Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Revert to revision 82120 dated 2020-06-16 10:51:40 by Richard Nevell (WMUK) using popups)
 
(188 intermediate revisions by 82 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|Welcome to the discussion about the Main Page. See also: [[Talk:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Timeline]]}}
{{talk header|Welcome to the discussion about the Main Page.}}


{|style="float:right;border:solid silver 1px;margin-left:8px;margin-bottom:4px;"
|-
|[[File:Archives.png|x100px]]
|-
|align=center|{{#ifexist:Talk:Main Page/2008|[[/2008|2008]]}}<br>{{#ifexist:Talk:Main Page/2009|[[/2009|2009]]}}{{#ifexist:Talk:Main Page/2010|<br>[[/2010|2010]]}}{{#ifexist:Talk:Main Page/2011|<br>[[/2011|2011]]}}{{#ifexist:Talk:Main Page/2012|<br>[[/2012|2012]]}}{{#ifexist:Talk:Main Page/2013|<br>[[/2013|2013]]}}
|}


==Comments==
== "Join Wikimedia UK" link broken ==
Excellents job getting this started. This looks like an excellent start and will hopefully involve as many people as possible. I've got some general comments to make with how the chapter should operate, and I'd like to highlight what I perceive as failing from the first attempt.


I firstly get the impression that people wishing to become members were messed around some what. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2008-August/001998.html A post from the mailing list] shows people had applied for guarantor membership yet heard little from it. For this to be a success, we need the people with board positions to take into consideration the thoughts and suggestions by the volunteers wishing to help. I can't believe that membership requests from some excellent contributors went unanswered. That's not only rude, but it makes people less willing to contribute to the chapter.
Hey folks, the "Join Wikimedia UK" link on the Main Page is a 404. Looks like it ought to be updated to point to [[Membership]] when someone gets a moment :)


In line with this, [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2008-August/001966.html comments like this] from board members should be completely discouraged in any future WMUK. Wacky suggestions of stalking from people that are supposed to be leading the project forward is quite astonishing really. I'd like to see the new board take a more proactive effort at engaging members and associates of the chapter rather than dismissing their qestions as trolling.
All the best, [[User:Naypta|Naypta]] ([[User talk:Naypta|talk]]) 23:26, 29 May 2020 (BST)
 
:{{reply|Naypta}} Thanks for spotting that, I've updated the link so it should now work. [[User:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|Richard Nevell (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell (WMUK)|talk]]) 11:51, 16 June 2020 (BST)
We need to make a definite focus. One of the major problems last time round was that the chapter was blinkered in the respect that it put all its energy into getting charity status. Start small, grow big. We should move at the pace that we are working at, not be forced into starting higher on the hierachy with not enough interest to back that up. As we grow in member number, we can then move toward charity status, but we need to get fully organised before attempting anything too big.
 
Lastly, right from the start we should start looking for places we can promote the WMF. In line with what I said previously, start with small conferences/trade fairs and we can move up from there. We don't need to be getting huge donations from the start, just simply putting our names around.
 
There are other things I've got to say, but that'll do for now. [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 
==message for wikiprojects==
 
Working draft of message for wikiprojects:
 
As a UK-oriented WikiProject, you might be interested in [[m:Wikimedia UK v2.0|the formation of a new Wikimedia UK chapter]], to replace the now-defunct previous attempt. At this point we are looking for people generally interested, potential members, candidates for the board and people with experence with charities.<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
[[User:Geni|Geni]] 22:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 
==election dates==
 
Currently looking at sept 29th with last call for candiates sept 27th.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
:I'd make that end 26th (i.e. Friday) if nothing more than make it a round end of week date. [[User:KTC|KTC]] 23:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 
==Proposed Name==
 
"Wiki Information Network" appears to have a fair degree of support. Will trade under wikimedia UK.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
I suggest something very neutral like ‘Society/Institute for Open Knowledge’ (avoiding confusion with v1.0, namely ‘Wiki Educational Resources Ltd’), then trade under ‘Wikimedia UK’ with licence from the Wikimedia Foundation. Try [http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ Companies House’s WebCHeck]. &ndash; [[User:Kaihsu|Kaihsu]] 12:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
: It's worth bearing in mind the acronym: "Wiki Information Network", or WIN, is quite nice. "Society for Open Knowledge", or SOK (Sock?), isn't quite as nice. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 18:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
:: WIN sounds nice. However it helps to have a company name, and hence a charity name, that reflects the activities of that body. Charities can adopt a trading name, if they want to. [[User:LoopZilla|Gordo]] 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 
::: I'm not too keen on Wiki Information Network - not much of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Does_exactly_what_it_says_on_the_tin Ronseal] name is it? There are plenty of other wikis out there other than wikimedia and we're not an organisation promoting the use of wikis are we? How about Wikimedia UK Limited? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::We'll trade under the name "Wikimedia UK", that's a requirement for all chapters. Apparently there are issues with using the WMF's trademark as our name (we should verify that with an expert at some point, but it seems highly plausible). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 
::: Wikimedia France appears to be set up under the name "Wikimedia France" - see [http://www.wikimedia.fr/wiki/Statuts here] [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::: Wikimedia Germany is set up as "Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens" - see [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vereinssatzung/English here] [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::They aren't under UK jurisdiction, though. The board will need to see a solicitor about the registration anyway, they can clarify the legal situation then. If it is possible to simply register as "Wikimedia UK", then I expect we would do that. The previous incarnation didn't for trademark reasons and assuming they understood the situation correctly (that's what we need to double check with the solicitor) the same would apply to us. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 
:::::The original reason to not use "Wikimedia UK" was that registering a company (and therefore its name) in the UK automatically creates a right in that name, ie "Wikimedia" would have become a trade name owned by the organisation (Company). Also such trading names have a level of European protection. At the time WMUKv1 was registered WMF did not hold a trademark in the UK or Europe as it was only in the process of getting one. We chose to not put that procedure at risk. In the current situation "Wikimedia" is now a trademark of the WMF and is protected in the UK so wouldn't normally be permitted in the name of a new company (though the law would actually require the trademark owner to object rather than being automatic). Again, it is probably not a road worth making a mess of. As an addendum, btw, you only need a solicitor to do the "swear" for a fiver, not for drawing up any of the documents or submitting them. --[[User:AlisonW|Alison Wheeler]] 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 
::: I have set up companies myself professionally and have access to a JP who can swear the company formation documents - I'm willing to do this for WMUKv2 if the Board wants. This would help keep the costs to a minimum, although the Board may wish to see a solicitor for the trademark issue anyway. [[Special:Contributions/155.202.254.82|155.202.254.82]] 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC) (AndrewRT not logged in)
 
==milestones==
[[Wikimedia UK v2.0/Timeline]]
 
