Talk:Representing Wikimedia UK

Some comments

First, there is nothing wrong with volunteers representing Wikimedia UK. If anything, they should be encouraged to do so, because if it weren't for volunteers WMUK would be a glorified payment processing centre for the WMF. Yes, ok, there's a tiny risk that somebody might sue us because we can't contractually control what these people say, but these people are people who are passionate about WMUK and its aims, and, frankly, the risk of allowing a few volunteers to quasi-officially represent WMUK is only marginally (if at all) greater than allowing seven trustees and five members of staff to officially represent the chapter. If there are serious, legitimate concerns about allowing volunteers to "officially" represent the chapter (and those concerns have been determined to be legitimate after a full and frank discussion among the board, staff, and wider community, not a decision made behind closed doors), then we can be selective about who we allow to represent WMUK, make them sign some paperwork, and revoke that 'status' if they go off the rails.

Second, stationery, and in particular business cards, are useful tools that we shouldn't be limiting to staff and trustees. Whatever the policy, it's a fact that volunteers represent the chapter (in the sense of being the face of it, and the only part most people see) in many contexts, particularly at events, and it makes sense for them to look as professional as possible. This doesn't just apply to volunteers who are arbitrarily determined to be leading a "major project". Again, any problems with this can be solved by signing agreements and putting disclaimers on the stationery. About a year ago, I was given a pile of generic WMUK business cards an told there was no problem with writing my details on the back and giving them out. When I ended up giving out my details on a regular basis, I got some cards professionally printed (at my own expense), and they all carry a small disclaimer on the back to the effect that I don't speak for the chapter in any official capacity and the chapter doesn't control the content of Wikimedia projects, followed by official contact details (essentially a concise version of the email disclaimer). There is no good reason why our most active volunteers shouldn't be able to do the same thing.

Third (and finally I promise, apologies for the volume of my comments), details of the domains WMUK holds and of who has access to what are exactly the sort of thing that should be kept on this wiki. The only things that should be kept on private wikis are things that need to be limited to a small group. I get the impression that, now we have a fully functioning office and a core staff, the office wiki and mailing list are being used not just for things that need to be kept confidential (which, aside from personal information, should be very close to nil), but for things that staff feel only they need to know, but which might be of interest to volunteers, supporters, or people who are just curious.

Apologies again for the volume (and for the parts that turned into rants). Harry Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't like this policy either. Control of brand and inventory should probably be covered elsewhere, perhaps the intention is for this to be more about control of "house style" rather than rules for volunteers. In the meantime I would rather sort out the working practice before laying out too many rules.

I agree with Harry, more of our volunteers should have "official" email addresses and more should have the option of "official" business cards if they are going to make good use of them for external meetings (though some opt for our standard blanks if they feel they are not going to use up a hundred in a year). Harry, if you think you could do with business cards please ask for them, if you would make good use of your own official wikimedia.org.uk address then ask to have it set up; if you get rejected then the we would have to give you a pretty darn good explanation. At the moment we have defaulted to staff and trustees, I don't think that is either necessary or helpful when plenty of others are obviously trusted to represent our charity in various ways.

With regard to what is on the closed wikis, I am happy for this to be reviewed again. Maybe Richard could show you the sort of things on the office and board wikis. The Board wiki is very small as most confidential matters are either dealt with in person or by email. The Office wiki is needed for stuff like board member contact details but as expenses are now being done in Sage, it is a lot less active. As for the closed email lists, don't worry, Mike is conscientiously and frequently putting the case for taking discussion to open lists and we invariably do exactly that. --Fæ (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)