometime in the early afternoon would probably be best
[21:32] <AndrewRT> That's a big place - have we got a room?
[21:32] <+mpeel> so that people have the most amount of time before/after for travel.
[21:33] <AndrewRT> assuming we haev 4 hours of talks - do we want talks before & after? or just before? or just after?
[21:33] <Tango42> yes, let's put the AGM immediately after lunch
[21:33] <+mpeel> so suggest starting the agm immediately following from lunch, whenever that is.
[21:33] <+Seddon> AndrewRT i wasnt able to talk to jonathan gray this evening, can I get back to you with exact room and a time
[21:33] <AndrewRT> lunch 1-2?
[21:33] <AndrewRT> AGM start at 2pm?
[21:33] <AndrewRT> maybe talks 10-12 and 4-6?
[21:33] <Tango42> are you saying lunch *is* 1-2 or *should be* 1-2? it is out of our hands
[21:33] <+mpeel> the notice needs to go out by 21 March
[21:33] <+Seddon> tomorrow evening*
[21:33] <AndrewRT> it was my suggestion
[21:34] <Tango42> lunch needs to fit in with the rest of the conference schedule
[21:34] <AndrewRT> seddon - do we have this?
[21:34] <Tango42> presumably OKF have planned a lunchtime
[21:34] <+mpeel> so suggest we use those times on a preliminary basis whilst drafting, and add in the final ones when Seddon knows them.
[21:34] <+cfp> andrew's suggestion sounds sensible.
[21:34] <+Seddon> ^^^^^^ I need to get back to you tomorrow :)
[21:34] <+Seddon> I wasnt able to pin down jonathan tonight
[21:34] <steve_> Preliminary agenda subject to confirm sounds good
[21:34] <+Seddon> will make sure i do so tomorrow
[21:34] <AndrewRT> looking at http://www.okfn.org/okcon/2009/programme
[21:35] <AndrewRT> lunch last yr was Seddon 12:30-2
[21:35] <+mpeel> note that was last years...
[21:35] <+mpeel> (I got confused for a sec...)
[21:35] <AndrewRT> ok, i'll use 2pm, wait till seddon confirms exact room and time
[21:35] <+Seddon> sure thing
[21:35] <+Seddon> thanks andrew :)
[21:35] <AndrewRT> shall we move onto motions?
[21:35] <+mpeel> AndrewRT: will you be drafting this on the wiki, and running it past the board for approval, or just sending it directly out when you're happy with it?
[21:36] <+Seddon> im happy to defer to andrew on this issue
[21:36] <+Seddon> .
[21:36] <AndrewRT> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2010_AGM/Motions
[21:36] <+mpeel> the only issue with that is making sure that all of the details are correct - suggest at least getting approval from Seddon with regards time and location when it's written.
[21:36] <AndrewRT> I'd rather email it to board and then send out if no one objects
[21:36] <AndrewRT> or with corrections if people have any!
[21:37] <+Seddon> sounds good andrew :)
[21:37] <+mpeel> ok
[21:37] <+mpeel> motions
[21:37] <AndrewRT> i need 2 things on this:
[21:37] <AndrewRT> for each motion - confirm it's going, whether ordinary or special resolution and whether board supports/opposes/neutral on it
[21:37] <AndrewRT> (sorry that's 3)
[21:37] <AndrewRT> could we do each in turn?
[21:37] <+mpeel> that's 3xthe number of motions. ;-)
[21:38] <+mpeel> go for it AndrewRT
[21:38] <AndrewRT> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2010_AGM/Motions#Motion_to_require_better_attendance_at_board_meetings
[21:38] <AndrewRT> Tangi this is yours
[21:38] <AndrewRT> are you still wanting to propose it?
[21:38] <+mpeel> you meant Tango42. ;-)
[21:38] <AndrewRT> yep :)
[21:38] <+cfp> i'm not sure i support this. it's unnecessarily binding. and it's liable to put off people running for the board
[21:38] <Tango42> yes, but i'm happy to take suggestions on improving it
[21:39] <AndrewRT> i understand the motivation
[21:39] <AndrewRT> but i don't think it's workable as currently drafted
[21:39] <Tango42> the only binding parts are that the chair sends an email and the board discusses the response
[21:39] <AndrewRT> unnecesarily bureaucratic
[21:39] <steve_> I am with CFP
[21:39] <AndrewRT> do we have someone to second the motion?
[21:39] <+cfp> well the whole thing is kind of patronising. we're adults, not school kids being reprimanded for skipping math
[21:40] <steve_> not me
[21:40] <Tango42> well, people have been skipping math rather more frequently that I consider acceptable
[21:40] <AndrewRT> hehe
[21:40] <AndrewRT> can you find someone to second it Tango42?
[21:40] <+Seddon> I personally remain neutral on it. I agree with the spirit of it but the detail needs more work than we have time for tonight
[21:40] <AndrewRT> otherwise, I'm not sure we can accept it as a motion for the AGM
[21:41] <Tango42> well, I can try. I'd rather the board helped come up with a version they can support
[21:41] <steve_> In current form its aggressive
[21:41] <+mpeel> Perhaps simply it to the basics?
[21:41] <Tango42> what are the basics?
[21:41] <AndrewRT> the one issue that i may support is an amendment to the articles that allows the board to remove board members
[21:41] <AndrewRT> which i guess is what this motion hints at
[21:42] <Tango42> at the moment we can remove someone after 6 months of inactivity, yes? We could shorten that. Amending the articles is a lot of work, though, especially when the charity commission are still considering them
[21:42] <Tango42> well, I hope people will start attending after being given a stern talking to
[21:43] <Tango42> throwing people off the board would be a last resort
[21:43] <AndrewRT> can i suggest Tango you talk to some other board members about what they would support
[21:43] <Tango42> I seem to be doing that now...
[21:43] <AndrewRT> and see if you can propose something by Sunday? (when teh notice needs to go out)
[21:43] <+mpeel> Essentially, the core is that if a board member's attendance is a worry, then there should be a formal requirement for that lack of attendance to be queried and a response provided to the board.