==Charity Commission considerations==
:Should there not be an early milestone (before ''draft Memorandum'') to define ''objectives'' and the ''public benefit'' in a way compatible with the Charity Commission rules? (see [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publicbenefit/publicbenefit.asp], [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publicbenefit/pbsummary.asp] and [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/spr/corcom1.asp])  Also there is no milestone to register the company with the Charity Commission ([http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registration/default.asp] and [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/cc21.asp]), but perhaps that is what is meant by ''Contact HMRC regarding tax-exempt status''?  It seems to me essential to create the company with memorandum and articles of association that will be accepted by the Charity Commission without modification. NB The Charity Commission has ''Model Memorandum and Articles of Association''[http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registration/mgds.asp] (see also [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/cc22.asp]) that would probably be ideal for the company, and save work. [[User:Rwendland|Rwendland]] 12:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
:we can only become a registered charity once we have an income of over £5,000 - since we don't know when that will be, it's not on the timeline.  until then, we can become a tax-exempt organisation by registering with HMRC.  (OTOH, i agree we should consider future registration as a charity now, rather than later.) [[User:Kate|Kate]] 12:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
::Ah.  Hadn't noticed the £5,000 rule, sorry.  Might still be worth using the Charity Commission ''Model Memorandum and Articles of Association'' etc so it would be ready for simple registration when/if income got there. I did wonder if incorporating was a good idea with a low income - do you have an estimate for annual accounts/accountancy costs? I'm a director of a small consultancy co, and I'd estimate the accountant annual accounts & companies house costs of running a small commercial co at £500 to £1000/year. It is a shame the new Charitable Incorporated Organisation is not yet available.  [[User:Rwendland|Rwendland]] 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
:::: I prepare UK charity accounts professionally and I think your ball park £500-£1000 is about right. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 09:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
:::You're absolutely right, the Mem and Arts need to be written with charitable status in mind. I think we can pretty much keep the ones from WMUK v1.0, they were pretty standard (and heavily based on the models, from what I can tell). I'd like to rethink the goals slightly (I think Wikimedia should be explicitly mentioned, in addition to more general goals), but that's all. The smaller we are, the simpler the accounting requirements are, as long as we're still very small I think we can probably do it without paying an accountant at all. Once we get to a size when we need expertise, hopefully we can find it within the community for free. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 18:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
:From [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/cc21.asp#64]: "64. Organisations with an annual income not exceeding £5000 from all sources will be able to seek voluntary registration when the part of the Charities Act 2006 that permits this comes into effect.  We will publicise this on our website before it happens. Until then the Commission’s priority is to complete the programme of registering previously excepted and exempt charities: we are not required to register a prospective charity that cannot demonstrate that it has already achieved the minimum income." From the Charity Commission webiste it seems that they have the discretion at the moment about whether to register charities with less than £5k income and are not looking to make that compulsory any time soon! (see [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/spr/charbill.asp] "It will take time for us to register the large number of formerly excepted and exempt charities that we will have to register. Before the provisions that require us to register charities that apply for voluntary registration come into force, the current law enabling us to exercise discretion in relation to applications for voluntary registration will continue." [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 09:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
::That's correct, until we have an income over £5000 (which may not take long), we will only need to register with HMRC to get the tax benefits, which is a much shorter and simpler process (one letter with the appropriate documents attached and a wait of a couple of weeks and you're done!). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 10:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
:::AndrewRT, do you think there is a cost-saving case to stay unincorporated until the new Charitable Incorporated Organisation [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registration/charcio.asp] is available in about a year (I think), then go for that?  Avoiding the need for 'double regulation’, the "less onerous" accounts and filings, and lower costs seem large advantages. It might be worth staying unincorporated for a year and then converting [http://www.gillhams.com/articles/355.cfm] to gain these advantages. [[User:Rwendland|Rwendland]] 16:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
::::As I said before, I think the annual costs of running a Company Limited by Guarantee would be around £500, covering statutory accounts complying with the Companies Acts and the SORP, Companies House registration and Annual Return fees and things like tax returns. A CIO would reduce the costs somewhat - it looks like they will only require receipts and payments accounts - but I woud sill put aside £300 for it. You could argue that the risks from not having limited liability would be limited (pardon the pun) in the early years so it might make sense, but you would be making us hostage to the Charity Commission's timetable and this might not fit in with the bid timetable. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::We can convert from a company limited by guarantee to a CIO once they're ready. We can't actually convert from an unincorporated charity to an incorporated one, we would have to create a new entity (which would require new contracts with WMF, a new bank account, etc.). I think it's best to go down the limited company route and then convert, that way we can make real progress now rather than sitting doing nothing for 6 months. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::Having read more WMUK background, I completely agree the WMUK should incorporate now and get charity status ASAP - don't wait for CIO. We want to be seem as an incorporated charity ASAP to help get corporate donations and pick up tax-payback from existing contribution stream to WMF if possible. Thanks for your info AndrewRT. Sorry I raised this, has been discussed before on email I now see! [[User:Rwendland|Rwendland]] 11:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 
==talkpage message==
As a UK based editor you might be interested in [[m:Wikimedia UK v2.0|the formation of a new Wikimedia UK chapter]], to replace the now-defunct previous attempt. At this point we are looking for people generally interested, potential members, candidates for the board and people with experence with charities.<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
 
==userpage sign==
 
At this point needs to be big bigger than a userbox.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 03:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
<div style="border: solid blue 12px; background: #99ccff; margin-top: 15px; margin-bottom: 20px;">
{| cellspacing="0"
| style="background: lightblue; width: 280px; text-align: center; font-size: 300px; color: #880000; vertical-align: middle; padding: 0px;" | [[Image:Fazen - charming (by).jpg|250px]]
| style="background: #99ccff; font-size: 60px; padding-left: 15px; line-height: 1.2em; font-weight: bold;" | Please help with forming the new [[m:Wikimedia UK v2.0|Wikimedia UK chapter]]
|} </div>
*We may wish to make this bigger. I almost didn't notice it. [[User:AGK|<font color="#2A8B31">'''Anthøny'''</font>]] 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:I agree, way too small :P. How about [[User:Anonymous101/Sandbox|this]]? [[User:Anonymous101|Anonymous101]] 10:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 
* Perhaps a userpage ad banner - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== Scope ==
 
from IRC:
* England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland (probably)
* Isle of Man, Channel Islands - maybe?
 
==Projects to inform at village pumps and the like==
 
Please strikethough once done
 
**wikipedia
<s>*en</s>
<s>*simple</s>
<s>*Cy</s>
<s>*Sco</s>
*Sco (Irish)
<s>*gd (Scottish Gaelic</s>
<s>*gv (manx)</s>
<s>*kw (cornish)</s>
 
*<s>Wiktionary</s>
*<s>en</s>
*simple
*<s>Cy</s>
*<s>ga</s>
 
**Commons
 
**wikiquote
*en
*cy
 
==other informing people stuff==
 
I posted a quick notice at [[w:en:Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#Wikimedia UK v2.0]] [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
Also, if I have time tomorrow I'll write up a brief article for the ''[[w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Signpost]]'', I'll probably post a link here for people to check/discuss. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
[[:en:User:Cfp/Sandbox2]]
 
==Village pump notice==
 
A plan is in the works to found a new UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation and we are ready to begin gathering support from the community. If you are interesting in being part of a new UK chapter either as a member or a board member or just want to register a general interest, please head over to [[m:Wikimedia UK v2.0]] and let us know and help put some finishing touches to the plans. An election will shortly be held for the initial board who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting application to membership. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board to take the chapter forward to begin fundraising and supporting the Wikimedia community in the UK in whatever ways we can. ([[User:Geni]])
 
: How about:
: A plan is in the works to found a new UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, and we are currently gathering support from the community. If you are interesting in being part of this new UK chapter as a member, a board member or as someone with a general interest in the chapter, please head over to [[m:Wikimedia UK v2.0]] and let us know. We welcome help in making finishing touches to the plans. An election will be held shortly for the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board, which will take the chapter forward, starting to raise funds and generally supporting the Wikimedia community in the UK.
: although "We welcome help in making finishing touches to the plans." doesn't fit in particularly well... [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::"we also welcome" perhaps?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 20:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::With that change, I think it's a good notice. I might reverse board member and member, though, since board members are also members. "as a board member, a regular member or just as someone with a general interest" (then it's in decreasing order of commitment) --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't think the risk of confusion is high enough to worry.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 23:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::I don't think it's confusing, it just reads slightly better. We're not going for a literary masterpiece, though, so it's not that important. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
== A couple of comments ==
 
It's great to see movement with this: from lurking on the mailing list for a while, it does sound like starting from a new slate is needed. I've added myself to the list(s), but have more than a few questions. A few to kick things off, and to make sure I'm thinking along the right lines:
 
As the webpage is currently written, WMUK2  seems to solely aim towards being a company/charity. I get that that has to be the top-most priority, but I'm worried that there isn't any discussion or description of the intended aims of the group, both long-term and short-term, outside this. Was this a conscious decision, and if so why? I'm worried that without at least some indication of plans beyond a company/charity, a lot of potential supporters will be turned off.
 
Are there plans to transfer over things like the website domain (wikimedia.org.uk) from WMUK1 to 2? If it is of use, then I'm willing to put together and/or host the website for the company.
 
