IT Development/Progress meetings/Minutes 18 Feb 2013

Apologies and Introductions

Present:

• Roger Bamkin (RB)
• Katherine Bavage (KB)
• Harry Burt (HB)
• Emmanuel Engelhart (EE)
• Gordon Joly (GJ)
• Mike Peel (MP)
• Doug Taylor (DT)
• Katie Chan (KC)

Apologies:

• Charles Mattews (CM)
• Tom Morton (TM)

Welcomes and introductions were made

Remit of the Technology Committee

DT noted the context that Wikimedia U.K. was still in the process of taking up full responsibility for its operations in terms of technical capacity, where MP had formerly acted as systems administrator.

What it is

KB drew attention to the draft remit drawn up by MP in 2012 and invited members of the committee to consider expanding and editing this. GJ queried whether the Technology Committee could be thought of as a Steering Committee - MP noted this was a helpful way to think of it.

What is is not

MP noted that it would not be expected to make operational decisions or carry out operational work. KB clarified that as staff contact for WMUK development work she convened monthly progress meetings with the charity's two contracted developers, TM and EE. The minutes are recorded on wiki, and the meetings were designed to be to draw together priorities and resolve any ongoing obstacles, rather than consider the strategic direction or broader application of development work.

How it fits into governance structure

RB queried whether the Technical Committee would we make decisions, or recommendations to the Board of Trustees. MP noted that the balance between decisions or recommendations would be dependent on whether the issue was of an operational or strategic nature - for example the question of the hosting of the UK will be both, as it had wider ramifications, and so had been discussed by the Board. A good guide was the process by which the conference committee looked at rival bids for Wiki Conference 2013 and then proposed Lincoln for board approval - it was designed to allow the Board sign-off on recommendations which had been considered in depth at committee level.

DT noted that to some extent the role of the committee would develop alongside changes happening in the organisation as a whole.

Membership

It was noted that there was no proposal that attendees needed to be a member of Wikimedia U.K., although further down the line this may change depending on whether a more formal delegation of powers is put in place. MP - Ideally regular attendees should be encouraged to be members.

There was some discussion about maintaining a commitment to transparency without compromising an operational need to keep certain details confidential, particularly anything with reference to network and systems security. KB noted that it was very unlikely that this situation would present difficulties, as most detailed technical matters would not be within the remit of the committees discussion, and should, for example, the committee think it advisable to review security arrangements and discuss recommendations for changes, some prudent redaction or in camera discussion could be applied.

Suggestions for external representatives

MP noted that it would be possible to invite members from the Open Street Map community or from the Mozilla Foundation. RB noted that it may be better to do this when the committee was considering issues relevant to the interests of external groups; HB noted agreement.

HB queried whether the committee would seek to recruit specific people in the movement. KB noted that Tom Morton had been invited and encouraged suggestions - it was noted that Rich Farnborough had been noted as a possible interested party.

Generally there was consensus that external representatives would be invited on an 'as and when required' basis - i.e. if funding of Toolserver work was being considered then this might draw in some representatives on an temp basis. All members of the committee were responsible for identifying and contacting individuals they were aware of who may express an interest in topics on forthcoming agendas, and KB would ensure the work of the committee and future dates was publicised appropriately to increase general awareness.

RB queried whether there were plans to organise an open hack day. HB agreed organising another hackathon would be good. MP also agreed, but it was up to interested members of the community to express interest. DT noted that staff were available to help support the organisation of such events

KC joined the meeting at this point.

Working to support the GLAM and Education committees

It was noted that to a lesser extent this could apply to Conference Committee, a potential Grants Committee and Governance Committee. KB clarified that she had highlighted the the cross over between how Tech will work with the GLAM and Education committees particularly because there was an expectation that development work would support this type of outreach work - such as the Virtual Learning Environment, Toolserver and QRpedia.

It was noted that the difference was that GLAM/Education committees would be expected to consider the application and promotion of a given technology in their particular contexts, while the Tech Committee would look at potential other applications, and issues in relation to implementation or maintenance of given software.