[21:43] <AndrewRT> yes i meant off line :)
[21:44] <Tango42> well, the agenda says we're discussing motions now, why can't we discuss this motion?
[21:44] <AndrewRT> because we've got lots of other stuff to do
[21:44] <+mpeel> We have been discussing it - we do need to keep the meeting going though.
[21:44] <+mpeel> we can't spend too long on one issue that currently doesn't have a lot of support, sorry...
[21:44] <AndrewRT> and it's apparent that the motion as drafted is not supported by a majority of the board
[21:44] <Tango42> yes, but it's also apparent that the general idea does have some support
[21:44] <+mpeel> Suggest that we discuss this by email?
[21:45] <AndrewRT> i think it's up to you to come up with a motion that has support
[21:45] <AndrewRT> sorry!
[21:45] <Tango42> well, we could, but the motion has been on the wiki for people to discuss for a while and there has been minimal comment
[21:45] <AndrewRT> it had two comments, both opposing it
[21:45] <Tango42> but no replies to my responses
[21:46] <steve_> I oppose it in its current form because it is patronising so my position is clear
[21:46] <Tango42> opposing but not entering into discussion isn't very helpful
[21:46] <Tango42> yes, but you keep saying "in its current form", so I presume for that that you might support a similar motion in a different form
[21:46] <AndrewRT> Can I give you a call to discuss Tango?
[21:46] <Tango42> i'd like to know how you would like to improve it
[21:46] <AndrewRT> see if we can come up with something
[21:47] <Tango42> I am a board member, I would like the board to discuss things that I bring to board meetings. That's kind of how things work...
[21:47] <+mpeel> Board meetings should be for making decisions, not for making committee rewrites of things.
[21:47] <Tango42> I'm not asking for a committee rewrite, I'm asking for people's general views
[21:47] <steve_> agree
[21:48] <steve_> with Mike
[21:48] <Tango42> I'd be happy to write up a new draft
[21:48] <+mpeel> I thought that's what you got above?
[21:48] <AndrewRT> you've had various responses - can yu write up a new draft based on that
[21:48] <AndrewRT> ?
[21:48] <AndrewRT> then we can hopefully discuss and agree by email?
[21:48] <Tango42> no, i got lots of people saying they support the general idea but not this particular motion, but then refusing to give any details
[21:48] <+mpeel> essentially, it's currently too restrictive and too bureaucratic and needs simplifying.
[21:48] <Tango42> i can't redraft anything based on that
[21:49] <Tango42> well, which bits would people like to remove?
[21:49] <AndrewRT> would it be helpful to go round and ask each person what kind of motion they would support?
[21:49] <+mpeel> (3) and (4) need simplying
[21:50] <+mpeel> (1) and (2) I'm broadly happy with; delegating to the secretary after the chair makes sense; (6) is possibly a bit worrisome from a board perspective but understandable and logical.
[21:51] <Tango42> they are actually quiet simple, the wording is just complicated in order to cover all possibilities. I can write much simpler rules, but they won't be precise and will be full of loopholes or things that don't work in certain situations
[21:51] <+mpeel> Compare this to the membership rules: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Membership/Rules
[21:51] <+Seddon> it does need to be a special resolution for 6) to be applicable
[21:51] <+mpeel> they're short, simple and to the point, conveying the general gist without going into specifics.
[21:51] <Tango42> the membership rules aren't rules, it's just a statement of principles
[21:51] <+mpeel> I would much prefer that approach to the current largesse of text.
[21:51] <+Seddon> i think that the whole 3 out of 5 thing can be removed
[21:51] <AndrewRT> i would support a simple motion that said attendence and activity wasn't as high as we had hoped
[21:52] <Tango42> seddon - I don't think so. The board have to obey the rules, so they can't amend them without amending them first, which means they can't amend them
[21:52] <+Seddon> its simply if a board members attendence is concening
[21:52] <+mpeel> that isn't a motion AndrewRT - that's a comment.
[21:52] <+cfp> i might support something along the lines of what andrew suggested previously. giving the board the right to remove a board member, subject to unaninmous approval
[21:52] <+Seddon> there could be legitimate reason
[21:52] <AndrewRT> and the board next year should more actively challenge individual members
[21:52] <AndrewRT> it's a statement of opinion
[21:52] <AndrewRT> nothing wrong with that!
[21:52] <Tango42> mpeel - the point of this is to make things absolute and remove flexibility from the chair so it will be easier for them to do what needs to be done, a statement of principles won't do that
[21:52] <+mpeel> that doesn't need a motion though.
[21:52] <+mpeel> (to AndrewRT
[21:53] <AndrewRT> i think the chair and the board need flexibility
[21:53] <AndrewRT> that's the point - we're relying on them to take a mroe active role
[21:54] <+mpeel> Tango42: happy to discuss this further, but let's do that offline.
[21:54] <Tango42> we've had flexibility this year and it has lead to our chair not doing anything about poor attendance due to wanting everyone to like him. This motion would force the chair to do what needs to be done, which means they can do it while still being liked
[21:54] <AndrewRT> i'm not sure fear of being disliked has ever been the issue! :)
[21:54] <+mpeel> Tango42: happy to discuss this further, but let's do that offline.
[21:54] <steve_> that's a bit unfair I protest
[21:55] <+mpeel> shall we move on?
[21:55] <Tango42> if mike wants to disagree with me, he is welcome to, but that is my understanding of the situation
[21:55] <AndrewRT> You've had a couple of suggestions now, Tangi - do you have anythign you would agree with?
[21:55] <AndrewRT> Tango
[21:55] <+mpeel> Tango42: I'm not going to respond to that.
[21:55] <Tango42> basically, people don't support the general principle afterall. That's fine, as long as I know.
[21:56] <AndrewRT> ok
[21:56] <AndrewRT> in light of that, you can still put your motion forward
[21:56] <AndrewRT> if you choose
[21:56] <+mpeel> AndrewRT: anything more you need with this?