[[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 18:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
:Mostly because some of us percive that the board being destracted from setting things up was the problem last time. Once we've sorted out who the board will be those not on the board will probably start collecting the many many ideas for what WMUK can do and looking for futher ones.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
:Well, it's going to be a chapter and we know roughly what chapters do, they support the goals of the WMF/Wikimedia community is their home country. What that involves depends on what people choose to do. The way I see it, the chapter will probably only directly handle fundraising and other financial matters, with other things it will just support the local community. The board probably aren't going to be organising all the events and publicity and everything (they may choose to organise some, of course), that will be up to the community. The board will then approve the plans and hand over the cash (and throw their titles around where needed). What people choose to do with the chapter doesn't really matter at this stage, we're just talking about getting it set up. As for the domain name, I did bring it up on IRC, and I think the conclusion was that we need to talk to JamesF (who apparently owns it). I don't believe anyone has contacted him about it yet, but I'm sure they will in due course (the domain can't be transferred until there is something to transfer it to, so there is no hurry). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 
:James F registered the domain name in use for WMUK and I currently host the email and content and will do so probably until WMUKv2 is incorporated (or accepted by WMF) which seems the right way to go about it. --[[User:AlisonW|Alison Wheeler]] 22:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== MoA, AoA ==
 
I have copied the Mem and Arts from the previous incarnation to [[Wikimedia UK v2.0/MoA]] and [[Wikimedia UK v2.0/AoA]], changed the names and removed the old goals (I think we should rethink them slightly). Please make comments on their talk pages regarding changes you think should be made. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 
:Companies Act 2006 caused some changes to the MoA and AoA - at least for charities.[http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/supportingcharities/compact.asp] I wonder if it would be best to start from the latest Charity Commission models, for the final version at least? [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registration/mgds.asp] [[User:Rwendland|Rwendland]] 01:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::You may have a good point, there. I was thinking sticking with the old one makes it easier to get approval from WMF, but starting again from the new models may make it easier in the long run with the charity commission, which is probably the more important consideration (the WMF is far more flexible about the details, I imagine). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 04:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 
I've replaced the versions up before with versions from the new models, but they need some work doing on the formatting (don't worry too much about it, though, I'll convert it all to LaTeX before we're done, so if you want to tidy it up, just make it readable). I've done a bit of fill in the blanks work on them, and selected the options I think are best for the MoA (haven't gotten around to doing that for the AoA yet). Comments on the talk page about whether I made the right choices would be appreciated. You can find some guidance notes on the Charity Commission's version ([http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/publications/pdfs/gd1text.pdf]). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 21:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== Congrats! - and some ideas.... ==
 
G'day folks! - and congrat.s on moving this forward. Advice I'd offer on first impression (for what it's worth) is to try and really 'reboot' all discussions from here on in. To slow down, and ensure everything is thought through, and done properly (it goes without saying that I see no indication that this isn't in fact the case!! :-) ).
 
I'd say it's worth taking a look at [[Wikimedia Australia]], something I've been a little involved with - and (again, just first impression really) - I think it'd be worth making pages here like [[Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/aims]] [[Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/planned activities]] etc. - I'd say the actual work you're planning on doing / supporting should be a higher priority than just rigorous deadlines for chapter formation itself as a goal per se...
 
Finally, one little small one is that I would like to be a paid up 'member' in whatever way you guys figure out is best - and I would like to be able to vote in elections for Directors (or other office bearers) - however that's implemented technically / systemically, is that what you chaps are aiming for? :-) again well done! well done! well done! :-) cheers, [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 21:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:you can see sort of what I mean by reviewing [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_UK_v2.0&oldid=1155917 this version] of the page - I'd suggest it as an improvement :-) [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 22:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::The goals that are written in the Memorandum are somewhat different from what we actually plan to do. The official goals need to be pretty general so we don't unnecessarily restrict ourselves - I've started discussion of those goals on [[/MoA]]. What people plan to do with the chapter is up to them and doesn't really matter at this stage. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 22:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:Paid up members are "supporting members", members that are allowed to vote are "guarantor members". Technically those are independent, but I think it's generally expected that guarantor members will also be supporting members. The other way round is another matter, though - there are legal requirements and liabilities for guarantor members, so not all supporting members will be guarantor members. As for planned activities, the way I see it, the chapter exists to facilitate the community in whatever they want to do, it's not necessary for those running the chapter to be involved in coming up with ideas for things to do (they can be if they want, of course). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 22:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::''"What people plan to do with the chapter is up to them and doesn't really matter at this stage"''... I'd add the rather important ..'to you' to that bit :-) - I think it's fantastic that you're so motivated to get the chapter off the ground - I appreciate it personally (because I'm english 'n all, and would like to see a flourishing 'home' chapter!). If I'm reading you correctly, you're seeing your role as a facilitator - or maybe that you're able to help push through whatever hurdles there may be and actually bring a chapter into existence! - Given the history of this chapter, this perspective is entirely understandable! I would however look for leadership at the board level of any chapter as to the planned activities, and how you might achieve them.. give it some thought! :-) [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 22:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Not really. The sole aim of the initial board is to get things off the ground. It's the post AGM board that is meant to start doing things beyond that.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 23:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:::If I'm on the board once all the initial hurdles have been leaped, then I will certainly give thought to what to do next, but I really don't see the role of the board as one of leadership. I would take an active role in working with the community to work out what activities would be a) achievable and b) beneficial, but beyond vetoing things that can't be done for financial or legal reasons I don't see that as a leadership role. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 
== type of company and banking ==
 
Not trying to complicate matters; please feel free to ignore this comment. There is a newish type of company in the United Kingdom called "[[:w:en:Community interest company|community interest company]]" (CIC). I wonder whether Wikimedia UK 2.0 can be both a company limited by guarantee, a co-operative, and a CIC?
 
Also, the Co-operative Bank seems to be most aligned to the ethos, if they would allow the company to set up an account with them. &ndash; [[User:Kaihsu|Kaihsu]] 19:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 
:If I'm reading that article correctly, CIC's don't have the tax benefits of a charity, which makes it pretty useless for our purposes. Thanks for the comment, though, it's good to consider all the options. Personally, I think we should decide on a bank based on what they'll offer us rather than ideological reasons - it would be nice to go with a bank with a similar ethos, but it doesn't really gain us much. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 19:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 
:As an FYI it was the Co-op bank who turned down WMUK v1 at least twice. The UK banking system seems to require that even for a 'body corporate' (ie Company legally independent of the people involved with it) that all the individuals associated with it (Board, etc) have perfect credit histories. A side of WMUK v1 was that that status proved difficult to document to their satisfaction for the people involved. --[[User:AlisonW|Alison Wheeler]] 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== Possible source of interest ==
 
There is a list [[Wikimedia UK/People interested in supporting a local chapter|here]] of people that expressed an interest in joining the last attempt. If any of them are still active and haven't added themselves to our lists, it is probably worth contacting them and making sure they've heard of our attempt. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== Decisions ==
 
An email I also sent to the email list:
 
I'm not entirely sure I understand the process here for making decisions. Reading through http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0 I can see a few decisions are already being presented as if they have been made:
 
* The initial Board will have 3-5 members
* The initial Board will serve <s>until the AGM</s> only for six months
* WM-UK will be a Company Limited by Guarantee
* The name will be "Wiki Information Network"
 
How have/should these decisions be made? a consensus on the email list? a consensus on the wiki page?
 
Please enlighten me! [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 
:It is a legal necessity of every newly-registered company (share-issuing or by-guarantee) that the first Board - which are the people who are the signatories to the Articles and Memorandum - only serve until the first AGM, which can be up to 15-18 months after the Company is founded. At that meeting they ''must'' resign but can re-stand. I am pleased that the original reasoning for not trying to register the company as WMUK has been seen as the right solution and like the choice of "WIN" ;-P --[[User:AlisonW|Alison Wheeler]] 22:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 
:Thanks for getting back to me Alison. I've corrected my post above to make it clearer. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 22:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== Number of Board members ==
 
<s>Personally I would like to suggest this is increased to seven. Firstly because there seems to be enough interest from enough people and secondly because there will always be some people who can't make the meeting and 7 means you need 4 people to get quorum. Five board members (3 for quorum) seems too low for me. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)</s> See comment below
 
:Actually, under the default articles of association, the quorum would be 2, it's 2 or the closest number to a third of the total, whichever is larger (we can change that if people want, though - having a low quorum is probably good though, while it gives individual board members more power it means things can get done quicker if a full board meeting proves impossible to organise). Expanding the board may be a good idea once we're up and running but while getting set up it is best to keep it small since there will be times that we need everyone in one place (signing the governing documents before we send them to companies house, for example). The more people there are needing to sign, the harder it will be to find a time they can all be together. (I don't think we can just post the docs round and get people to sign one at a time, since the signatures need to be witnessed.) --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 
::Now I understand the plan I agree - I think 5 is probably about the right number as it's small enough be be efficient and large enough to share the burden and be inclusive. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 22:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== squid server ==
 
What, pray tell, is one of these, and why would Wikimedia want to host one? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 22:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 
:It's a cache server, it stores pages that have already been produced by the main servers so they can be quickly sent out to other people that request the same page (only works for anons, since logged in users need the links in the top corner adding, etc). Having a squid server in the UK would speed up response times for UK users since the request wouldn't need to travel so far. There are possibly legal concerns, however - having servers in the UK may make the foundation fall more under UK jurisdiction and the UK's libel laws are stricter than elsewhere and the foundation could get into difficulties. We would have to seek detailed legal advice before proceeding with any such plan. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 
::FWIW, although this is suggested fairly often, i'm generally against it.  response time from Amsterdam is already very fast, and adding new clusters significantly increases workload, as well as the likelihood of problems.  if WMUK wants to support the site infrastructure, it would make more sense to provide hardware for one of the existing clusters (like Wikimedia Deutschland, who purchased several squids for Amsterdam).  [[User:Kate|Kate]] 01:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 
:::In the short term, I agree. In the long term, the Amsterdam cluster will get so large it may make sense to split it up. We would need to discuss it with the tech team, they'll be able to tell us how best to spend any money we want to spend on servers. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 
::::Hmm, look at Kate. :D [[User:KTC|KTC]] 11:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 
::WMUKv1 had discussions about this in the past (including with the former counsel for the WMF) and felt that the risks outweighed the benefits. As noted, the real and present danger is the definition the law applies to "transitive" and whether or not the cache is a "server" or just a pathway. I use Firefox and have a small extension which tells me where the server I am using is located. At the moment it has the flag of the Netherlands even though I am editing a page which is only held in the USA. If a court decided that the squid (cache) server in the UK was actually "hosting" the content then immediately WMUK would become liable for what was held on "its server". This is not something that is a good idea with UK libel laws! (and is, indeed, the reason why WMF rejected putting any squids of its own in the UK where, after all, there is a lot of good connectivity/peering which would make sense to connect with). --[[User:AlisonW|Alison Wheeler]] 22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 
to add to my previous comment, although i'm against hosting ''servers'' in the UK, we (the tech team) may want to put a router in the UK at some point (mainly to connect to [[w:LINX]]).  this is something it would make sense for us (WMUK) to help with (as it improves connectivity for UK users without nearly as much risk as hosting content). [[User:Kate|Kate]] 07:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:We would still need to run that by some legal types - as Alison says, just having the data go through a piece of hardware in the UK could be enough to cause problems. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 11:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 
::well, Alison's example was that a cache server (squid) makes it appear that the content is hosted in the UK (and for all intents and purposes, it is - that's what a cache does).  but a router doesn't store the content, it just forward it, and Alison's flag would still show Holland (or the U.S.).  of course, it would still be prudent to seek legal advice being doing that; but the Foundation ''will'', some day, almost certainly have a router in the UK, and if that's likely to cause problems for WMUK, it's probably something that should be looked at sooner rather than later. [[Special:Contributions/87.194.173.122|87.194.173.122]]
:::Well, it will only cause problems for WMUK if we have anything to do with it - the WMF can do what they like, it won't affect us. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 13:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 
::::i'm not so sure about that; Wikimedia Deutschland have had at least one court case about content on Wikipedia, which they had nothing to do with.  (previous comment was mine, btw) [[User:Kate|Kate]]
:::::WM DE does own some servers, though, so they do have something to do with it. (They won the case, though, as memory serves.) --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 13:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 
::::::i'm fairly sure they didn't own any servers at the time; and that the justification wasn't that, but rather that the plaintiff (wrongly) sued wikimedia.de thinking they were the legal representative of Wikipedia in Germany, simply because they are "Wikimedia" and are in Germany.  i also believe defending a court case is something to be avoided even if we do end up winning ;-) [[User:Kate|Kate]]
:::::::I don't think we can avoid people suing us because they are too stupid to work out who is at fault, although it would be nice to if we can. At least we don't have the stupid US system of having to pay your own legal fees when someone files a frivolous lawsuit against you. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 15:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
*There could/would also be legal implications re picture copyrights, since the very useful Corel/Bridgeman US decision, which [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag/Straw_Poll Commons now uses] does not reflect UK law, which still recognises photographers copyright in pictures of 2D art etc, however old. (Johnbod on en/commons)
 
== minimum Age ==
 
Not sure if there are any under 18s interested in becoming directors, but strictly speaking anyone over 16 can become a director. See [[Wikimedia UK v2.0/Candidate FAQs]]. Should we lower this limit? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 
:The charities commission has some advice on trustees being under 18 [http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/supportingcharities/under18scc30.asp] and it's rather difficult to follow, so I think it's best to avoid it entirely. For example, they suggest imposing a limit on what proportion of the board can be under 18, if we were to do that we would need a more complicated election system - let's keep things simple. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== Refusing CRB check ==
 
[cross-posting to mailing list]
 
I've just seen that AndrewRT has refused a CRB check. I think it's probably simplest not to disqualify him from the election and let people vote for him if they choose (if there's a consensus to disqualify him he won't win the election, so we might as well wait and see), however if the majority of the board decides in favour of CRB checks (at whatever time that decision is made - I'd suggest sooner rather than later if AndrewRT is elected) his board membership would be terminated. Anyone disagree? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
:For my sins, I'm a company director, ceo, company secretary, treasurer of a political party and secretary of an heritage charity. I have never had to undergo a CRB check, and I understand it is only considered obligatory where people are working regularly with children. I think Andrew's statement is merely that they are unnecessary and an intrusion on privacy.
:My observation of what's going on, only commenced after the round-robin message - but I am concerned that the process is being unnecessarily complex. The purpose of an initial board is merely to set the mechanics of the process in train. They will not have any financial responsibilities before the first AGM - which will elect a board and determine further aims and objectives. The best way to do that is merely designate a geographically (and reasonably trustworthy sub-committee) to get on with the job - as defined by the community.
:Neither the charity commissioners, nor bankers, are going to be impressed by a random collection of hairies (!) - regardless of the level of support from the wiki community. The role of trustees is always going to be problematic. Their main legal function is to act as responsible agents of the charity commissioners and to ensure that the charity doesn't make ultra-vires payments. How will candidates balance their legal responsibilities with the democratic process? [[Special:Contributions/89.243.230.51|89.243.230.51]] 13:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC) {[[en:user:kbthompson]]}.
::It's a membership organisation - the members have legal powers to elect board members, so there is no conflict between trustee responsibilities and democracy. It's just the initial board that is elected informally, after that everything will be very formal and done by the book. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 13:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 
:::By way of explanation, I don't think it's right that every Board member be required to agree to a CRB check. I certainly agree that Board members (and others) who deal with children - either in connection with school visits or processing membership applications from U18s must undergo CRB checks and any Board member in that situation who refuses (or indeed fails the check!) should be forced to step aside. However, requiring this of every single Board member is just red tape creep at its worst. Thankfully I dont have to deal with CRBs on a regular basis but my impression and limited experience is it's a bureaucratic, cumbersome, costly and onerous process. We should not do it unless there are reasonable grounds to do it.
:::In practice I expect the interim Board will have little if anything to do with schools - the agenda is packed enough with setting up the company and all that entails. I certainly will have nothing to do with this area if elected so I don't see why CRBs should be at all relevant. [[Special:Contributions/155.202.254.82|155.202.254.82]] 17:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC) (AndrewRT)
 
:I am a charity trustee, and the Charity Commission recommends that trustees are CRB'd. I will provide a link her to the relevant advice soon. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
::Slight correction to myself, the commission recommends that when a charity can obtain CRBs, it should obtain them. The link is [http://charitycommission.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/charitycommission.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=431&p_created=1188385493&p_sid=PYT8LGdj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MTAmcF9wcm9kcz0wJnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0mcF9wYWdlPTEmcF9zZWFyY2hfdGV4dD1DUkI*&p_li=&p_topview=1]. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 13:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== Signpost article ==
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-08/Wikimedia_UK Signpost article]
 