[21:56] <AndrewRT> (as long as you get a seconder)
[21:56] <+mpeel> or shall we move to the next motion - [edit] Motion to convert to a CIO and adopt new constitution?
[21:56] <Tango42> not without a seconder, and I don't have one lined up
[21:57] <AndrewRT> can i leave that to Tango then to come forward with a seconder or drop the motion?
[21:57] <Tango42> i think you can consider the motion dropped, under protest
[21:57] <AndrewRT> ok thanks
[21:57] <AndrewRT> moving onto CIO
[21:57] <+cfp> i support the conversion to a cio, though it sounds like it might be next year not this
[21:57] <AndrewRT> this one has been discussed previously
[21:57] <AndrewRT> yeah i thought so too
[21:57] <Tango42> it's moot. I don't think CIOs exist yet, I was being optimistic when I listed it
[21:57] <zeyi> It is unfair to deny our work, I protest
[21:58] <AndrewRT> indeed
[21:58] <Tango42> zeyi: no comment
[21:58] <AndrewRT> Fees: I was going to use the same wording as last year
[21:58] <AndrewRT> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2009_AGM/Resolutions#Setting_the_Membership_fee_to_.C2.A312_per_year_and_.C2.A36_for_concessions
[21:58] <Tango42> well, what fees do we want to recommend?
[21:58] <+mpeel> AndrewRT: would it be worth including the fees charged to those paying by paypal within this?
[21:59] <+cfp> lets not make this personal. so are we dropping the cio motion for this year?
[21:59] <AndrewRT> cfp yes i think so
[21:59] <Tango42> yes, cio is moot
[21:59] <+cfp> fees didn't we agree £5
[21:59] <+cfp> flat
[21:59] <Tango42> we did, but the mailing list disagreed
[21:59] <AndrewRT> ah i didn't realise
[21:59] <AndrewRT> what did they say?
[21:59] <+cfp> well they're welcome to propose an amendment at the meeting
[22:00] <+cfp> they wanted higher fees
[22:00] <+cfp> or a few vocal individuals did
[22:00] <AndrewRT> did they convince you?
[22:00] <Tango42> they think low fees will harm out credibility, i think
[22:00] <Tango42> no, i wasn't convinced
[22:00] <+cfp> i think this is the kind of thing best just voted on at the agm
[22:00] <+mpeel> I got the feeling that £5 as a minimum might be supported, with encouraging people to pay more.
[22:00] <steve_> Best voted on at AGM
[22:00] <AndrewRT> are we agreed board to propose flat £5, amendments welcome?
[22:00] <+mpeel> essentially - allowing anyone to pay at the consession rate if they wanted.
[22:00] <zeyi> agree to vote on AGM
[22:00] <Tango42> ok, let's stick with our proposal and let them propose an amendment, or vote it down
[22:00] <AndrewRT> what's the paypal rate? £5 too?
[22:01] <+mpeel> If it gets voted down, then the fees stay as they currently are?
[22:01] <AndrewRT> hopefully an amendment would get voted instead
[22:01] <Tango42> yeah, everyone pays by paypal, so we're being like ryanair if we charge more for it
[22:01] <+mpeel> paypal fees are about 20p + ~2% I believe.
[22:01] <AndrewRT> but to answer mpeel, tachnically yes
[22:01] <+Seddon> is there anyway to allow alternatives to be suggested?
[22:01] <+Seddon> without a motion
[22:02] <+mpeel> so effectively we would get £4.50 through paypal
[22:02] <+Seddon> jsut on the day
[22:02] <Tango42> it's an ordinary resolution, so no notice is required, as far as I know, so amendments can be proposed on the day
[22:02] <AndrewRT> yes - seddon - just propose an amendment on the day and have a vote!
[22:02] <AndrewRT> Tango42 - yep my understanding too
[22:02] <+Seddon> ok im fine with that
[22:02] <steve_> "The Board would recommend reducing membership fees to welcome and encourage new membership - as a general principle - but would like to discuss this at the AGM on the day before deciding" - so can we set aside time to do this without setting a minimum of maiximise - just a principle
[22:03] <+mpeel> I think a specific value is needed to spark the discussion.
[22:03] <AndrewRT> we've previously said the AGM would set the fees
[22:03] <AndrewRT> i.e. a specific value rather than a principle
[22:03] <Tango42> yes, I think we should propose a specific value
[22:03] <Tango42> well, we can put forward a principle and then propose a motion at the AGM if we wanted to, but I think proposing the motion now would be better
[22:04] <+Seddon> I would like to remain neutral on any reduction of fees
[22:04] <AndrewRT> agree with Tango
[22:04] <Tango42> seddon: you personally, or you would like the board to remain neutral?
[22:04] <+Seddon> me personally as a board member
[22:05] <Tango42> you are free to abstain when we vote on what to propose
[22:05] <+Seddon> sure thing
[22:05] <AndrewRT> i think the board should propose a figure - by majority vote if that's unavoidable
[22:05] <+mpeel> I would prefer a motion, which can then at least spark off the discussion.
[22:05] <Tango42> so shall we vote on proposing a £5 flat fee?
[22:06] <+cfp> support
[22:06] <AndrewRT> support
[22:06] <+mpeel> state a general principle as above, and then a motion to reduce the membership fees to £5 (with the option to donate at the same time)
[22:06] <Tango42> support
[22:06] <+mpeel> so essentially support
[22:06] <steve_> same as Mike
[22:06] <Tango42> (yes, we should have a motion and a statement in support of that motion, like we did last year)
[22:06] <zeyi> support to Mike
[22:06] <AndrewRT> ok, i'll write it up and send it round before it goes out
[22:06] <+mpeel> thanks AndrewRT
[22:06] <Tango42> thanks
[22:06] <+mpeel> on to the annual report and accounts?
[22:07] <AndrewRT> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2010_AGM/Motions#Annual_report_and_accounts
[22:07] <AndrewRT> that's self explanatory I'll send it out
[22:07] <Tango42> that's a formality, there is nothing to discuss here
[22:07] <AndrewRT> sorry I'll write it up I meants
[22:07] <Tango42> obviously, we commend the report to the meeting
[22:07] <+mpeel> do we need to be explicit in giving board member support, or are we happy to just assume that?