For those that haven't seen it. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== Charity Commission guidance on registering a charity ==
 
There are 6 pages of FAQs here [http://charitycommission.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/charitycommission.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.php?p_sid=iwmPLGdj&p_lva=&p_li=&p_new_search=1&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_srch=1&p_sort_by=&p_gridsort=&p_row_cnt=83&p_prods=19&p_cats=&p_pv=1.19&p_cv=&p_search_text=&p_nav=head&p_li=&p_page_head=1&p_page=1] for people seeking to register a charity. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] 13:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== Geographical scope of objectives ==
 
The scope of the objectives, as they appear on the current page, seem overly broad to me in their geographical area - the whole planet. Surely a chapter's scope is primarily the area that the chapter is based in (i.e. the UK) first, with the rest of the world secondary? Or, at the very least, we should work within the UK to start with - world domination can come later ;-) . [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 06:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
:It's important that the objectives we specify in the governing documents are broad enough that we don't unnecessarily restrict ourselves. Our main priority should certainly be the UK, but we should leave our options open for broader work in the future (changing the official objects of a charity requires an enormous amount of paperwork, so let's get it right from the start!). We really need to have two lists of objectives, an official one that we'll put on in the governing documents and an unofficial one that will actually guide us in our activities. There has been very little discussion so far on objectives (we all know what they are, we just need to decide how to write them down), but it is something we need to work on before we can get any further than electing a board. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 08:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
::The Wikimedia chapter requirement ([[Requirements for future chapters#Geographical base]]) state that chapters must be "geographically based/anchored in a legal jurisdiction". Strictly speaking our legal jurisdiction will be England and Wales rather than the UK - (as we will be incorporated in E&W) - but there are no practical obstacles to an E&W company operating in Scotland or Northern Ireland except for having to have tre Registered Office in E&W and being subject to E&W law. As Tango said, our objectives need to be permissive so that we could, for instance, support a server based in Amsterdam or donate to WMF located in the US. I suggest our objectives need to be drafted to say both that our base and focus will be the UK and that we may fulfill our objectives by acting elsewhere in the world. As Tango also said, we need tiers of objectives - the legal ones in our Mem&Arts that absolutely restrict our activities and hence should be as permissive as possible whilst satisfying WMF, Charity Commission and Companies Act requirements and the Board/AGM agreed priorities which can be readily changed and set out what we will actually do. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 13:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 
:I've started a page at [[Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Objectives]] making the distinction between the two areas. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 13:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== Message encouraging people to vote ==
 
I suggest the following are substd' onto peoples' page:
 
{{Wikimedia UK Vote Member}}
 
or
 
{{Wikimedia UK Vote Supporter}}
 
Please feel free to make changes.
 
[[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:heh - that'll learn me to check these pages more thoroughly before diving in! - I've just dropped notes off to all the 'Guarantor' members informing them that the ballot boxes are open, and inviting them to vote... here's the text fyi;
 
A warm hello to all those signed up as guarantor members of the soon-to-be-rebooted UK chapter! Voting is now open [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Vote over at meta] - there's tons of information online over there, and the [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/ mailing list] has been very active too. Discussion, comment (and even the inevitable technical gremlins!) are most welcome at the meta pages, otherwise please do send in your vote/s, and tell a friend about the chapter too :-) [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 22:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)<small>I'm not actually involved in the election workings, and am just dropping these notes in to help try and spread the word :-) I welcome any or all comment too, but 'election related' stuff really is better suited to the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0 meta pages] :-)</small>
 
I'll hold on dropping notes off for the supporting members, because the 'substd' thing above sounds sensible :-) [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 22:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 
::Great work PM - your one looks a lot better than mine! [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 09:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 
::I've added the message to everyone's talk page where they are listed on the "supporters" list but not on the "guarantor members" list. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 16:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Great stuff Andrew... I'm sure they're rolling in now... :-) [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 06:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
::You know. I got one of those messages and it really encouraged me to vote, I liked it! I would have voted anyway, but I felt; ''welcomed!'' Good job! :-) '''''<font color="darkgreen">[[User:Fr33kman|fr33k]]</font><font color="blue">[[User:Fr33kman|man]]</font> <sup><font color="darkgreen" size="2">[[User talk:Fr33kman|t]]</font> - <font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Fr33kman|c]]</font></sup>''''' 02:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 
Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember seeing such a message. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 11:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:You only signed up as being interested in being kept informed, not in being a member, so you weren't eligible to vote. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 12:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::I would have thought that it would be worth informing people who say they want to be informed that a) there's a vote in the offing and b) they've been disenfranchised. Not impressed with this. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 14:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
::: I agree. Not a good start. This process did not exist in Wikimedia UK the first time around. There are too few people involved in voting if voting is what you want. To start the formation Wiki Educational Resources Ltd, there was a gathering in an upstairs room in a pub with Jimbo... [[User:LoopZilla|Gordo]] 18:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 
:::: Sorry to hear that you feel you have been disenfranchised. It does say in the section you signed up in "''If you '''do not wish to be a member''' at this time ... please add your name below''" so I'm sorry if you didn't realise that meant you wouldn't have a vote. I'll make sure that when the Board invite people to apply for voting membership in the next few weeks they also send these invites to those who signed up as "supporters".
:::: As for participation, 26 people voted for the initial Board out of the 46 people who signed up as interested in voting membership. The 46 people compares to nearly 1,500 wikipedians who are listed as from the UK, so I agree the penetration rate is quite low. Hopefully when the first regular Board is elected (as opposed to this interim Board whose purpose is only to complete the formalities of registration and then hold the first AGM) we can get at least 100 members, hopefully many more. Please let us know if you have any ideas for how we could encourage more participation. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: I agree that to '''allow''' 46 out of a possible 1,500 to take part is not a participatory approach. But then neither is a meeting in a pub upstairs room. [[User:LoopZilla|Gordo]] 07:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: We gave everyone the opportunity to sign up, advertised it as widely as we could manage and then invited everyone who signed up to vote. I can't see any other way we could have done it - that's how membership organisations work. Do you have any alternative suggestion? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: Book a room in an pub? [[User:LoopZilla|Gordo]] 09:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 
:::::: Perhaps we should try that for the AGM, thereby making the most of both approaches! [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 23:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 
== Timeline changes ==
 
I've suggest some changes at [[Talk:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Timeline#Some_Changes]] [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 17:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 
== "Chapter" ==
 
(See [[Wikimedia_UK_v2.0#Interested_in_being_kept_informed]]) Is there any chance the use of the word "chapter" can be discontinued or replaced? It's a horrible Americanism - and the whole point of this thing is that we're British. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 
:The WMF is American and they are the ones using the term. While the OED does say this use is US English, their earliest use is from 1815, so it's a very old Americanism. Why do you think it's so horrible? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 12:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 
::Probably because I'm English, British, European, define me in many ways, but not American. I similarly don't use "color" or "freeway" and when someone talks about going to the "bathroom", I assume they want to wash. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 14:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 
:::Well it will be known as wikimedia UK once up and running.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 
:::: Are they really '''chapters''' anyway? See [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chapter] which says '''a branch, usually restricted to a given locality, of a society, organization, fraternity, etc'''. As many are at pains to point out, we are affiliated to but not a '''branch''' of the Foundation. [[User:LoopZilla|Gordo]] 07:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 
::::: Wikimedia Foundation sets the terminology - we just follow it. If you think it should be called something else, you need to raise it with the Foundation, not us. We just follow their lead! [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Indeed you do... [[User:LoopZilla|Gordo]] 09:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 
== Message about membership fees ==
 
Hi all,
 
Here's the message I'm planning on putting on the (primarily en.wp) talk pages of those that have shown an interest in WMUK by putting their names under the Guarantor, Supporter and Interested lists:
 
: Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in [[:m:Wikimedia UK v2.0|Wikimedia UK v2.0]]. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of [[:m:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Membership|membership guidelines]], determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please [[:m:Talk:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Membership#Membership_fee|leave a message on the talk page]] with your thoughts.
 
: Also, we're currently setting up a monthly [[:m:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Newsletter|newsletter]] to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on [[:m:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Newsletter/Subscribers|this page]].
 