[22:07] <AndrewRT> well one thing - further to email discussion, are we going to delay the formal accounts until post AGM?
[22:08] <Tango42> i think it is assumed that the board support their own report
[22:08] <AndrewRT> we need to approve teh annual report at next mtg
[22:08] <AndrewRT> need to write it first!
[22:08] <+mpeel> ok, thanks for the clarification. :)
[22:08] <Tango42> i think we should only delay them if cfp doesn't have time to sort it out before
[22:08] <AndrewRT> cfp?
[22:08] <+cfp> i'll really do my best
[22:08] <+Seddon> given tom's time restrictions yes andrewrt, the delay is likely to be neccessary
[22:08] <AndrewRT> what r the chances would you say?
[22:08] <AndrewRT> bearing in midn I need to get tehm audited as well
[22:08] <Tango42> when does the annual report go to print?
[22:08] <Tango42> that's the deadline
[22:09] <+mpeel> I would prefer to have them sorted before, so that the position of treasurer for next year doesn't come with any extra encumberments, but understand cfp's time pressures so I leave that just as a preference.
[22:09] <+cfp> no no it's perfectly reasonable mpeel
[22:09] <AndrewRT> about 17th April?
[22:09] <Tango42> i think they really should be sorted by the AGM, but they don't necessarily need to be sorted in time to be reviewed before the AGM
[22:10] <Tango42> that's the real question here
[22:10] <AndrewRT> so, are we happy to leave as accepted that they might be ready or maybe not, depending on how cfp and i get on
[22:10] <+cfp> right. i'd guess i have a 50% chance of hitting the 17th of april
[22:10] <+cfp> hard to be more specific
[22:10] <AndrewRT> ok cheers
[22:10] <Tango42> 50% of having them reviewed by then, or 50% of having them ready to be reviewed by then?
[22:10] <+cfp> thanks for being understanding
[22:11] <+cfp> ready to be reviewed. oh so you'd want them by the 10th if they were to be reviewed
[22:11] <+cfp> hmm.
[22:11] <AndrewRT> yep
[22:11] <AndrewRT> so about 15% then??
[22:11] <+cfp> could they not just be a supplemental handout? do they need to be formally printed with everything else
[22:11] <AndrewRT> true they could be
[22:11] <+cfp> printing 200 copies the night before the agm is no real issue for me.
[22:11] <Tango42> well, at least a summary should be in the report
[22:12] <Tango42> the full accounts could be an extra handout
[22:12] <AndrewRT> yeah i think it should but i'm sure we can do that separately
[22:12] <+mpeel> I doubt we'll need 200 copies for the day.
[22:12] <Tango42> the summary could go in unreviewed
[22:12] <AndrewRT> shall we move on to http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2010_AGM/Motions#Corporate_Membership
[22:12] <+mpeel> let's see how it goes - something should definitely be in the report, but the extent of that depends on cfp's availability.
[22:12] <Tango42> yes, I think we'll agreed that we'll trust cfp to do his best
[22:13] <+mpeel> please AndrewRT
[22:13] <+cfp> thanks guys
[22:13] <AndrewRT> seddon that's ur one?
[22:13] <+mpeel> I sent around some thoughts on this one by email.
[22:13] <+Seddon> yes, ummm has been discussed before with a few people
[22:13] <AndrewRT> I've had a look at the articles
[22:13] <+mpeel> "As a suggestion of what this might consist of: I'd say higher fees (potentially £50-£100); representation done by specified people within the company (who should not be general members). Not sure on number of people/votes - perhaps 2 or 3. These people could be trustees through the normal process (i.e member voting), but with the caveat that only one person representing the company can be a trustee and COI rules must be followed. We should
[22:13] <+mpeel> have a reduced rate for charitable/non-profit organizations."
[22:13] <AndrewRT> and it seems that as long as corporate members only get one vote we don't have to change the articles
[22:14] <Tango42> there has been a small edit war on this one regarding ordinary or special - I think it needs to be special before of Article 3.1
[22:14] <AndrewRT> if we want to give them different voting rights we do need to change the articles
[22:14] <Tango42> we would have to change the articles to give different rights? which biit?
[22:14] <Tango42> *bit
[22:14] <AndrewRT> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Article
[22:15] <AndrewRT> 3.1
[22:15] <AndrewRT> what you referred to: The Directors may establish classes of membership with different rights and obligations if a general meeting authorises this with a Special Resolution
[22:15] <AndrewRT> it would be a different class then and hence need a special res
[22:15] <Tango42> yes, but that's not changing the articles
[22:16] <Tango42> it's just a special resolution
[22:16] <AndrewRT> ur right, no change to arts
[22:16] <Tango42> ok, that's good, because changing the arts while the charity commission are reviewing them would be a bad idea
[22:16] <+mpeel> that doesn't appear to restrict a new class of members to 1 vote?
[22:16] <Tango42> no, i don't think it does
[22:17] <AndrewRT> no but it does restrict the members of a particular class to the same rights
[22:17] <AndrewRT> under your proposal Corp Mems and Ord Mems would be different classes
[22:17] <Tango42> yes, so more votes would require a special res.
[22:17] <AndrewRT> if they all had the same voting rights they could all be the same class
[22:18] <+mpeel> tbh, my reading of the articles is that we can propose a new class with a new set of rights, but we can't modify them afterwards aside from via 3.4.
[22:18] <AndrewRT> I propose creating a separate class for Corporate Members and giving them 2 votes each
[22:18] <AndrewRT> mpeel - yes i agree
[22:18] <+mpeel> I would support that AndrewRT
[22:19] <+Seddon> andrewrt, more than happy to support that
[22:19] <AndrewRT> zeyi, cfp, steve_, Tango42?
[22:19] <steve_> yep me too
[22:19] <+cfp> yup sounds fine
[22:19] <zeyi> yes
[22:19] <Tango42> yes, i'm happy with 2 votes
[22:19] <+mpeel> this will feed back into the membership fees discussion, btw - so suggest that we have this motion first and the fees one afterwards.