: Thanks again. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 09:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])
 
Comments/suggestions for improvement are more than welcome. I'll circulate this around this evening. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 09:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 
: Message has now been sent around; it was delivered to the en.wp talk pages of all but 5 users under the assumption that that would be their main account, with the remaining left on either meta (3), en.wikiversity (1) and ru.wikipedia (1). --[[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 20:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 
:It's a good message. I am eagerly watching the newsletter subscription page, I think that should give us a decent idea of how much interest there still is (it's looking good so far). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 20:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 
==low cost ideas==
 
Looking at things that won't cost very much. The ones that come to mind fall into two/three groups. Useing the name to get into areas that would otherwise be hard to get into (museam backrooms bits of industrial archology) or doing much the same for major document collections. The other is useing the name to get the idea of releaseing under a free license into the heads of those looking to carry out significant digitalisation projects.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 
:Thanks for these ideas - I've added them to [[Wikimedia_UK_v2.0#Potential_future_activities]] [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 20:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 
== Resolution to delegate powers ==
 
I've just seen the resolution that's been proposed for tomorrows meeting giving two board members extremely wide ranging powers - I strongly advise against it (I'm not even convinced it's legal). Such powers should only be delegated for specific purposes. As it stands, that resolution allows either of those board members to unilaterally commit the company to spending all its money on anything they like. You can form a committee of board members and grant them powers to do particular things, but you need to be specific about what they are meant to be doing. Better yet, you decide what to do in general board meetings and just delegate the actual implementation (the details of how to implement it can be delegated as well as long as the general purpose and a budget is agreed by the whole board). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
: The purpose of this resolution is just to give the two people the authority to sign cheques. We would not have blanket authority to agree expenditure that the Board had not authorised - it is just a practical measure so that we can pay expenses when need be. Do you think we need more controls on this? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 18:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
::You need to change the wording of the resolution then, because that's not what it says. Anyone who is a signatory for the bank account can sign cheques, I'm not sure you need an explicit resolution for that (although one wouldn't hurt, and one is required should you want to restrict it further). The significant thing is authorising expenditure, which only the board as a whole should do (or, at least, they should assign a budget and the delegate could authorise payments within that budget). I would advise a wording along the lines of: "Any two of the following may sign cheques or otherwise make such payments as have been agreed in principle by the board: ..." You might also want to include something to say that authority only applies while they are members of the board (alternatively, you can specify "Treasurer and Secretary" rather than names - that might be better). (I see you've already changed it, I'm not really sure I see the point of it in its current form, the board has already agreed to open a bank account and mandated the treasurer to do so, what further authority is required?) --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 19:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes you're right - looking at the resolution as drafted it is a bit ott. I've toned it down a bit and will look at doing further at tomorrow's meeting. The bank requires the Board to do a resolution like this: (See [http://www.co-operativebank.co.uk/cfscombi/pdf/CFS_COMMAPP_WEB.pdf] page 3) {{quote|pursuant to section 82 of the Charities Act 1993, [] and [] have been given a general authority to enter into obligations on our behalf and that a copy of the trustees’ resolution confirming such delegation shall be attached to the application form and mandate. (Charities only – please print names of two authorised signatories.)}} [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 23:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Ok, I've looked up that section of the Charities Act 1993 and what it's talking about is authorising people to actually sign things which the charity is a party to. It's not talking about actually deciding to enter into the obligation, but the actual signature saying that the charity has agreed to it. To make it clear what is going on, I suggest adding the phrase "Pursuant to Section 82 of the Charities Act 1993" to the resolution. You may also want to make it clear that it's just for things the board has agreed to (I think the bank wants more than just authorisation for the opening of the account, since they say "general authority"). Something like: "Pursuant to Section 82 of the Charities Act 1993, the Board of Directors confers upon X and Y, acting together, a general authority to execute in the name and on behalf of the charity assurances or other deeds or instruments for giving effect to transactions to which the charity is a party and have been approved by the Board or its delegate(s)." (That's mostly copied from the Act, although I've changed "trustees" to "charity" since the Act seems to be written from the perspective of an unincorporated charity, so doesn't quite make sense for us.) The Act also allows for the authority to be conferred in some way other than to named individuals - for example, you may want to consider "confers upon any two directors acting together" or "confers upon the Treasurer and the Secretary acting together" or anything like that (the wording is mine, but I'm reasonably sure that's what the Act is talking about). How exactly you would fill out of the bank's form for that, I don't know, but they would probably accept just the names on the form as long as the supporting documentation makes it clear that those names correspond with the people described in the resolution. (Incidentally, it seems odd for the Chair not to be one of the people, but maybe that's just me.) --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 00:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 
:::Thanks as always for your input! I definitely agree with you about referencing the Act & I've made that change. The Board will probably not specifically agree for each and every checque that's signed, which is why I think it goes beyond just opening the account. I'm not sure about the rest of your wording change - I'll make sure it's discussed tonight (hopefully you will be there?) The Chair specifically asked not to be one of the initial people - he might be added later - see the IRC log for details. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 18:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Unfortunately, I'll be playing poker. I think the resolution needs to be more than just about the bank account in order to satisfy the bank - it's not a "general authority" if it's restricted to one thing (I'm not entirely sure why they need them to have a general authority, but if that's what they ask for you had better do it). While the board won't explicitly approve each and every cheque, they will need to approve all expenditure or specifically delegate that to someone with a set budget (that's why my wording included "or their delegate(s)"). If the charity gets to be quite large that delegation could be pretty general (eg. you delegate all administrative decisions to a hired manager and give them a massive budget and they only need to talk to the board in order to report back or get their budget increased) but while we're very small I would expect the board to decide most things as a group and delegation would be for very specific things (delegate booking the AGM to someone and give them a budget of £500 for hiring and catering, say, and they could then make decisions about specifically where to hire and who to get to do the catering). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 19:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 
::Hi Tango. Thanks again for your contributions to this - hope you were happy with the resolution we ended up with ([[Wikimedia UK v2.0/Board meetings/2008-11-25/Resolutions|here]]) [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 20:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
:::It's almost exactly the resolution I suggested, so yes, I'm happy with it! --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 
::::Excellent! [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 
== Election rules ==
 
I've starting some discussions at [[Talk:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Election_Rules]] on how we should run elections at the AGM. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 01:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 
== How are we doing ==
 
Just thought now might be a good time to ask how people think the Initial Board is doing with WMUKv2? It's been two months since we were elected and we've achieved quite a bit, but there's also quite a few things left to do before the AGM. Have we been effective and efficient? Have we been open and transparant? Is there anything we should be doing differently? Any other comments? All feedback - positive or negative - would be interesting to hear. Thanks [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 23:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC) (CoSec Wiki UK Ltd)
 
:Well, there's been the odd occasion when you've disagreed with me, you really should stop that... ;) Seriously, though, I think the facts speak for themselves - you're on schedule to have everything ready for the AGM in January as planned, so you can't be doing too badly! Openness and transparency have been very good (from what I can tell there are a few discussions going on in private, but it seems like they're just technicalities of procedure and the like that don't require any kind of public comment, and the one time you've held a private board meeting was for a legitimate reason). You seem to be working effectively, some of the early board meetings weren't very efficient (I'm sure that 5 hour meeting could have been better handled - you were discussing the details of grammar and punctuation in a board meeting, which really isn't necessary, for example), but now the governing documents are out of the way things seem to have improved. There are some issues with discussions being split between the mailing list and meta, which isn't ideal - I suggest discussion takes place on meta and emails just say "Go [here] to comments on such-and-such." At the end of day, you all seem to be doing a fantastic job - well done, and thank you! --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 
== inviting people to join ==
 
Can I ask what have we done so far to invite people to join, and what more could we do to drum up interest? [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 00:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
: So far, we have:
:* Put links on the meta pages
:* Mentioned it in the WMUK newsletter
:* Sent an email to the mailing list about it
:* Sent a message round to all people who signed up as interested to let them know
: From thinking about it for a few minutes, we could:
:* Get it mentioned in the Signpost (which Warofdreams is working on already), Wikipedia Weekly, etc.
:* Send around messages to the UK-based Wikiprojects
:* Mention it in the Village Pump(s)
:* Get it mentioned in the various Wiki blogs
:* Start actually doing stuff, and whilst we're doing it let people know that we exist
: However, I'm inclined to do a lot of the "We could" stuff once we're actually accepting membership applications - that's a much better situation to be in compared with just inviting applications. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 11:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 
== Size of board ==
 