[22:19] <Tango42> what about the fee?
[22:19] <AndrewRT> good idea mpeel
[22:20] <+mpeel> (well, first out of the two, not necessarily the very first motion)
[22:20] <Tango42> yes, we should probably propose the fee as a separate motion
[22:20] <AndrewRT> I'll draft up the new class of members motion
[22:20] <Tango42> what should we propose as a fee?
[22:20] <AndrewRT> who did we have in mind for this?
[22:20] <+Seddon> £100
[22:20] <AndrewRT> OKFN?
[22:20] <Tango42> I would support £100
[22:20] <+mpeel> If we went with a "price per vote" model, then based on above £10.
[22:21] <Tango42> yeah, but I don't like that model!
[22:21] <+mpeel> what would be their motivation for being willing to pay more than that?
[22:21] <+mpeel> neither do I Tango42
[22:21] <AndrewRT> me neither
[22:21] <Tango42> they like us
[22:21] <AndrewRT> i think orgs would join if they want to partner with us
[22:21] <Tango42> the fee is based more on what people can afford to pay. companies are generally more than twice as rich as people
[22:21] <+cfp> 100 sounds fine
[22:21] <AndrewRT> i think #100 is consistent with waht other chapters do
[22:21] <Tango42> yes, they wouldn't really join for the votes
[22:21] <AndrewRT> I'm happy with #100
[22:22] <+mpeel> I agree with the fee suggestion of £100 - I'm just trying to understand the motivations for compatien to join.
[22:22] <+mpeel> * companies
[22:22] <+mpeel> I would suggest that we offer a discounted rate on that to charitable organizations.
[22:22] <Tango42> do we want a lower rate for non-profits?
[22:22] <Tango42> or for charities?
[22:22] <+Seddon> ask the first company that joins :)
[22:22] <AndrewRT> I don't think it will be trading companies - more like OKFN, OSMF and teh like
[22:22] <+mpeel> Seddon: I probably will. :)
[22:22] <AndrewRT> perhaps someone like BBC
[22:23] <AndrewRT> How much for non-profits?
[22:23] <Tango42> so you were thinking of the £100 being for non-profits?
[22:23] <+Seddon> lets just have £100 as a base rate
[22:24] <+mpeel> let's keep it simple for now - and say £100 flat - and then discuss it during the AGM and see how companies react.
[22:24] <Tango42> yes, hopefully any companies joining would make a large donation too
[22:24] <+mpeel> Worst case scenario, we can change it next year.
[22:24] <Tango42> indeed
[22:24] <AndrewRT> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters
[22:25] <AndrewRT> has some comparative figures
[22:25] <AndrewRT> are we agreed on £100 then flat?
[22:25] <+mpeel> only Wikimedia CH - which is around £50.
[22:26] <Tango42> I think we've agreed on £100. Does anyone object?
[22:26] <+mpeel> oh, and Wikimedia Österreich which has €500.
[22:26] <+mpeel> I don't
[22:26] <+mpeel> let's move on.
[22:26] <+cfp> no
[22:26] <+mpeel> anything else we need to discuss with this motion?
[22:26] <AndrewRT> nope don't think so
[22:26] <+mpeel> do companies need to specify representatives?
[22:27] <+mpeel> or is it anyone from their company?
[22:27] <AndrewRT> no they can just specify who their representatives are when it comes to voting
[22:27] <+cfp> the latter i'd say
[22:27] <AndrewRT> as long as we get notice that's fine
[22:27] <+mpeel> the other thing, that Tango42 asked me yesterday, is - can a company member stand as a trustee?
[22:27] <AndrewRT> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2010_AGM/Motions#Advisory_Board - another one of your's seddon
[22:28] <Tango42> yes, i think we need notice at least at the beginning of any meetings, but no more than that
[22:28] <+mpeel> If we're not specifying representatives, though, I guess that's moot.
[22:28] <AndrewRT> i personally would rather only individuals as trustees
[22:28] <+Seddon> I am currently getting some feedback from the open knowledge foundation, the wikimedia foundation and some other organisation i cant remember the name of with regards to an advisory board. The initial feedback from OKF was that it can be very useful but takes time to be throughly effective
[22:28] <Tango42> well, a corporate member can be a trustee without having a single rep. I'm not in favour of allowing corporate trustees, though.
[22:29] <+Seddon> ensuring you have the right members of that board and that they are effective in contributing
[22:29] <+mpeel> If we were dealing with specified representatives, then I would have said yes - but if we're going for faceless companies then my view changes to no.
[22:30] <+Seddon> given that we already have people with specialist knowledge of sectors working with us, it would be good to for a long term relationship with said people that is useful for every board that leads our chapter and not just whoever is currently in place
[22:30] <AndrewRT> I'm not sure we need to change anythign to affect this
[22:30] <Tango42> you have to allow them to change their reps fairly easier anyway, as people may leave the company, so i don't think you can really have specified reps
[22:30] <AndrewRT> seddon - ur talking about teh advisory board?
[22:30] <+Seddon> yes
[22:30] <+mpeel> btw, due to the technical mishaps (and prolonged conversations), we're running late. Would anyone object to us continuing this meeting to 11pm?
[22:31] <Tango42> yes, forming an advisory board could easily be done without a resolution. is there much benefit to having one?
[22:31] <Tango42> no objection
[22:31] <steve_> It is a good vehicle to have at our disposal
[22:31] <+Seddon> yes it could be done without a resolution but I do not want the membership to see it as some sort of reward
[22:31] <AndrewRT> 11pm ok with me
[22:32] <steve_> we may not use it much yet but eventually we will
[22:32] <+Seddon> which is how many view the WM foundations advisory board
[22:32] <+Seddon> if we have one
[22:32] <AndrewRT> we could set this up without putting a motion to teh AGM
[22:32] <+mpeel> If we're starting an advisory board, then I would suggest we need a critical mass to start with - do we currently have people that would be interested in being on it?
[22:32] <+Seddon> i want it to be a body to support every board and retain contacts that we build up
[22:32] <AndrewRT> what would be the value of involving the members in that decision?
[22:33] <Tango42> i think it would be beneficial to consult the members, but that can be done with an email to the mailing lst
[22:33] <AndrewRT> which I wouldn't advise
[22:34] <AndrewRT> unless you want to formalise it in some way in the articles
[22:34] <+Seddon> I am happy to withdraw the motion if the board are happy to support looking into the creation of such body?
[22:34] <+mpeel> This could be an open question raised at the AGM, to get discussion in person (which is more likely to get a response IMO). But if it doesn't need a formal motion, then it probably shouldn't have one.
[22:34] <AndrewRT> can i suggest you put together a proposal for consideration by the next board?
[22:34] <+mpeel> Seddon: happy to support that.
[22:35] <AndrewRT> rather than an AGM motion?
[22:35] <+Seddon> AndrewRT: yes i could
[22:35] <+Seddon> yep
[22:36] <AndrewRT> I'd like us to have lots of opportunities to discuss future plans of WMUK at the AGM outside the formal "motions"
[22:36] <+mpeel> let's move to the next motion.
[22:36] <+Seddon> happy to withdraw then :)
[22:36] <+mpeel> AndrewRT: definitely.
[22:36] <AndrewRT> I'm happy with that
[22:36] <AndrewRT> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings/2010_AGM/Motions#Ability_for_the_board_to_waive_membership_fees_in_individual_cases
[22:37] <+mpeel> as a general comment, btw, it's good to have the number of motions - the level of bureaucracy - at the AGM at the necessary minimum.
[22:37] <Tango42> i think it has always been accepted that the board can waive fees, but it would be good to make it explicit and advertise the fact
[22:37] <+mpeel> This was just to add a line to the rules making it clear that the membership fees can be waived by the board in individual cases.
[22:38] <+cfp> support
[22:38] <+mpeel> that partly makes it clear to us, but partly also encourages people to put in membership applications asking for an exemption.
[22:38] <+mpeel> thanks cfp. Anyone else?
[22:39] <Tango42> i think people should contact us directly, rather than fill out a form - they'll be people we already know, anyway
[22:39] <+mpeel> perhaps I should generalize my statement to "put in requests for membership".
[22:39] <Tango42> yes, i support
[22:40] <Tango42> i'd like a chance to review the exact wording before it is all sent out, though
[22:40] <+mpeel> AndrewRT has technical problems...
[22:40] <+mpeel> one minute.
[22:41] == AndrewRT [~57709682@gateway/web/freenode/x-notcycnadmpaqnna] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[22:42] == Andrew__ [~AndrewRT@87.112.150.130] has joined #wikimedia-uk-board
[22:42] <+mpeel> Andrew__: are you back?
[22:43] <Andrew__> yep
[22:43] <+mpeel> I sent andrew the text from above by Skype.
[22:43] <Andrew__> sorry about that, system crashed I'm now on my old irc
[22:43] <+mpeel> Andrew__: what do you think to this motion?
[22:43] <+Seddon> i support this :)
[22:43] <Andrew__> yep support
[22:44] <steve_> Generally support
[22:44] <Andrew__> the text will go out with the notice, so everyone will have a chance to critique exact wording!
[22:44] <+mpeel> ok - that's the motions done, then.
[22:44] <+mpeel> shall we move on?
[22:44] <Tango42> fantastic. let's
[22:44] <+mpeel> next on the agenda seems to be the 2010 Fundraising Summit
[22:44] <+mpeel> we discussed this a bit above - do we need to discuss this more?
[22:45] <Andrew__> one thing we didn't discuss
[22:45] <Tango42> yes
[22:45] <Tango42> ok, andrew go first
[22:45] <Andrew__> came up in conversation - what are we providing to delegates?
[22:45] <Andrew__> lunch?
[22:45] <Tango42> ok, that was what i wanted to discuss
[22:45] <Andrew__> preusmably not accomodation or travel
[22:45] <+mpeel> what does the OKCon offer by default?
[22:45] <+mpeel> presume you're talking about the AGM still?
[22:45] <Tango42> this isn't OKCon
[22:45] <Tango42> this is fundraising summit
[22:45] <Andrew__> no - Fundraising Summit
[22:45] <+mpeel> oh, sorry.
[22:46] <+mpeel> was confused. :)
[22:46] <Andrew__> thats' ok!
[22:46] <Tango42> i think it is agreed that chapters will pay their own travel and accommodation
[22:46] <+Seddon> yes with support for the lesser chapters
[22:46] <+mpeel> I think we need to ask the Foundation whether they expect us to provide anything beyond a location.
[22:46] <Tango42> unless they can't afford it, in which case either the WMF will pay or chapters will pool together to pay (the WMF is pushing for the latter)
[22:46] <+Seddon> i dont mean lesser as in lower but less well of
[22:46] <+Seddon> off
[22:46] <+mpeel> it's their meeting - we're just organizing the location.
[22:47] <+mpeel> so, point them towards a set of local hotels.
[22:47] <Andrew__> Tango42 - what do you suggest for refreshments?
[22:47] <Tango42> My view is that we shouldn't be providing catering unless we can get it for free (except maybe tea and coffee)
[22:47] <+mpeel> or possibly go as far as arranging a block booking with discounted prices.
[22:47] <Tango42> or we should provide it but charge other chapters for it
[22:47] <Andrew__> some venues will include it in the price
[22:49] <Tango42> i'm still working on the assumption that the venue won't have a price
[22:49] <+mpeel> if we find somewhere with lots of nearby cafes, then why not use them?
[22:49] <Andrew__> cafes?
[22:49] <+mpeel> for catering.
[22:49] <Andrew__> for a meeting of 30 people?
[22:49] <Andrew__> ah i see
[22:49] <Tango42> Seddon, I believe, disagrees with me, but I'll let him talk for himself
[22:49] <+mpeel> so just have tea/coffee provided.