There has been some discussion, in passing, about increasing the board to 7 (or maybe even more) people. I think we should discuss that sooner rather than later - how many board positions are available may affect people's decisions about whether or not to stand for the board (more positions means more chance of getting elected and less work to do if you are, so will probably increase the number of candidates), and that decision needs to be made some time in advance of the AGM (14 clear days if memory serves, but sooner than that if you want to get many of the proxy votes). I think we should discuss it here and then have a final vote on the matter at the AGM (before the election, obviously). So, what are the options? I think an odd number of board members is a good idea to make the chance of an tie less likely (I believe a tied vote always fails, but it's not a good position to be in). The minimum is 3, so that gives us 3, 5, 7 or 9 as practical choices (11 or more seems ridiculous to me, but we can discuss it if anyone wants to). 3 means a lot of work for each person and a big problem if one person is unable to fulfil their duties for whatever reason, so I think we can rule that out. With 9 people you are likely to have the board dominated by a few with some people not being involved in discussion at all and just voting (an extremely good chair might be able to draw everyone into discussion, but it would take a concious effort), so there isn't much point having that many people. That gives us a choice between 5 and 7. 5 has the advantage of it being easier to get everyone in the same place (or same IRC channel) at the same time and makes discussion easier. 7 has the advantage of less workload per person, less damage if someone can't fulfil their duties, and greater representation of the membership. If Wikimedia UK is as successful as I hope (and expect) it will be, I think there may well be enough work after a few years for a 7 person board to be essential (unless we hire staff, I suppose, but that would require a little more time - we would need to be confident we can sustain the levels of income necessary). There may be an advantage in keeping the board small for a year or two to aid us in getting on our feet (a large portion of the basic setup will have been done by the current board before the AGM, it seems, but there will be plenty left to do - establishing relationships with the press, sorting out fundraising, setting up all the necessary internal bureaucracy [the current board have started that too, but there is plenty left to do there - we should probably set up a reserve policy for example, more detailed policies on expenses and other spending, etc.], etc.). Personally, I don't know where I stand on this one and look forward to reading everyone else's points of view. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 
:I tried to start a discussion here: [[Talk:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Election_Rules#Number_of_Directors]] but as you can see didn't get much response! This page might be better place to have it - thanks for starting it off!
 
: I don't think we have to decide until after the bank account is opened and the AGM is called, but it is still good to start the discussion now! However, I don't agree we should wait until the AGM actually meets - that is after candidates have put their names forward and proxy voting has taken place; I think it should be decided by the initial Board after consultation with the community here and on the email list with a resolution put to the AGM to confirm.
 
: Although we have had very good attendence so far with the initial Board (100% except for one person (ahem) whose attendance record is currently only 80%), I think it's better for us to plan on having lower attendence than that - particularly over summer. I think the Board should still have the critical mass to continue when some are absent and be able to make credible decisions. With 5 people, quorum would be 3 meaning 2 people voting yes could, thoeretically, carry a decision. A Board of 7 would require 4 as quorum and 3 people voting yes - which I'd be more comfortable with. Seven is also closer to the average for the chapters I surveyed (see [[Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Election_Rules#Number_of_Directors]] [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 23:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
::My hope was that we would reach a consensus here and the vote at the AGM would just be a formality - I think it is important that decisions like that are made formally by the membership. An alternative to having a larger board is just increasing the quorum, although that makes it difficult to arrange meetings when things need to be decided at short notice (and can't practically be done by written resolution), so I wouldn't advise it. Comparing to other chapters is helpful, it would also be interesting to know what size board is typical for UK charities with memberships in the 100s, but I have no idea where to find such numbers. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 
:''I think an odd number of board members is a good idea to make the chance of an tie less likely (I believe a tied vote always fails, but it's not a good position to be in). '' - Is there no provision for the Chair having a casting vote? Six is, IMO, the logical number for the Board (it easily splits to two threes or three twos if parallel tasks are requires) and if the Chair were to only have a casting vote, he would need cast it only in the case of abstentions. [[User:LondonStatto|LondonStatto]] 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
::I seem to remember reading somewhere that legislation doesn't allow the chair to have a casting vote anymore. I'll try and confirm that... --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 13:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Found it: [http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/supportingcharities/compact.asp] (2nd bullet point under section 1(a)). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 13:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 
: My opinion is that we should have a maximum of 7 board members for now, for the reasons mentioned above, plus a couple more. First, I know at least one person is/was considering not running for the board at the AGM because they didn't want to run against the current board as it might be thought of as ungrateful. Second, it lets more people get involved with the work (meaning, hopefully, that we can get more work done), whilst not turning into a large bureaucracy. That second is especially important with the wikimania bid. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 09:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
::That's a good point - having some more trustees would enable us to have someone specifically assigned to work on the bid (as chapter-bid liaison, if not actually working directly on the bid - probably both). Bid work could well require the full time commitment reasonable from one person, and a board of 5 may not be able to spare someone. (Oh, and if it was me you were referring to as considering not running, don't worry - I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable with it, but I wouldn't let that get in the way of my quest for world domination!) --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 10:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 
::I think that we've had a good number of reasons for a limit of 7 board members.  I don't think we can rule out a larger board at some point in the future; more board members mean more people able to take responsibility for things, and it's not essential for every board member to attend every meeting, nor for every board member to participate in every discussion.  But I agree that for time being, 7 people should be plenty to co-ordinate the activities of the organisation and represent the membership. [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] 19:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I think if we end up with enough work to do to require more than 7 people we would want to come up with a different governance model than having the board do everything. It may be possible to hire staff by that point, if not we can come up with a way to involve the general membership more. While individual board members can occasionally miss meetings, they do need to be aware of everything that is going on - they have a legal obligation in that respect. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Hiring staff seems a good longer-term plan, but we'd have to ensure that it was the best use of our finances - if something could be done by adding two board members, that might be preferable to employing a member of staff.  I'd like to try to involve the general membership as much as possible now, not waiting until there's too much for the board to cover, but managing a budget for a project, for example, should be restricted to board members. [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] 21:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::A member of staff is worth about 40 hours a week, I would be surprised if board members are able to contribute 20 hours a week consistently. There is also the benefit that staff work office hours which is usually precisely the time that board members are busy, so having staff available to answer the phones is very useful. But that's a discussion for another day. I agree the membership should be involved from the beginning, but there are various ways manage things. At first I would expect board members to have a very hands-on role in organising activities with members, as we get bigger it may be necessary to assign a member to manage the project with the board playing an oversight role. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 00:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 
== Suggestion  ==
 
Per point 10 on the "Potential future activities" list; might I suggest universities as a good source? My university has a mass of texts and journals no longer copyrighted (we're talking journals from the 1840's, here), as well as a historical documents collection. Contacting the universities or simply looking at collaborations between chapter members at the same educational institute could work. Comments? [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] 06:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
:Yup a good idea. The Bodleian has an existing project to digitise old texts and I'd imagine other universities are doing similar things, so there's certainly potential for partnerships as well. --[[User:Cfp|cfp]] 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::Indeed. What exactly does it take to do so, if I may ask? I'm trying to see if my uni would even have the capacity. We have a shedload of journals (including, which I find hilarious, the leather-sellers journal, coated in leather and the only journal with a disintegrating cover. Obviously not very good at their jobs) but I'm not sure if we'd actually be able to digitise them. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] 00:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Most in copyright journals have already been digitised. But to digitise older ones requires anything from a desktop scanner, to a professional OCR machine. I'd suggest we don't want to be (and in any case probably wouldn't be allowed to) digitise such items ourselves, but instead one to attach to the output process, offering classification, hosting etc. --[[User:Cfp|cfp]] 13:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 
== Charities and VAT ==
 
Was just investigating what VAT we can claim back/have to pay. My conclusion (roughly) is that at least for the foreseeable future we won't be able to claim VAT back on anything we're buying, but neither will we have to pay VAT on our incomes. So all fairly simple. For details see [http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/downloadFile?contentID=HMCE_CL_000097 this PDF from HMRC] and [http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/charities-applied.htm this HMRC page], saved here mostly for my future reference. --[[User:Cfp|cfp]] 19:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 
== Wikipedia Loves Art ==
 
Hi all,
 
I'm starting to get some more details together about the events at the
Victoria & Albert Museum that we're running as part of the Wikipedia
Loves Art project.
 