[22:49] <+mpeel> and to be properly British, also some biscuits. ;-)
[22:50] <Tango42> Seddon?
[22:50] <+mpeel> AV equipment is also something to bear in mind.
[22:50] <Andrew__> so we're talkign something liek a university hall
[22:50] <+Seddon> I think that providing lunch isnt something that is too much to expect when travelling half way around the world
[22:53] <Tango42> we're buying our own AV anyway, aren't we? so we don't need to worry too much
[22:53] <Andrew__> true
[22:53] <Tango42> university hall? what do you mean by that?
[22:53] <+mpeel> we need to make sure it's bought beforehand, and that a screen is present in the room.
[22:53] <+Seddon> university room *
[22:53] <Andrew__> i mean lecture theatre or something like that
[22:53] <Tango42> it's a discussion meeting, rather than talks, so a board room layout would be better than a lecture layout
[22:53] <Andrew__> mpeel - i've got it on my list to do befreo the agm
[22:53] <+mpeel> good to know Andrew__ - thanks.
[22:53] <Tango42> and we can use a wall if there is no screen
[22:53] <Tango42> walls work well
[22:53] <Tango42> (paint/wallpaper allowing)
[22:53] <Andrew__> any other views on lunch? I'm happy either way
[22:53] <+mpeel> Who would pay the bill for lunches if provided?
[22:53] <+mpeel> us? or the WMF?
[22:53] <+Seddon> us out of the foundations funds
[22:53] <Tango42> that is, the WMF share of our fundraising revenue
[22:53] <Andrew__> i understand the WMF has said they would allow us to pay out of their 50%
[22:53] <+Seddon> donated to us but by all rights their money
[22:53] <+mpeel> if the foundation is happy with that approach, then I'm happy with us providing lunches.
[22:53] == steve_ [~522029b9@gateway/web/freenode/x-zdetneigmtqbdhss] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[22:53] <Tango42> I still oppose. I consider it our money unless and until our lawyers tell me otherwise, and I don't consider buying lunch for people to be a good use of it.
[22:53] <Andrew__> i think it's the other way round - it's their money unless the solcitors say we can't transfer it to them!
[22:54] <Andrew__> Is this conference an effectve use of funds?
[22:54] == steve_ [~522029b9@gateway/web/freenode/x-jhftuxxopqajkhyn] has joined #wikimedia-uk-board
[22:54] <Andrew__> is it worth spending ~£300 on flight, ~£100 on accommodation per person?
[22:54] <Tango42> my interpretation of the law is that it we can't transfer it to them (at least, not without approving what it will be spent on), and I'll assume that is correct until an expert says otherwise
[22:54] <+mpeel> it comes under fundraising admin in my mind.
[22:54] <+mpeel> and I think it's a worthwhile task to do within that.
[22:54] <Andrew__> if so, ~£60
[22:54] <Andrew__>  on food isn't going to change that, surely!
[22:54] <Tango42> yes, you can't effectively fundraise without spending some money on it
[22:55] <+mpeel> and cost-effective as we're not having to pay long-haul flight costs.
[22:55] <Andrew__> mpeel - maybe, but other people are having to pay that instead
[22:55] <Tango42> £60 for 20-30 people having 3 meals? that's cheap...
[22:55] <+mpeel> £60 for food would be £1 per meal. It will cost more than that.
[22:55] <+Seddon> i think we have to think about the wider effects for the whole movement by hosting it in the uk
[22:55] <Andrew__> £60 per person
[22:55] <+mpeel> Tango42: 2 meals, surely? One each day during lunch?
[22:55] <+Seddon> yes we are independent
[22:55] <Tango42> £60*20=£1200, that's a lot of money
[22:55] <+Seddon> but we are supporting the movement as a whole
[22:55] <+mpeel> we're not paying that though.
[22:56] <+mpeel> other chapters are.
[22:56] <+mpeel> and the foundation.
[22:56] <Tango42> i thought it was a 3 day meeting, but i may be wrong
[22:56] <+mpeel> so it's their choice as to whether they spend their money on it.
[22:56] <Andrew__> agreed it's a lot of money, but so is the total money being spent on travel and accommodation
[22:56] <Tango42> but the proposal under discussion is that *we* pay for lunch for everyone
[22:56] <+mpeel> if we provide lunches, then, we're talking 30 x £5 x 3 = ~£450
[22:57] <Andrew__> £5 lunches may be a bit optimistic
[22:57] <Tango42> yeah, i would guess £7.50
[22:57] <+mpeel> that will depend on the location.
[22:57] <+mpeel> Manchester isn't that expensive, I don't think.
[22:57] <+mpeel> London will be.
[22:57] <Tango42> unless we want to go to a supermarket and buy stuff ourselves
[22:58] <+Seddon> we could do £5.50 lunch from a venue
[22:58] <Andrew__> as you're organising it Tango42, are you confortable you can get a venue without food?
[22:58] <Tango42> well, yes, no venue is going to force food on us...
[22:58] <Andrew__> take it we've moved away from hotels, we're now talking university rooms or possibly rooms above pubs?
[22:59] <Tango42> i'm hoping for a company to host us, but failing that unis and pubs should be good
[22:59] <Tango42> i doubt a hotel would do it for free
[22:59] <Andrew__> as i said befroe I'm happy either providing lunch or not
[23:00] <Andrew__> cfp, steve, zeyi what do you think?
[23:00] <Tango42> what was mike's view?
[23:00] <+cfp> i think we should spend the minimum possible amount on this. i've been a bit sceptical from the start.
[23:01] <+mpeel> If it's coming out of the WMF's half, then I am happy for lunches to be covered if the foundation want them to be covered.
[23:01] <+cfp> i guess a reasonable cap is the amount we would have spent had it been in florida.
[23:01] <Tango42> you mean san fran?
[23:01] <+cfp> yeah providing our lawyers are ok with that
[23:02] <steve_> agree with Mike
[23:02] <+cfp> yeah sorry
[23:02] <+mpeel> I would agree with that philosophy cfp
[23:02] <Tango42> yes, i agree with that philosophy
[23:02] <+mpeel> zeyi: are you still around?
[23:02] <zeyi> yes
[23:02] <Tango42> but keep in mind (as I mentioned briefly above), Erik is looking to get chapters to pay for poorer chapters to come
[23:02] <Tango42> if we pay for lunch, we won't be able to contribute to that fund without going over cfp's limit
[23:02] == Seddon [~chatzilla@Wikimedia/Seddon] has quit [Quit: Wikipedia: Pruning unwanted branches from the tree of knowledge]
[23:02] <+mpeel> Tango42: my approach would be, we're hosting, others can provide travel support. ;-)
[23:02] == Seddon [~chatzilla@Wikimedia/Seddon] has joined #wikimedia-uk-board
[23:02] == mode/#wikimedia-uk-board [+v Seddon] by ChanServ
[23:03] <Andrew__> can we wrap this up then?
[23:03] <zeyi> Mike, if so, I agree with u
[23:03] <Tango42> yeah, i did say to Erik that I doubted we could contribute, since we're already contributing to getting people to the chapters meeting
[23:03] <+mpeel> Can't we simply delegate this to the Foundation? Say we're happy for up to £1,000 (?) of the WMF part of the funds to be used in support of this, and ask them what they want that spending on?
[23:03] <+mpeel> I don't know whether £1k is the right number here or not.
[23:04] <Tango42> we could, but they can't make that decision until we tell them if we've found a free venue or not
[23:04] <+mpeel> Tango42: so get on with finding the venue. ;-)
[23:04] <Tango42> I'm waiting for Seddon to get back to me!
[23:04] <Tango42> (If he fails with our existing contacts, I'll start cold calling)
[23:05] <Andrew__> I think seddon is waiting to see if it includes lunch or not!
[23:05] <+mpeel> I'd start cold-calling now, tbh.
[23:05] <+mpeel> and see who gets there first. ;-)
[23:05] <+Seddon> just go with cold calling anyway :)
[23:05] <Tango42> ok, i'll start that tomorrow, then
[23:05] <+cfp> as long us our lawyers agree it's the wmf's money they can spend as much of it as they like. if our lawyers think it's our money then we have more of a problem
[23:05] <+mpeel> on my question above: are we broadly happy with the above, from both aspects of this (our money/WMF's money)?
[23:05] <+mpeel> "Can't we simply delegate this to the Foundation? Say we're happy for up to £1,000 (?) of the WMF part of the funds to be used in support of this, and ask them what they want that spending on?"
[23:06] <Andrew__> hmm, not really, until the legal issues are resolved would prefer we control thespending a bit more
[23:07] <Tango42> cfp: well, it's only a problem if a majority of the board are opposed to us spending "our money" on lunch (I am opposed, and I think you are, but everyone else seems to be in favour)
[23:07] <+mpeel> I would prefer that we allocate a budget for something, and delegate the details of that to the appropriate people.
[23:07] <+mpeel> at the very least, we need to get the WMF's input on this.
[23:07] <zeyi> So, should we wait for the lawyer advice before making decision?
[23:07] <+mpeel> given that it's their meeting...
[23:07] <Andrew__> we might not get teh advice in time zeyi
[23:08] <+mpeel> can we at least agree on the maximum amount of money that we're happy, at the present time, to spend on this?
[23:08] <steve_> allocate a budget and delegate to approp people - when we know more (legal) decide details
[23:08] <Andrew__> this seems to be dragging mpeel
[23:08] <+mpeel> I know Andrew__
[23:08] <Andrew__> given it's gone 11 coudl we wrpa it up and finish?
[23:09] <Tango42> i don't have a maximum, i'm happy to spend whatever is worth spending
[23:09] <+mpeel> I keep asking questions to try to draw this to a conclusion.
[23:09] <+mpeel> but no-one seems to be biting.
[23:09] <Tango42> i don't want to set arbitrary limits
[23:09] <+mpeel> Tango42: do you have everything you need on this to take it forward?
[23:09] <+Seddon> i think we need to know what the foundation want
[23:09] <steve_> I propose what  said above - budget £2K
[23:09] <Tango42> i have what i need to continue venue hunting, but i haven't got anything out of this meeting
[23:09] <+mpeel> Do you need anything more specifically now?
[23:10] <+Seddon> if the foundation want something and the baord arnt willing to do that
[23:10] <Tango42> steve_: £1k was said above, wasn't it?
[23:10] <+mpeel> anything that we can take a vote on?
[23:10] <+Seddon> then we need to give up hosting this event
[23:10] <+Seddon> simple :)
[23:10] <steve_> not bothered - high ceiling low spend - that would be plan
[23:10] <Andrew__> not sure i understand ur point seddon
[23:10] <Tango42> the WMF will pay for it out of their own funds before that happens, seddon
[23:10] <zeyi> steve, good point!
[23:10] <+mpeel> Tango42: last chance, or I'll draw this to a close.
[23:11] <Tango42> let's close it as "no consensus", then!
[23:11] <+mpeel> Let's move on to any other business, and date of next meeting. If anyone has AOB shout out.
[23:11] <Andrew__> non aob from me
[23:11] <+mpeel> Date of next meeting - next Tuesday as a working group on the AGM, from 9pm onwards.
[23:11] <Andrew__> 2 weeks?
[23:11] <+mpeel> Next board meeting 2 weeks time
[23:12] <+mpeel> 30 March, 8.30-10.30pm, via Skype
[23:12] <Andrew__> thanks
[23:12] <zeyi> ok
[23:14] == zeyi [~561fa2ac@gateway/web/freenode/x-cozrukynsijkpkpr] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[23:14] == cfp [~thomas.ho@raven.linux.ox.ac.uk] has quit []
[23:14] <zeyi> good night everyone!
[23:14] <+mpeel> preferably when we're all in a more productive mood...
[23:14] <+mpeel> <end of meeting>
[23:14] <+mpeel> g'night all
[23:14] <zeyi> thanks!
[23:14] <Tango42> good night
</pre>

[[Category:Meeting logs]]