The V&A are organising their launch event on Sunday 1st February -
time to be confirmed. If you can come down that day or otherwise
contribute either in person or on wiki during February please sign you
name up [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WLA@V%26A#Participants here]
 
Please spread the word to anyone else you know who may be interested -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WLA@V%26A#Publicity these groups] have already been notified: and please add in any other groups you contact.
 
Lastly, we're planning a short discussion on irc:wikimedia-uk to
organise the event and sort out how the V&A element is going to fit in
with the international project - details on the main page.
 
If you can think of anything else please post on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WLA@V%26A project page]!
 
Thanks [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 00:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 
== Volunteers needed - tellers ==
 
We're looking for one or more people who is able to help the chapter by volunteering to act as a teller for the AGM. Ideally we would want one or two people who could manage the process from start to end:
 
* receiving candidates applications by email
* checking candidates qualify (e.g. they are over 16 and have filled out the form correctly)
* sending out the ballot papers to voters with the candidate statements
* receiving postal votes back in
* attending the AGM (which is expected to be at Birmingham University on a Sunday around mid March) to receive physical votes
* counting the votes and announcing the results
 
The only restriction on who can be a teller is that they cannot be a candidate for the Board. Other than that, we would welcome all volunteers.
 
The full details are set out in the Election Rules that were adopted at the last Board meeting and are set out [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1355885 here]
 
Please let me know if you would like to volunteer to do this for the chapter. If you would like to volunteer but can't do all the parts please contact me and we will try to work something.
 
[[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 17:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)  (<small>Secretary, Wikimedia UK; Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited, a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827, Registered Office: 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL, United Kingdom.</small>)
 
== Uk government consultation on copyright ==
 
The UK government is currently consulting on copyright law. ([http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-copy/c-notice/c-notice-2008/c-notice-2008-consultation.htm website]) I have started a page at [[Wikimedia UK/Copyright consultation]] about this - please contribute there if you can! Thanks [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 
== Redesign ==
 
Here are my thoughts as to how this main page should be redesigned:
 
1. '''First impressions''': This page is the first thing that people see. It should inspire visitors to (in this order):
## Have a good impression of the chapter
## Sign up to keep in touch
## Join
## Get involved in the projects
 
Above all it needs to scream out "'''look at the great things we are doing!'''" and answer the question "'''why should I get involved?'''"
 
2. '''Prioritised''': most important things at the top; most important things in most detail
 
3. '''Portal''': This page, and the sidebar, should be a portal to the rest of the pages on this wiki. Every page on the wiki should be readily accessible from this page
 
4. '''Pictures''': It should have plenty of them!
 
5. '''Timely''': Let's keep it up to date
 
[[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 
: I've started the redesign at [[Main Page/Sandbox]]; please feel free to make changes. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 15:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 
== Contact us ==
 
Should we have a section on here with details of hwo people can contact us (email & phone number) for:
 
- press queries
- membership
- partnerships
 
[[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 
:I don't know if it should be on the main page. I suggest making the main page pretty short and only having essential stuff there. We should have a Contact Us link in the sidebar, though. Some of the things currently in the sidebar should probably be removed (meetings and timeline, for example). --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 19:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 
== Renaming "Projects" as "intiatives" ==
 
Please add your comments to the discussion at [[Water_cooler#Poll:_Rename_.22Projects.22_as_.22Initiatives.22]]. Thanks [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 23:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 
== "What do you think" section ==
 
We regularly have discussion and debates where the Board seeks the opinion of the community before deciding on a course of action. These are covered in the minutes and through emails to the list, but I was thinking this would be a great thing to do on this wiki too - with a prominent link from the main page. [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 23:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 
:Something similar to Centralised Discussion on the English Wikipedia? Yeah, that's a good idea. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 
:: To a certain extent, we already have something like this / that could do this job: the [[Water cooler]]. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 17:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 
== Wikipedia Art ==
 
There's been some controversy about the so-called "Wikipedia Art" project - website http://wikipediaart.org/. The Wikimedia Foundation has written a few legal letters and a tech newswire has covered it [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/wikipedia-suit-could-put-it-on-the-wrong-side-of-fair-use.ars here]. Their foundation list post is [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-April/051505.html here]. A supporter is now trying to piggy back on our putative "London Loves Wikipedia" initiative (see [http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Projects/Proposals&diff=prev&oldid=3215 here]) to re-run the Wikipedia Art in 2010.
 
My concerns are:
# Wikipedia Art is in dispute with WMF - so supporting their activities may be contrary to the [[Chapter Agreement]]
# Wikipedia Art doesn't seem to comply with our objects - see the rather vague response to my challenge at [[Talk:London_Loves_Wikipedia]]
# The two initiatives - London Loves Wikipedia and Wikipedia Art have no common organisational work to be done so there is no advantage in wrapping them together
# Including them together will confuse people who want to know about the London Loves Wikipedia event
 
I was originally thinking that we could address this by separating the two initiatives so I started a poll at [[Talk:London_Loves_Wikipedia]] which unfortunately has had no external response! However, given the dispute with the Foundation, I'm now thinking the chapter should not be involved with Wikipedia Art at all.
 
Could you let me know what you think is the best course of action now:
 
# '''Leave''' the two initiatives together
# '''Separate''' Wikipedia Art from London Loves Wikipedia, or
# '''Remove''' Wikipedia Art from our proposed projects page (perhaps to a rejected projects page?)
 
I'll leave this open until there's been a reasonable amount of input from members.
 
For me:
 
* '''Remove''' given the dispute with the WMF [[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 22:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
* '''Seperate''' I'd like to see the Wikipedia Art proposal developed and discussed a bit on its own merits, rather than being linked in with London Loves Wikipedia - taking photographs is separate from a general art concept. Clarification of what it exactly Wikipedia Art is, and what the proposal is (including the benefits/ways it's in line with the aims of the chapter), would be good. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 17:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
:* '''Comment''' I spoke to [[User:Harrypotter]] in person earlier today. He's not involved with the Wikipedia Art project as has caused all the fuss, and the dispute with the WMF; he is interested in the interaction between Wikipedia and Art, however, and I believe that's what he's proposing here. I stand by my earlier comment on this: it should be separated out and developed, rather than simply removed. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] 22:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:* '''Comment''' The same editor pushing this was also pushing the "Wikipedia Art" project previously - see edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia_Loves_Art&diff=273635360&oldid=273547419 this] for instance.[[User:AndrewRT|AndrewRT]] 23:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
* '''Remove/Seperate''' I like the idea of collborative art, that is not a problem at all, and something I think we should promote in the future. However supporting "Wikipedia Art" is something we cannot support whilst the dispute is ongoing. I think that this is something that needs to be brought back in the future once the dispute has come to a close. [[User:Seddon|Seddon]] 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
* '''Remove'''Given the chapters'situation and our limitation. I don't think we can support both effectively. [[User:Zeyi|Zeyi]] 13:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' While, as far as I know, the dispute between Wikipedia Art and the WMF has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, I don't see how supporting Wikipedia Art furthers our charitable objectives. --[[Special:Contributions/129.234.157.91|129.234.157.91]] 15:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 
==Public IRC logs==
 
I've started a discussion at [[Talk:Meetings#Public IRC logs]] about whether we should continue to make publically available the IRC logs of old IRC discussions. Please let me know what you think there.

Latest revision as of 18:54, 13 August 2022

Talk:Main Page
Icona de la Tertúlia de la Taverna de la Viquipèdia.png

Welcome to the discussion about the Main Page.

Please remember to sign all posts with four tildes (~~~~).

For general discussion, you may wish to talk in the water cooler.



Archives.png
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

"Join Wikimedia UK" link broken

Hey folks, the "Join Wikimedia UK" link on the Main Page is a 404. Looks like it ought to be updated to point to Membership when someone gets a moment :)

All the best, Naypta (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2020 (BST)

@Naypta: Thanks for spotting that, I've updated the link so it should now work. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2020 (BST)
Retrieved from "https://dev.wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=155854"